Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3
NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011
TOP SECRET – Sensitive
leave the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The refugee problem was one of the most far reaching issues at the time..."
This condemnation of the DRV was fairly well substantiated by U.S. intelligence. A U.S. Intelligence Advisory Committee report of 1955 quotes "usually reliable French intelligence reports" that after October 1954 three DRV regular infantry divisions, with local forces, were positioned to block refugee movement. These, with "voluminous reports from Catholic and other sources" indicated that the DRV, with armed forces, by barring refugees from local transport, and through economic penalties, was pursuing a deliberate policy to prevent departures. Article 14(d) of the Geneva Agreement obliged the DRV to assist the movement of would-be refugees, but GVN officials reported receiving only 15,000 refugees bearing official Viet Minh exit permits, including 8,300 who obtained their papers under direct ICC supervision. U.S. and French naval offices have attested that thousands of northerners literally escaped to their waiting ships.51
Again, no entirely dependable record exists. The ICC was impeded in its observations and reporting by "narrow and complicated administrative procedures in the areas in the control of the PAVN...."52 Of 119 investigations conducted by ICC mobile teams during the period, 34 dealt with violations of Article 14(d) alleged by first parties. Beyond these, however, DRV authorities submitted to the ICC 320,000 petitions from friends and relations of regroupees alleging that the French had forced evacuation, and "thousands" of petitions were received from French sources claiming that the DRV was obstructing those who wished to move South.53 After a survey of 25,000 refugees in the South, the ICC teams reported that "there was no foundation for the allegation that thousands were victims of a systematic propaganda and many of them wished to go back to the PAVN zone and none of the persons contacted by the teams complained of forced evacuation or expressed a desire to return...."54 Investigations in the North, however, did disclose that observance of Article 14(d) by the DRV was not uniformly satisfactory. The ICC majority report notes that:55
- "(ii) religious, social and local influences were used by both sides either to persuade persons to change their zone of residence or to dissuade them from exercising the freedom of choice regarding the zone in which they planted to live.
- "(iii) the demand for permits and facilities under Article 14(d) was the largest in the areas under the control of the PAVN and it was generally met except in the areas of Nghe An and Ha Tinh..."
The named areas were predominantly Catholic, and in the village of Luu My, in the province of Nghe An, the ICC team did report on a clash between the civil populace and troops of the DRV in which at least
