US embassy cable - 04HANOI693

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HANOI 000693 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BANGKOK FOR DHS/BCIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: CVIS, KJUS, PREL, CASC, VM 
SUBJECT:  February 24 Repatriation Discussions 
 
 
1.  (U) Summary.  A joint DOS/DHS delegation proffered a new 
approach to resolving the issue of the acceptance by Vietnam 
(GVN) of its nationals, based on the successful arrangement 
now in place with the Royal Cambodian Government (RGC).  GVN 
officials agreed to review the new approach, but held to 
their previous position that categorically excludes certain 
nationals, such as those who entered the U.S. under refugee 
programs.  GVN officials eventually put forth their own new 
proposal, suggesting a formal agreement that would exempt 
from repatriation any Vietnamese national who arrived in the 
U.S prior to 1995. The Vietnamese agreed to review the U.S. 
proposal and provide their reaction by the end of March. 
End Summary. 
 
A NEW APPROACH 
-------------- 
2.  (U) February 24, Cheryl Sim, Deputy Director, EAP/BCLTV, 
led a DOS/DHS delegation (USDEL) to explore with GVN 
interlocutors a new approach to resolve the long-standing 
issue of the repatriation of removable Vietnamese nationals. 
In opening comments, Sim detailed the history of discussions 
on the topic and reiterated the potential for the imposition 
of visa sanctions under INA section 243(d) for countries 
refusing to receive back their nationals.  Sim sought 
clarification on a recent development on repatriations: The 
GVN is reportedly refusing to renew expired travel documents 
for Vietnamese nationals intended for repatriation, 
irrespective of the date or method by which they entered the 
U.S., on the grounds that the U.S. and GVN have no 
repatriation agreement. 1 
 
3.  (U) Urging a new approach, USDEL members presented to 
the SRV side as a possible model a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) as well as a subsequent addendum to the 
MOU signed with the RGC in 2002-2003 that provide for case- 
by-case review of individual cases without reference to 
categorical exclusions, facilitates verification of 
nationality by RGC officials, and provides limited 
reintegration assistance for returned Cambodian nationals 
via a non-governmental organization (NGO).  USDEL reiterated 
the position that a formal, written agreement is not a sine 
qua non for further resolution of this matter; on the 
contrary, written bilateral agreements on immigration 
matters are the rare exception for the U.S.  USDEL stressed 
that "concrete results" were paramount for the U.S. soon on 
this issue. 
 
VIETNAMESE: FEET STUCK IN OLD POSITIONS? 
---------------------------------------- 
4.  (U) Mr. Bui Dinh Dinh, Director of Consular Dept, MFA, 
and head of delegation, opened his response with positive 
assertions that a solution might be found with further 
"goodwill" and "humanitarian interests" taken into account. 
Dinh stressed that the GVN would not refuse to take back any 
of its nationals who have violated U.S. law, as long as "an 
appropriate mechanism" governs such arrangements.  While 
acknowledging the U.S. side's interest in a fresh approach, 
Dinh said that the GVN side had been under the impression 
that the U.S. side was still interested in discussing a 
formal agreement along the lines of the draft text last 
discussed between the two sides in March 2001.   Dinh added 
that the GVN has signed formal repatriation agreements with 
governments of Canada, Australia, Germany, and the 
Netherlands, and is currently negotiating agreements with 
Poland, Switzerland, Russia, and the Ukraine.  Because 
bilateral relations vary, individual treatment and separate 
agreements are necessary, emphasized Dinh. 
 
5.  (U) Dinh further stressed the necessity of a formal 
government-to-government "written agreement" to guide 
respective GVN agencies and local authorities on procedures 
for implementing repatriations, noting difficulties for 
provincial or auxiliary government organs to abide by terms 
if they are not detailed explicitly by the central 
government.  Dinh also repeated prior distinctions between 
those who left Vietnam on valid passports in recent years 
and those who departed during the post-Vietnam conflict 
refugee-era (i.e., roughly, the period between 1975 and 
1994).  Dinh raised the problem of correctly identifying the 
nationality of those Vietnamese who left without GVN issued 
documents, those who left illegally or fled judicial 
proceedings.  Dinh also detailed anticipated problems with 
reintegrating those who no longer have relatives, homes, 
connections, or jobs to return to in Vietnam.  Dinh argued 
that the vast majority of those who left Vietnam contributed 
to Vietnamese society and that to force only the bad cases 
back now would not present a satisfactory scenario for 
Vietnam. 
 
6.  (U) In pressing the GVN case for reintegration 
assistance, Dinh noted that Vietnam had accepted more than 
100,000 Cambodian refugees and the GVN provided financial 
assistance to them.  Dinh argued that "humanitarian values" 
necessitate such assistance in cases such as these.  Dinh 
also stated that the Netherlands-GVN repatriation agreement 
could serve as an appropriate model on this issue.  Dinh 
provided a cost-breakdown of approximately $3,000 per 
returnee. 
 
