INDO-CHINESE REFUGEES (Hansard, 28 June 1979)

§ Mr. Alastair Goodlad (Northwich)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the Indo-Chinese refugees and the nature and extent of the Government's responsibilities towards them. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who knows Indo-China and the Far East from firsthand experience as well as anyone in the House, for coming here tonight to answer the debate.
The last few months have seen a substantial and tragic increase in the number of the world's refugees, formally estimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at between 4 million and 5 million. A decision has apparently been taken by the Government of Vietnam to remove from the normal life of that country the entire Chinese ethnic minority, together with those Vietnamese members of the community whose previous mode of life does not accord with prevailing revolutionary theory.
The Vietnamese refugees have been faced with the threat of banishment to so-called new economic zones, having their property confiscated, or the option of paying a sum of money to the public service bureau or to middle-men for safe passage out of Vietnamese waters into the international sea lanes. It is a grim commentary on the attractions of the first two options that so many refugees choose the last. It is not possible to estimate how many of the boat people have drowned, but it seems likely that nearly half the number of those who have put to sea may have done so. There is a very fine distinction between the present policy of the Vietnamese Government and genocide.
The number of survivors involved is substantial, and is rising daily. From 1975 to the beginning of this month, about 570,000 Indo-Chinese refugees had been accepted for permanent resettlement, of whom the great majority are from Vietnam. Many of them are still in countries of temporary asylum awaiting 768 transit to their ultimate country of resettlement.
The countries that have accepted them are China, which has taken 230,000, the United States 224,000, France 49,000—although I saw that yesterday the Cabinet agreed to accept another 5,000—Australia 21,000, Canada 15,000, Hong Kong 12,000, Germany 3,600, the United Kingdom 3,300, Switzerland 1,600. Malaysia 1,600, Belgium 1,300, and a number of other countries which have accepted fewer than 1,000. Of the States with large geographical areas, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Finland and the Latin American countries are notable by their absence from the list.
In addition to the 560,000 Indo-Chinese refugees who have been accepted for resettlement, there were at the beginning of this month an estimated 286,000 awaiting resettlement. That figure is now well over 300,000, and the extent by which it could rise is inestimable. It could rise to 1 million. Of these people, at the beginning of the month 155,000 were in Thailand, 68,000 in Malaysia, 36,000 in Hong Kong—indeed the figure this morning was 59,000—21,000 in Indonesia, 2,700 in Macao, 2,500 in the Philippines, and 500 in Singapore. Again, the vast majority are from Vietnam, 60,000 being Laotians, and 40,000 Kampucheans or Khmers. It is estimated that over 50,000 of the latter have been returned from Thailand to Kampuchea. These figures do not include the large number of Vietnamese and Khmer displaced persons—estimates of whom range up to 1 million—who are within Indo-China. Although they do not fall within the definition of refugees, they would do so if they were to leave their countries.
The pace of resettlement is now very slow, and the number needing resettlement is rising fast. The ASEAN countries, with the exception of Indonesia, are not accepting any more refugees. Thailand sends them back into Kampuchea, and Malaysia sends them out to sea. The United Nations High Commissioner has, I understand, just over 125,000 offers of settlement places a year on his books—enough to clear a mere three-months' worth of new arrivals at the present rate, without touching the backlog who are in the refugee camps. That is the scale of the problem.
769 The Governments of the countries round the South China Sea, especially those who have already experienced difficulties over the racial balance of their populations and the assimilation of Chinese ethnic minorities, are becoming desperate in the face of the enormous number of Indo-Chinese refugees, mostly destitute, arriving on their doorsteps. It is vital that they should be reassured and that a credible resettlement programme should be mounted in the very near future.
I am sure that the whole House was deeply impressed by the rapidity with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the initiative at the end of May in appealing to the United Nations to arrange an international meeting to agree practical measures by the international community. Similarly, the statement by the EEC Council of Ministers on 18 June and the ensuing representations to the Vietnamese and ASEAN Governments have been helpful steps in the right direction.
