Skip to main content
opinion

Laura Madokoro is an assistant professor in the Department of History and Classical Studies at McGill University

The photo of three-year old Aylan Kurdi has sparked heartbreak and outrage around the world. The image of the young Syrian boy, found drowned on a beach in Turkey, has become a symbol of the desperation that has caused thousands to leave war-torn Syria since 2011. In Canada, the news is having an even more profound impact following the revelation that his aunt tried to sponsor Aylan and his family to resettle in Vancouver, without success.

As people try to make sense of the current refugee crisis, a number of parallels have been draw in recent days to Canada's resettlement of more than 60,000 refugees during the Indochinese refugee crisis of the 1970s. There are, indeed, a number of similarities. Most especially, the power of an image to change public sentiment.

Like Syria's, the Indochinese refugee crisis, which began in earnest in 1975, did not receive significant international attention until four years later, when it reached severe proportions – much as we are seeing today as images of desperate migrants fill our screens. Yet even as the crisis grew, there remained a great deal of ambivalence about what to do about those leaving Vietnam (and later Cambodia and Laos) on rickety vessels, seeking safety and security from the ravages of postwar violence. In Canada, the shadow cast by the Vietnam War meant there were concerns about communist infiltrators. And despite some progress, there were still reservations about accepting refugees from Asia. Until 1967, immigration laws in Canada had discriminated against Asian migration. In the early days of the crisis, therefore, there were mixed opinions about whether Canada had any obligation at all to assist the refugees.

A key turning point was the dissemination of images of desperate refugees aboard the rickety Hai Hong ship. The Hai Hong arrived in Malaysia in the fall of 1978, carrying more than 2,000 refugees. The boat was barely seaworthy. Malaysian authorities, feeling the pressure of repeated boat arrivals, refused the boat entry on the grounds that the people aboard were not real refugees, but had "paid handsomely" to be on the "profit ship." The parallels with today's discussions of so-called economic migrants are obvious. The Hai Hong was left out at sea as the migrants aboard wondered what their future held. Images of the boat sparked outrage and concern. Ultimately, public sentiment encouraged western countries, including Canada, to commit to resettle the Hai Hong's refugees, breaking the desperate impasse.

There is now growing public sentiment that all countries, in Europe and beyond, have a responsibility to assist the Syrian refugees in some way. In Canada, there has been a great deal of unfortunate partisan rhetoric, exacerbated by the election campaign, about Canada's history of welcoming refugees. The Indochinese example has been used repeatedly to advance the argument that Canada should do more. Unfortunately, the complexities of the Canadian response to the Indochinese refugee crisis are being lost in favour of a celebratory narrative that uncritically celebrates the history of Canadian humanitarianism.

In reality, the Canadian response to the Indochinese refugee crisis was slow to develop and it was one that was initially hindered by a fear of the so-called unknown. It was only after countries such as Thailand and Malaysia, and the British colony of Hong Kong began to turn boats away because they could no longer bear the brunt of receiving and accommodating refugees that countries such as Canada began to take note.

It was the Canadian public, through private sponsorships and general support efforts, that ultimately made the Indochinese refugee resettlement story something to celebrate. But it was a public that took some time to realize what was at stake. In 1978, a searing image was a turning point. The same may yet happen in 2015, and if it does, the government needs to be ready and willing to use all the tools at its disposal, including private sponsorships, family reunification programs, government-assisted refugee programs and financial assistance to the UNHCR and European countries that are bearing the bulk of the crisis, to make a difference.

Interact with The Globe