In “State Visions, Migrant Decisions: Population Movements since the End of the Vietnam War” Andrew Hardy aims to measure the effectiveness of the state’s socialist vision (economic and governance) by looking at the mobility of the Vietnamese. Following reunification in 1975 people could move freely throughout the country again—granted there were some restrictions but comparatively speaking this freedom of movement was unheard of since colonization by the French. Also in 1975 the state implemented their vision of social construction in the south—an idea that was fairly foreign to the liberal economy of the south. Such policies included the de-urbanization of ‘migrant-swollen cities’ and transforming urbanites from consumers into producers. Socialist economic policies that were implemented included a new currency, taxation and reform of capitalism, nationalization of industry and agricultural collectivization.
The quick dismantlement of the capitalist economy in the south resulted in the marginalization of large sections of the population thus forcing many out of the cities and into the New Economic Zones (NEZs) in rural Vietnam. Many of the NEZs were located along the Cambodian border and were subject to periodic attacks by the Khmer Rouge. Ironically the marginalization, poor conditions, ineffective management, and household registration experienced in the NEZs caused many migrants to return and subsequently emigrate out of Vietnam, typically by boat. Studies have found that the majority of boat people were ethnic Chinese from southern Vietnam. Hardy argues that the “refugee phenomenon cannot be understood as a simple failure of diplomacy. Nor was it even the expression of two competing Vietnamese nationalisms in migration decisions by some on the defeated side.”[1] These factors were important in the late 1970s but the flow of refugees continued into the 1980s and included people from the north.
By analyzing refugee interviews in countries of first asylum Hardy attempts to understand the circumstances that caused an outflow of refugees during the 1980s from various regions on the country. One part of this answer was provided by the Vietnamese Immigration Department, many people left in order to be reunited with family, some were enemies of the revolution, some needed to escape debt, others could not deal with this new society. "By the 1980s, boarding a boat was no longer a response to specific fears or experiences of exclusion from Vietnam’s new society. For many, it constituted an act of resistance to the government’s vision for the future, a radical frustration with the “shortcomings” of a system unable to provide for its people’s basic needs, a rejection of the “difficulties” the government expected people to endure for a cause in which they no longer believed."[2] Countries of first asylum began to realize many of these refugees were no longer fleeing from communism or perceived threats on their lives but searching for new opportunities—these refugees were labeled ‘economic migrants’ and were separated from ‘genuine refugees’.
Hardy found that economic hardship was not the only explanation for out-migration. “Family situations, petty conflicts, frustrated hopes, boredom, and minor difficulties with the authorities were also of great importance.”[3] Some people became accidental refugees, such as one man visiting relatives in Laos who became curious about what things would look like on the other side of the Mekong River. Crossing over into Thailand he was arrested by local police and repatriated to Vietnam.
Hardy states that during the 1980s the people failed to uphold the state’s vision of a socialist utopian society—many became disillusioned and lost confidence with the government. The idea of a socialist paradise on earth helps people to accept supposed short-term hardships in the present—before 1975 the idea of peace represented a sort of paradise and hardships were endured for the end goal. However, once the war ended and people began to experience years of even greater hardship, many became disillusioned and sought a new paradise available through emigration. It was not until the end of socialist construction and the gains experienced under doi moi that the boat people phenomenon stopped. By the late 1990s many emigrants actually returned to Vietnam.
Lastly Hardy discusses the gendered aspects of migration in Vietnam. Temporary or seasonal migration is experienced by many families in which the male breadwinner will leave the village for cities or the highlands while the women remain behind and tend the fields. During the harvest the men will return and assist the women, only to leave again once the harvest is complete. Such temporary work includes logging, driving xe om (motorbike taxi) or xyclo (bicycle rickshaw), construction, carpentry, and general labor—very seldom will one find a contract securing employment. Young women migrants seeking employment have more limited choices—o xin (maids) or working in karaoke and massage parlors or brothels. “Many of them remit money to their families, and some hope, after a few years in the city, to go home with enough money to set up as traders. A number, however, aim to escape their mothers’ lives in the paddy fields by settling away from home.”[4] This reflects Vietnamese society in that men are able to leave for economic reasons, however as choices for young women are limited they are either forced to remain in the village and work a hard life or move to the city and still have a hard life.
[1] Andrew Hardy, “State Visions, Migrant Decisions: Population Movements since the End of the Vietnam War,” in Postwar Vietnam: Dynamics of a Transforming Society, edited by Hy Van Luong, 107-138, Singapore: ISEAS; Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, p. 118.
[2] Ibid, 119.
[3] Ibid, 120.
[4] Ibid, 129.
No comments:
Post a Comment