However, of the 85 signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 protocol on the treatment of refugees, only two are Asian, and both West Asian countries. The behaviour of the States located round the South China Sea is therefore not governed by the Convention. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who, among other tasks, pays for refugee camps and underwrites the cost of transportation from the country of first asylum to the country of resettlement, has been operating in conditions of great difficulty, particularly in the sensitive matter of the protection of refugees, as has the Save the Children Fund, which not only raises substantial sums of money but provides medical and nutritional care for Indo-Chinese refugee children in camps. I am sure that the House wishes to pay tribute to its work.
In Hong Kong the flow of immigrants from Vietnam has coincided with one of the periodic build-ups in the flow of immigrants from China which historically have coincided, as after the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, with periods of liberalisation. So far this year Hong Kong has admitted over 100,000 refugees, about half of them from Indo-China, and is projecting for the year a figure in excess of 200,000 770 The recent reinforcements provided by this country have helped to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from China into Hong Kong. It is hoped that the Government of the People's Republic will respond to appeals to help stem the illegal exodus from Kwantung.
No praise is too high for the response of the Hong Kong Government and the people of Hong Kong to the enormous new burdens that have been placed upon them. A few weeks ago there was no accommodation for refugees. Now nearly 60,000 are being looked after, albeit in basic conditions. The authorities are conducting a race against time prior to the breaking of the typhoon season to provide accommodation for the anticipated numbers.
The very creditable record of the United Kingdom, which I believe provides 8 per cent. of the cost of the total United Nations refugee programme, is put into a stark context when one considers that Hong Kong has already spent twice that amount in the first five months of this year.
Pressure on the colony, which is one of the most densely populated places on earth, is now intense, and its alleviation is a matter of the greatest urgency. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Indo-Chinese refugees are not a specifically British problem; they are a world problem. The Governments of the world face two important and sensitive tasks which represent an immense test of their political will and political courage.
The first task is to reassure their own people that an admission, or a greater admission, of Indo-Chinese refugees will not compound the problems already experienced in areas with high concentrations of foreign immigrants and ethnic minorities. There are few countries where additional immigration is an automatic vote winner. The second task, however distasteful it may be to appear to submit to political blackmail by the barbarous cynicism of the Vietnamese Government, is to make a firm commitment at an early date to accept a specific number of refugees for permanent resettlement.
The practical problems are immense, but if a large number of countries cooperate the number of refugees needed 771 to be accommodated by each participating State need not be unmanageably large. If only a few countries co-operate the problem will be insoluble. Many people will die in misery and degradation, and there will be a permanent state of very dangerous instability in South East Asia.
I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell the House, in the light of his visit to Geneva and subsequent meetings, what progress has been made in securing international agreement to the provision of money and, more important, facilities for the resettlement of refugees ahead of the forthcoming conference. What reaction has there been to Dr. Waldheim's appeal, through the United Nations High Commissioner, for countries to commit themselves to receiving a quota of refugees?
I hope that the maximum possible pressure is being and will continue to be put on the Government of Vietnam in the political forum. They are a Government with few benefactors and few friends, one being the Soviet Union, of which I have the same opinion as I have of Vietnam.
Does my hon. Friend accept the necessity of separating that political forum from the forum in which the practical steps of sharing the effort to aid the refugees throughout the international community are discussed?
Does my hon. Friend accept that the task of spreading the responsibility of resettlement cannot be successfully carried out in the same forum as the purely political processes which derive from the situation in Indo-China? Does he regard such a separation as a practical possibility?
If the forthcoming conference is unsuccessful—Heaven forbid that it should be—the position not only of the refugees but of Hong Kong, given the attitude of the ASEAN countries and, thereby, this country, will be intolerable. There is a minimum that must emerge from the conference—the access of food and drugs via the Red Cross to Kampuchea, the persuasion of the authorities in Vietnam not to continue to facilitate departures on the basis that they are so doing, the provision of adequate new resettlement opportunities for boat and land refugees presently in South-East Asia, financial and technical assistance for the United Nations High Commissioner for Govern- 772 ments both in South-East Asia and elsewhere who will accept more Indo-Chinese refugees for settlement if so assisted, and assistance for admission directly from Vietnam of the relatives of Indo-Chinese who have already been settled.