7.  (U) In regard to USDEL's concerns that the GVN was no 
longer issuing documents to Vietnamese nationals in the U.S. 
who had arrived after 1995, USDEL presented to the GVN a 
copy of a recent request for the issuance of a travel 
document for a Vietnamese national that had been presented 
to Embassy of Vietnam in Washington, DC.  This request was 
rejected by GVN embassy because of the absence of a 
repatriation agreement with the US. Dinh noted that he would 
look into the matter but went on to further imply that a 
formal repatriation agreement would include documented 
Vietnamese nationals.  This implication represents a change 
in GVN position.  In prior discussion with GVN, the GVN 
committed to accepting the return of documented Vietnamese 
nationals from the United States.  This had been the 
practice until recently. 
 
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 
------------------------- 
8.  (U) During the afternoon session, the parties returned 
to assess specific steps to be taken to achieve progress. 
Sim suggested that the parties consider the possibility of 
an interim agreement as a basis for a pilot program that 
would encourage mutual trust and build capacity on 
repatriations.  Sim proposed an arrangement along the lines 
of the Cambodian agreement, but stated the U.S. would 
appreciate comments for tailoring it to the Vietnam context. 
She again reiterated the U.S. side's strong desire to see 
progress made in order to avoid the imposition of any 
sanctions under section 243(d) of the INA. 
 
9.  (U) Dinh agreed to consider all points, but insisted 
that prior 2001 draft text had already made substantial 
progress and that previous GVN positions had been approved 
by higher authorities.  Dinh cautioned that to start anew 
would cause difficulties and would necessitate higher 
governmental approval to change directions.  Dinh also 
remarked on specific differences between Cambodia and 
Vietnam and that any future agreement would have to take 
fully into account Vietnam's particular situation.  He 
emphasized that a "written document signed between 
governments" is essential.  Dinh repeated earlier comments 
about scope and coverage of an agreement and requested the 
U.S. side's understanding in handling returnees.  Dinh 
argued that some Vietnamese fled Vietnam following the 
Vietnam War to avoid charges for crimes.  Dinh stated that 
if these Vietnamese were to return, they could still face 
charges upon return.  Dinh made a last push for some sort of 
cut-off date prior to which Vietnamese who entered the U.S. 
would be exempt from repatriation.  Dinh suggested the date 
of the official resumption of U.S.-Vietnam diplomatic 
relations in 1995 as a useful point of reference. 
 
10.  (U) The U.S. side replied that a reply to such a 
proposal could not be made at this time, but that we would 
take the GVN proposal under advisement.  Sim requested the 
GVN side to give careful consideration to the new U.S. 
proposal for an agreement along the lines of the U.S.- 
Cambodian program and to let us have a response via Embassy 
Hanoi within several weeks.  Dinh promised to do so. 
 
11.  (SBU) Comment:  Discussions on repatriations of 
removable Vietnamese have lingered for over a decade without 
concrete progress.  The recent revelation that the GVN may 
now be refusing to accept back nationals who entered the 
U.S. more recently raises special concerns, and calls into 
further question the GVN's desire to abide by international 
norms in taking back their nationals.  Sensitivity over 
refugees and Vietnam War-era issues remains, especially 
given the fact that many removable Vietnamese left Vietnam 
with U.S. assistance under refugee or U.S. government- 
affiliate status.  It is hard to imagine the GVN really 
coming to terms with these would-be returnees.  Moreover, 
even in those cases where the GVN has entered repatriation 
agreements with other states, acceptance of wartime-era 
Vietnamese has been inordinately slow, grudging, and 
problematic.  End comment. 
 
12.  (U) The GVN's delegation:  Mr. Bui Dinh Dinh, Director 
of Consular Dept, MFA, Head of delegation; Mr. Nguyen Xuan 
Long, Chief of Section for Management of Exit & Entry of 
Vietnamese, Immigration Dept, MPS; Mr. Nguyen Minh Vu, 
Deputy Director, Consular Dept, MFA; Mr. Le Van Nam, Expert, 
Consular Dept, MFA; Mr. Trinh Duc Hai, Expert, Consular 
Dept, MFA; Mr. Vu Thanh Binh, Deputy Director General of the 
Immigration Dept., MPS; Mr. Nguyen Luong Ngoc, Expert, 
Consular Dept, MFA; Ms. Hoang Thanh Nha, Expert, America's 
Dept., MFA; Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao, Interpreter. 
 
13.  (U) The U.S. delegation:  Ms. Cheryl Sim, Deputy 
Director, EAP/BCLTV; Mr. James Hergen, Asst. Legal Adviser, 
L/EAP; Mr. David Venturella, Asst. Dir., Detention and 
Removal Operations, DHS; Mr. Larry Mizell, Sr. Advisor, 
Border and Transportation Security, DHS; DCM Robert Porter, 
Embassy Hanoi; Clark Ledger, Consular officer, Embassy 
Hanoi; Hanh Pham, Consular FSN advisor and interpreter, U.S. 
Embassy Hanoi; Rick Sell, Officer in Charge, DHS/Ho Chi Minh 
City; Kimberly Yen, Immigration officer, DHS/Ho Chi Minh 
City. 
PORTER 
_______________________________ 
1 Info required.