JOURNEY TO NOWHERE:THE BOAT PEOPLES

CONTINUING SAGA - BLUEBOARD BY ANNE LAN K.

CANDELARIA, PH.D.
May 28, 2015
share this

In 1975, the first group of Vietnamese boat people arrived in the island of Palawan and in Subic Bay,
Zambales. They were admitted to the Jose Fabella Center (JFC) in Manila, which became the first
refugee camp in the Philippines. Eventually, the JFC became too small to house the growing influx of
boat people and in 1979 the Philippine First Asylum Camp (PFAC) was formally opened in partnership
with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). In the next two decades or so, about
400,000 Vietnamese boat people would be temporarily housed in PFAC and subsequently processed in
the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong, Bataan for resettlement to other countries.

Close to forty years later, we are once again confronted with the same dilemma.Thousands of Rohingya
and Bangladeshi boatpeople are currently drifting in the waters off Myanmar without food and water, still
uncertain if they will be allowed to land in any country within the region. Their plight gained traction
internationally and has pressured Southeast Asian countriesto address this concern as a region.

Photo courtesy of the Burma Times

Recently, the Philippines signified its willingness to allow the boats to land on its territory as a first asylum
country. After all, this is a commitment we made when we became party to the 1951 UN Convention on
Refugees as well as the 1967 Protocol on the Convention Concerning Refugees. This extends as well to
our obligation of non-refoulement or the non-return of people seeking asylum to escape persecution, but
not the obligation to grant permanent settlement within our shores.

However, allowing the Rohingya and Bangladeshi boat people to land and stay temporarily on our shores
does not solve the problem. While the reasons for flight might be political for some and economic for
others, a deeper collective reason for such is human insecurity, particularly taking away a persons right
to be educated and productive as well as the ability to decide what kind of polity the next generation will
have.Indeed, persecution comes in many forms, but all them leave a profound scar that is passed on to
the next generation.In the meantime, we urgently need to figure out how best we can manage the influx of
boat people should they decide to land on our shores.

The ASEAN and South China Sea disputes - Blueboard by Diana J. Mendoza

A Label without a Cause

Scouring the news recently, I observed a multiplicity of labels being used to refer to the
Rohingyas. Some call them migrants, other refugees, and then a few address them as boat people. Why
should this be an issue? Because unfortunately, the extent of protection given to vulnerable groups will
largely depend on what label they will be given.

Initially, all Vietnamese boat people who arrived in first asylum camps around Southeast Asia were
granted prima facie refugee status and were automatically resettled to third countries such as the United
States, Australia, Belgium and Canada. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is
someone who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

The exodus of boat people to the various refugee camps in the region continued a decade well after the
first boat landed.Hence, in 1989 during the second conference on Indochinese refugees convened by the
UN Secretary General in Geneva, the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) was adopted to address this
concern. The CPA institutionalized a screening process in all refugee camps in the region to determine
the asylum seekers qualification for refugee status. The UNHCR defines asylum seeker as someone
who says he or she is a refugee but whose claim has not yet definitively evaluated.

This basically means that all those who arrived after the cut-off period were no longer considered
refugeesautomatically but asylum seekers, and would have to go through a status determination
process. Those who were screened out, including those whose appeal was denied, were considered
illegal immigrants and will be dealt with according to the host countrys immigration laws.

The years towards the end of the CPA were the most turbulent for the remaining asylum seekers in the
Philippines. The pressure to close the camps due to the complete withdrawal of funding from the UNHCR
after the CPA deadline created severe conditions that broke the bodies and spirits of those who
remained. Violence erupted multiple times, along with hunger strikes and other forms of protests as
subsidies for basic needs such as water and food were curbed. Curfew was strictly enforced and the
movements of those inside the camp were strictly monitored.

Non Traditional Security (NTS) - Blueboard by Alma Maria O. Salvador

The point I would like to raise here is that an international regimes power to label and re-label those in
the margins and who simply cannot defend themselves is real.While perhaps there is a pragmatic side to
labeling, the fact that international organizations, which are machinations of their most influential
members, can stifle a human beings right to participate as a global citizen is alarming, and violent.

