Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 04HANOI693, February 24 Repatriation Discussions

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #04HANOI693.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
04HANOI693 2004-03-09 05:46 2011-08-25 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Hanoi
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
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.