The Conservative manifesto specifically mentioned the admission of immigrants on compassionate grounds. The clear distinction between immigrants and other refugees has been forced into the forefront of our minds in the past few weeks. Although no precise figures are provided, because of the practice of admitting refugees on other grounds if possible, I understand that of the 69,313 immigrants admitted for permanent settlement in 1977 an estimated 1,300—1.9 per cent.—were refugees. Whatever the trend in the total level of immigration, surely that percentage must rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) pointed out in his maiden speech, if we are to carry conviction in pressing other nations to accept more refugees in this new situation, we shall have to do more ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, whose service in this field is widely known, said: the United Kingdom's long and honourable tradition of granting asylum to refugees who have arrived here has always been maintained fully. The United Kingdom stands high in the league of refugee-receiving States"—.[Official Report, 25 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 1380.] According to the estimate of the High Commissioner in 1977 there were about 155,000 refugees, of whom 1,300 arrived here. We have played a part in every international refugee exercise in recent years and we have a notable record for the way in which we have treated refugees in our community.
I am confident that the speed, determination and humanity that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought to bear on the crisis will bear positive fruit. I hope that some reassurance can be given to the House that the Prime Minister's initiative is meeting the response that it deserves and that some progress towards alleviating the political and economic problems can be made—together with the alleviation of the desperate personal suffering that has arisen from the grotesque cruelty of the present Government in Vietnam. My hon. Friend has the good wishes of the House in his difficult and urgent task.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) for drawing attention to the plight of the refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, who, in their desire to escape from oppressive regimes or, in the case of Cambodia, from the horrors of civil war, now find themselves at best in a kind of limbo, unsure of what their future will be, or, at worst, uncertain whether they will manage to survive.
A continuing stream of people have sought to escape by sea from Vietnam ever since the Communists seized power by force in the South in 1975. They have come from all walks of life. Many thousands have found permanent homes abroad, as my hon. Friend pointed out and I commend the efforts of those countries who have accepted refugees for resettlement. I welcome in particular the announcement from the American Administration today that they are prepared to double the number of refugees accepted by the United States. Most of these are not refugees, but among them are many who have been expelled from East Africa, just as the unfortunate boat people have been expelled from their own country in such appalling circumstances.
Nevertheless, we have agreed under the previous Government to take a special quota of about 1,500 Indo-Chinese and more recently we have agreed to take the refugees from the British ships "Sibonga" and "Roachbank", and those from the "Norse Viking" who wish to come here.
We contributed about £3.5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee's programme of assistance to the Indo-Chinese refugees up to the end of 1978. For 1979, we have pledged £3.5 million towards the High Commissioner's general programme, which includes work on behalf of the South-East Asian refugees. These figures represent over 8 per cent. of his budget.
In recent months, the stream of refugees has become a flood. It is a remarkable fact that the authorities in Hanoi should have decided to make conditions in Vietnam so intolerable that, rather than stay, the ethnic Chinese, and, indeed, many 774 Vietnamese, should have been willing to take a less than 50 per cent. chance of survival, and leave in overcrowded and often unseaworthy boats after having been mulcted of gold and their possessions, often by the Government of Vietnam themselves. This is a sad commentary on the new order in Vietnam, born of such suffering and with such a fanfare by the regime's propagandists at the time.
The result is that the coasts of countries neighbouring Vietnam are being inundated by a tide of refugees. We are particularly involved because we have responsibility for Hong Kong. But Malaysia a fellow member of the Commonwealth, as well as Thailand and Indonesia, our good friends in ASEAN. have all been seriously affected.
