UN SYG ENGAGEMENT ON PROTECTION OF HMONG POCS

C O N F I D E N T I A L VIENTIANE 000097 DEPT FOR EAP (MARCIEL) AND PRM (SCHWARTZ) GENEVA FOR MULREAN E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2020 TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL UN LA SUBJECT: UN SYG ENGAGEMENT ON PROTECTION OF HMONG POCS REF: A. VIENTIANE 068 ¶B. VIENTIANE 045 ¶C. VIENTIANE 029 ¶D. VIENTIANE 020 ¶E. VIENTIANE 009 ¶F. 09 VIENTIANE 595 Classified By: Ambassador Ravic Huso for reasons 1.5 (b) & (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST: The US, along with like-minded countries, has sought the cooperation of the Lao government to allow third-country resettlement of 158 ethnic-Hmong Lao citizens identified as POCs by the UNHCR prior to their forced repatriation from Thailand on December 28, 2009. The Lao have both challenged the validity of the UNHCR's designation of these persons as refugees and rejected the argument that the UN and international community have the standing to insist that these persons be given the opportunity for resettlement. To date, the UN has not been part of the dialogue between the GOL and the concerned countries and has left unchallenged the Lao assertions that the returnees are no longer subject to international protections. Embassy requests that the Department and USUN engage with the UN to secure a letter from the SYG to the Lao DPM/FM affirming that UN stands by its POC designations and that the GOL has an obligation to allow these POCs to avail themselves of the option of third-country resettlement. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) On December 28, the Thai government returned to Laos approximately 4,500 ethnic-Hmong Lao citizens against their will. Among the returnees were 158 Lao Hmong who had been in a Thai detention facility. These 158 - including minors - had been designated by the UNHCR as POCs prior to their detention as illegal immigrants in 2006. The UNHCR referred these cases to the US, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. On the same day that the 158 were returned, US refugee affairs officers from Embassy Bangkok - and officials from the other three resettlement countries - were given access for the first time and confirmed their intention to seek third-country resettlement. ¶3. (C) Subsequent to their involuntary return, the US and representatives of the resettlement countries and the EU have engaged in regular and frequent discussions/demarches with the Lao authorities to convince them to allow these POCs to avail themselves of the opportunity to resettle in third-countries. The UN, however, has not been a participant in these interventions on behalf of the POCs. The UN Resident Coordinator - who represents UNHCR in-country - has been a sympathetic listener and expressed interest but has not actively engaged the Lao on this protection issue. ¶4. (C) During several joint demarches and bilateral discussions (see reftels),senior Lao officials have directly challenged the right of the UN and members of the international community to request access to the 158 POC returnees and to offer resettlement. The Lao argument goes as follows: a) The UNHCR,s designation is invalid as it was based on a biased and false view of the human rights situation in Laos. In addition, the UNHCR has not been transparent regarding the criteria it used for making its determinations and has not sought to verify any claims that may have been made by the asylum-seekers. b) There is no need to offer resettlement as a durable solution because the returnees have safely returned to Laos where they are being assisted to resume their lives and are not subject to any legal sanctions. c) Finally, the UN has not affirmed to the Lao that it considers the POC status granted over three years ago to be still valid, and has not directly supported the arguments made by the resettlement countries that they are acting in conformity with a recognized obligation to the UN to continue to offer resettlement as an option to the returnees. Therefore, the interest of the resettlement countries is unfounded. ¶5. (C) In January, Ambassador discussed with the UN Resident Coordinator, who represents UNHCR, the Lao argument. He asked her whether she would be willing to ask UN Headquarters for help in refuting the Lao argument and asserting the UN's continued interest in these POCs. She said she would recommend that the UNSYG send a letter to the Lao Deputy PM/Foreign Minister, since the SYG carries significant weight with the Lao. Ambassador also discussed the importance of having the UN take a stand with A/S Schwartz in PRM and with EAP. ¶6. (C) The 158 have now been in Laos for almost two months, and there has been no sign that the Lao are moving in the direction of allowing any of them the option of resettlement - at least not in the near term. Embassy believes that an intervention from the UN - preferably from the SYG - could sway the Lao from their current position. The Lao are sensitive to their standing with the UN - far more than they are concerned with their image in the US or Europe. Also, the Lao clearly appear to believe that the US and other like-minded countries have taken their positions based primarily on political considerations, not international law or practice. The fact that the UN is not responding in any direct way to their challenge also makes them more confident that they can stay the course. ¶7. (C) Consequently, the Embassy believes a letter from the SYG that reaffirms the UN's view that these individuals remain POCs and should be given the option of third country resettlement is necessary for two reasons: to sustain important humanitarian principles; and, because it could have a significant positive impact in convincing the Lao to resolve this particular situation. HUSO