THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1979. Vietnam's ‘final solution’

Press, 18 June 1979, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1979. Vietnam's ‘final solution’

The plight of the refugees from IndoChina might be solved completely in one of two ways. The rest of the world could open its doors to accept freely all the refugees who appear: So far perhaps a million people have fled or been forced out from Vietnam, Kampuchea, and Laos: if homes were assured many more would follow. Or the Communist governments of those three unhappy countries could change their policies so drastically that people no longer wanted to leave, so that forcing people to become refugees was no longer part of their policies, and so that those awaiting resettlement in makeshift camps throughout SouthEast Asia would be encouraged to return home.

Neither of these solutions is going to happen The international community must, instead, find a solution to the exodus from Indo-China, but in such a way that the Vietnamese Government, in particular, is not encouraged to send out thousands more unwanted people into a world unwilling to receive them. French observers in Vietnam estimate that up to half of the people being forced to leave die at sea. It has also been estimated that the wealth confiscated from the refugees by their own Government before they leave has become Vietnam’s biggest source of revenue.

The number of refugees has increased gravely in the last few months. Towards the end of last year the number of offers of new homes in other countries just about balanced the flow of homeless people. Since then China and Vietnam have been at war: Vietnam and Kampuchea have been at war: the flood of refugees has swollen to the point where it far exceeds the readiness of any combination of countries to receive them.

The decisions of Thailand and Malaysia to refuse entry, by force if necessary, to more refugees, and to expel many of those who have sought shelter there, looks shockingly cruel. But these two countries have the misfortune to be among Indo-China’s closest neighbours; both have already done more than might have been expected to help the refugees, even though they are by no means wealthy countries. Both have good reasons for not wanting any increase in the number of Chinese within their borders, and a majority of those being forced out of Indo-China are of Chinese origin. In addition, Malaysia and Thailand are doing no more than follow the example set by China itself which has refused to allow “boat people” to land, has expelled some who have come ashore, and has thus added to the burden of Hong Kong and other countries much less well equipped to cope

To regard the Malaysian threat to shoot new arrivals from Indo-China as a bluff would be a mistake. Almost certainly, the Malaysians will carry out their threats for feeling against the 65,000 or more refugees in that country is running very high, especially in the east coast states closest to IndoChina. The threats by Thailand and Malaysia should be interpreted as a signal to the rest of the world that it must accept more responsibility for a humanitarian crisis not of the making of those countries.

The world has an uneven record so far in its attitude to the refugees. The United States has taken more than 200,000 for permanent settlement and is increasing its annual quota to 80,000. Hong Kong, with little available space and great problems of poverty of its own, has taken 15,000 into a popula-

tion of 4.5 million, a remarkably humanitarian achievement, especially as so far this year Hong Kong has also had to absorb 150,000 new arrivals from China proper, 100,000 of them illegal entrants. Australia, France and Canada have all taken more than 10,000 people from Indo-China. Few other countries have taken more than 1000, and New Zealand, which has so far accepted 800 and has promised to take more, measures up well against the performance of many larger and richer States. The United Nations might have been expected to be to the fore in helping the refugees, but it can do no more than its member States make possible — and so far this year members have offered only 100,000 places for refugees. Those waiting for homes now number 300,000. Further conferences are being held on the refugee question in SouthEast Asia this week; some action might be speeded up by the threats from Malaysia and Thailand. The last conference, three weeks ago, produced not much more than an offer from Vietnam to increase the flow of people it wants to evict by allowing other States to airlift them out In this the Vietnamese show a hideous parallel with the behaviour of Nazi Germany towards the Jews in the 19305. The “Jews” of Vietnam are ethnic Chinese and small businessmen, regardless of race. They are being forced to leave, made to pay bribes to the Government in Hanoi for the privilege, and are then being robbed by those who provide shipping to get them out.

This is Vietnam’s “final solution” to its problem of these minorities which, it believes, cannot be absorbed into the new Communist society. Instead of shooting them it exports them, careless of whether or not the shooting may finally be done by someone else. In the last resort, only the United States has the resources to accept or to find homes for the hundreds of thousands of people involved. Some might argue that the United States, too, has a special responsibility because of its part in the war which led to the Communist conquest of Indo-China.

Much more help might have been expected from countries such as Sweden which opposed the Vietnam War. Sweden, in fact, has so far accepted fewer than 300 refugees for settlement. But America’s allies in that war, including New Zealand, should be seen now to be ready to play a larger part in what is becoming one of the biggest humanitarian rescue operations since World War 11. The Malaysian decision that it can no longer accept refugees, even temporarily, will be a blessing in disguise if it prompts the consciences of more fortunate countries to review the number of homeless and starving people they are prepared to accept.

For the Government in Hanoi to drive out a million people is an act of war that must have far-reaching consequences for its neighbours and for the international community. Again, a lead must come from the United States, to put whatever pressure it can on Vietnam to have that country mend its ways. Not least, President Carter should have taken the opportunity of his summit meeting with Mr Brezhnev at the week-end to press home the anger and contempt of other States for Vietnam’s behaviour. Vietnam is a client, even a satellite, of the Soviet Union. Soviet intervention could stop the exodus from Vietnam; Soviet silence must be read as complicity in an enormous crime against humanity.