The situation is further complicated in Hong Kong in this case by an influx of Chinese from across the border, and in the case of Thailand by inroads of Laotian and Cambodian refugees on a massive scale. According to the latest figures, over 350,000 refugees are awaiting resettlement in South-East Asia and Hong Kong. As many as 3,000 people per day may be leaving Vietnam with the connivance of the Government, but over 1 million ethnic Chinese remain in that country. The dimensions of the problem are therefore enormous.
Throughout South-East Asia, the peoples of the countries of first refuge are reacting with increasing concern to the numbers of refugees who continue to flood to their countries. Quite apart from the burden of feeding these people, housing them in makeshift camps, and providing medical supplies, there is an understandable fear, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not succeed in obtaining resettlement places for the refugees elsewhere, the ethnic balance in their countries will be permanently impaired.
In Hong Kong, about 58,000 refugees are now being looked after, and over 11,000 have been accepted for settlement More are coming in each day. When it is recalled how overcrowded Hong Kong already is, it is easy to realise the burden that this imposes on the local welfare services, and I, like my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the Government and the people of Hong Kong for what they are doing 775 Nothing less than an international effort on the widest scale will be sufficient to deal with the problem. It was to arouse the conscience of the civilised world and to involve as many countries as possible in the search for ways to assist the refugees that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her proposal to the United Nations Secretary-General that he should convene a special conference to deal with it under United Nations auspices.
Dr. Waldheim's initial reaction was favourable. We have approached over 50 countries represented in London to ask for their support. There has been an encouraging response from most of them. Hon. Members will be aware also that the Pope, the President of France and the Foreign Ministers of the EEC have recently supported the call for a conference. We are hopeful that Dr. Waldheim will soon decide to convene the conference. It may begin in July.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Will my hon. Friend say why our Government, the United Nations and the European Economic Community are not prepared to take the toughest economic and political sanctions against Vietnam and its Soviet backer to prevent the continuance of this barbaric trade in human beings?

§ Mr. Blaker
That is an important question, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give him a full answer now, but we are considering our position in relation to Vietnam. The United Nations High Commissioner, to whose efforts the Prime Minister has paid wholly merited tribute, has been making soundings on Dr. Waldheim's behalf. When I visited him on 18 June I was struck by the devotion with which he and his staff are tackling the problem. I understand that he has had many replies favourable to the proposed holding of a conference.
The High Commissioner has also sought further pledges of resettlement places, and funds, before the conference meets, to ensure that it succeeds in making a worthwhile contribution to improving the plight of the victims. Of the 500,000 refugees who have left Indo-China since 1975, about 200,000 have so far been resettled in 31 countries. The 776 High Commissioner is taking care of 160,000 refugees in Thailand and is sending 10,000 per month out of the area for permanent settlement.
We have always seen the task as to find practical solutions to the appalling problem posed by the exodus of refugees, but this aspect of the matter cannot be dealt with in isolation. The world community must ask itself why the exodus has happened. For the answer to this we must look to the callous means that Vietnam has employed in reorganising its social system—incidentally acquiring a profitable export trade in human misery.
We have made clear to the Vietnam Government our abhorrence of their behaviour and have urged many other countries to do likewise. This may have some effect in the longer term and the Vietnamese have recently shown some awareness of the need to be in touch with the Governments, in South-East Asia, of countries which have received the largest numbers of refugees. They have also agreed to work with the United Nations High Commissioner over the orderly emigration of people to be reunited with their families.
This, regrettably, will involve only a small fraction, perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 people in all, of the total number of refugees and will amount to only a few weeks' worth of boat people now leaving. So this agreement does not represent a very serious contribution to a solution, though so far as it goes it is a step forward.
We are not under any illusion that the Vietnamese authorities will easily change their attitude, but we must continue to try to get them to do so. How this can best be accomplished, whether by contact during a conference devoted mainly to securing help for the dispossessed, or in a separate forum, remains to be decided. The matter must mainly be Dr. Waldheim's responsibility since the conference will enjoy sponsorship by the United Nations. I leave my hon. Friend in no doubt, however, that we will not allow the responsibility of the Vietnamese authorities to go without comment, as we seek with others to deal with the appalling human misery that they have caused.