Compassion Fatigue
Socrates believed that doing good makes the soul happy because virtue and happiness are inextricably
linked. This perhaps explains why we tend to be extremely generous especially during times of crisis.
Unfortunately, the world is not so perfect as Socrates mightve imagined it to be.

Like many long-standing humanitarian crisis, the plight of the Vietnamese boat people tested the
international refugee regimes generosity and patience. As the years went by, many observed that even
with increasing numbers of boat people in need, the support for them eventually decreased. Ultimately,
funds dried up and people paid attention elsewhere. In the meantime, as the end of the CPAs deadline
for the screening process drew near, about 6,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers were still in the Philippine
centers. By 1996, the UNHCR ended all its operations and financial support. This unfortunately caused
the Philippine government to allegedly forcibly repatriate 89 remaining Vietnamese boat people in
February 14, 1996 for fear of having to single-handedly shoulder the cost of maintaining the camps. While
the accountability of this incident within the national government agencies concerned remained unclear,
the critical role the CBCP played in the negotiation with the Philippine government to find an appropriate
solution (other than forced repatriation) was certain.

By then, the Vietnamese boat people were now called RVNs or remaining Vietnamese nationals, a label
that meant they are no longer refugees nor asylum seekers, but migrants seeking better opportunities
other than their country of origin.

Thus, another important question that we need to confront is this: What happens when international
agencies and national governments became weary of helping the most vulnerable groups of people other
than its own? Who will be accountable for their safety and security when all the others have left? Do we
send them back to uncertainty or keep them here despite our lack of resources?

Other threats off our coastal waters - Blueboard by Alma Maria O. Salvador

The Crucial Role of Local Governments

While the arena where norms such as those concerning refugees are shaped tend to be global, the
success of any countrys commitment to protect them are undeniably local. When the PFAC closed, it
was clear that the national government was not willing to spend for the management of the remaining
Vietnamese nationals. It was the local government of Puerto Princesa, the CBCP and the Center for
Assistance to Displaced Persons (CADP) who took the initiative to raise funds from Vietnamese
overseas, which paid fora new housing site, a 13-hectare land located about 16 kilometers away from
PFAC, for RVNs.

The cost to build Vietville and make it livable was shared between the LGU, the Church and the RVNs
themselves. The Church shouldered the construction of houses and other infrastructure. The local
government provided the heavy equipment, fuel and manpower needed to prepare the land for
construction. It also connected Vietville to the main electricity grid and water supply. The RVNs, together
with some Filipino engineers and Vietnamese overseas volunteers, provided the labor.

Aside from housing, they were alsogiven other kinds of support such as capacity training and livelihood
opportunities. This site is known as the Vietnamese Village or Vietville, an open community for RVNs
complete with recreational, worship, educational and livelihood facilities.

There were also different local resolutions passed in 1998 that proclaimed support for the permanent
residency of the RVNs. In the years that follow, residents of Puerto Princesa welcomed the RVNs as one
of their own, allowing their children to enroll in local schools and to engage in small businesses.
Ultimately some aspects of Vietnamese-ness became part of the social fabric of their everyday lives. An
example of this social integration is the colloquial term chaolongan to refer to any roadside noodle shop
that serves a variety of Vietnamese-influenced soup dishes. Chao long, in Vietnamese, means porridge
(or lugaw).

Hence, the policy debate concerning refugees should not be left in the hands of national politicians and
bureaucrats who will eventually pass the buck when push comes to shove. Local governments should be
included in the discussions this early because next to the refugees, the LGUs not only have the highest
stake, but also has proven to be invaluable partners capable of finding creative means to address the
refugee dilemma.

The lessons learned from our experience as first asylum country for the Vietnamese boat people are
good starting points. Though not exhaustive, the points raised above can aid in framing the discourse and
hopefully find a secure future for the Rohingyas and other people who have been displaced and left at the
margins of modern states and nations.

While it is a good sign that the parties concerned have agreed to sit down and talk about this matter, let
us be reminded that those who remained on the boats cannot wait forever. For the Rohingyas and
Bangladeshis who are still aboard these boats, every additional minute spent on the diplomatic tablesof
the region is equivalent to one more minute deprived of food, water and the right to live in the most
humanely possible.
Anne Lan Candelaria