Viet Nam: Information on application of Hoc Tap programs on family members of former Army of the Republic of VietNam/French army personnel, particular treatment of such family members, and do they loose their citizenship if they leave the country?
|Publisher||Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada|
|Author||Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada|
|Publication Date||1 September 1989|
|Citation / Document Symbol||VNM2050|
|Cite as||Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Viet Nam: Information on application of Hoc Tap programs on family members of former Army of the Republic of VietNam/French army personnel, particular treatment of such family members, and do they loose their citizenship if they leave the country?, 1 September 1989, VNM2050, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6abcc2e.html [accessed 12 December 2013]|
|Disclaimer||This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.|
References to the term "Hoc Tap" could not be found among the sources on Viet Nam presently available to the IRBDC.
Regarding treatment of relatives of former ARVN/French army members, personal accounts reported in a 1987 New York Times article described denial of education and employment because of their family-member's involvement with the former South Vietnamese government. [ Uncertain harbours: the plight of Vietnamese boat people, (Washington: American Council for Nationalities Service, October 1987), p. 8.] One source indicates a common element among Vietnamese boat people was the "re-education" of those who had served the government of the Republic of South Viet Nam before its 1975 defeat. [ Ibid.] An April 1987 report indicates that many among more 10,000 people held at that time in re-education camps were detained because of their connection, whether direct or indirect, with the U.S. war effort in Viet Nam. [ Still confined: journalists in re-education camps and prisons in Vietnam, (Washington: Asia Watch, April 1987), p. 3.] A written reply to Amnesty International by the Vietnamese government in 1979 indicates that most detainees held in re-education camps were former army officers and civilian officials of the Republic of South Vietnam. [ Report of an Amnesty International mission to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 10-21 December 1979, (London: Amnesty International, 1981), p. 23.] The Vietnamese government stated that the decrees affecting these individuals, whether they were active during the U.S. or the French involvement in the region, were still in effect by late 1980, and that their positions in the former society made them guilty of national treason. [ Ibid.]
In addition to the reports already available to the requester, information on loss of citizenship after leaving the country could not be found among the sources presently available to the IRBDC. However, a source indicates Viet Nam did not accept, at least until 1987, the return of those who fled the country. [ Uncertain Harbours, p.7.] The right to leave or re-enter Viet Nam is reportedly subject to government approval. [The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice, (Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987), p. 76.] Although various recent reports refer to forcible repatriation programs for Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, no indication of their citizenship status upon return to Viet Nam could be found among the sources presently available to the IRBDC. Another source indicates those linked to the opposition acquired or were recognized citizenship rights only after staying at re-education camps and "changing their thoughts and feelings". [ Still confined, p. 23.]
In addition to the reports already available to the requester, please find attached a copy of Critique: Review of the Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1988, (Washington: Human Rights Watch, July 1989),
pp. 207-208, which provides a critique of the latest U.S. Department of State report on Viet Nam, and the section of The Imprisonment of Persons Seeking to Leave a Country or to Return to Their Own Country, (London: Amnesty International, 1986) dealing with Viet Nam (pages 16-17).