The best should not be allowed: Repatriation and Resettlement of Montagnard Refugees
Author
Møller, Pernille
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2007
Pages
116
Abstract
Specialet undersøger sammenhængen mellem tvungen migration (flygtningestrømme) og tidens dominerende sikkerhedstænkning, samt hvordan idealer for at beskytte flygtninge bliver omsat til løsninger i praksis. Casen er Montagnards, et etnisk mindretal, som flygtede fra systematisk og voldelig undertrykkelse i Vietnam til Cambodia og fik midlertidig beskyttelse under FN’s Flygtningehøjkommissariat (UNHCR). Formålet er at forstå, hvorfor nogle Montagnard-flygtninge blev sendt tilbage til Vietnam for reintegration, mens andre blev genbosat i såkaldte sikre tredjelande (primært USA, i mindre tal Canada, Sverige og Finland). Casen dækker 2000–2005 og omfatter 2.294 personer. Studiet bygger på en hermeneutisk (fortolkende) tilgang. Datagrundlaget er officielle rapporter, interne dokumenter og kvalitative interview med seks repræsentanter for nøgleaktører, suppleret af observationer. Teoretisk tager specialet udgangspunkt i human security-paradigmet, som flytter fokus fra staters sikkerhed til det enkelte menneskes velfærd. I en flygtningekontekst betyder det at søge løsninger, der maksimerer flygtningenes fremtidige velfærd: fysisk sikkerhed, basale livsvilkår og psykosocialt velbefindende. Specialet tester, om værdierne i human security faktisk styrede beslutningerne om enten hjemsendelse eller genbosætning i tredjelande. Konklusionen er, at begge spor kan styrke flygtningenes human security, men på forskellige måder. En sikker, frivillig tilbagevenden kan styrke de psykosociale aspekter, mens permanent asyl i tredjelande ser ud til at sikre de fysiske og materielle aspekter. Disse fordele var dog snarere heldige følgevirkninger end de egentlige motiver. Beslutningerne var primært drevet af geopolitiske interesser i Sydøstasien, institutionelle hensyn hos de involverede organisationer og indenrigspolitiske forhold i mulige modtagerlande. Specialets titel henviser til et UNHCR-notat med argumentet om, at “the best should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good”: det ideelle må ikke blokere for det bedst opnåelige. Specialet bekræfter delvist denne pointe, men påpeger også alvorlige fejl i håndteringen, herunder betydelige og unødvendige krænkelser af flygtninges menneskerettigheder. Afslutningsvis argumenteres der for, at det internationale samfund har et etisk ansvar for at yde den bedst mulige beskyttelse af sårbare grupper, samtidig med at man erkender, at det ideelle ikke altid kan realiseres.
This thesis examines the links between forced migration (refugee movements) and prevailing security thinking, and how ideals for protecting refugees translate into practical solutions on the ground. The case concerns the Montagnards, an ethnic minority who fled systematic and violent repression in Vietnam to Cambodia, where they received temporary protection under the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). The aim is to understand why some Montagnard refugees were returned to Vietnam for reintegration, while others were resettled to so-called safe third countries (mainly the United States, with smaller numbers to Canada, Sweden, and Finland). The case spans 2000–2005 and includes 2,294 people. The study uses a hermeneutic (interpretive) approach. The evidence consists of official reports, internal documents, and qualitative interviews with six stakeholder representatives, supplemented by observations. The theoretical lens is the human security paradigm, which shifts the focus from state security to individual well-being. In a refugee context, this means seeking solutions that maximize refugees’ future welfare: physical safety, basic living conditions, and psychosocial well-being. The thesis tests whether human security values actually guided decisions to return people or resettle them in third countries. Findings show that both pathways can enhance refugees’ human security in different ways. Safe, voluntary return can support psychosocial aspects, while permanent asylum in third countries appears to secure physical and material aspects. However, these benefits were more side effects than primary motivations. Decisions were mainly driven by geopolitical interests in Southeast Asia, institutional interests of the organizations involved, and domestic politics in potential receiving countries. The title refers to a UNHCR letter arguing that “the best should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good”: ideals should not block feasible solutions. The thesis partly supports this claim but also highlights serious shortcomings, including significant and unnecessary violations of refugees’ human rights. Finally, it argues that the international community has an ethical responsibility to provide the best possible protection to vulnerable groups, while recognizing that the ideal is not always attainable.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents