During these years, the number of workers associated with JRS grew, and the capacity of the Office to respond to the more varied and pressing demands made of it also grew. It was a time when the situation of refugees worsened, the commitments of JRS expanded, the internal relationships within JRS grew more rich and complex and the Office grew in importance. The issues which had been raised earlier continued to be discussed. At the end of the period under review, they were recognised to be pressingly urgent.

If this was a period of consolidation for JRS, it was also one of consolidation in a more painful sense for refugees in the region. Early in this period refugees less attention in the Media, and the resettlement programmes of developed nations became less generous. This was noted by the countries of first asylum, who shaped their policies to deter refugees. At times, at the beginning of 1988, this policy was well published. The deaths of many refugees pushed off and left [to] die by hunger or at the hands of pirates warned the international community that many more would die unless the flow of refugees from Vietnam was checked or those in the camps were resettled quickly.

In response to this pressure, a Conference at Geneva in June 1989 adopted the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA), by which all new arrivals would be screened, and those found not to be refugees would be repatriated. Thus, many Vietnamese asylum seekers faced forcible repatriation to their own country. Moreover, the pressure in the camps was extreme. In late 1989 Hong Kong alone held some 60,000 refugees as compared with 9,000 eighteen months earlier. The conditions under which they were held often degrading. So for Vietnamese refugees life was harsh, and the prospects of resettlement increasingly poor.

The situation was no more secure or promising for the Cambodians in border camps. After years of stalemate, the Vietnamese had withdrawn most of their troops by the beginning of 1989 and fully by September 1989. This left the contending parties to negotiate what should happen after the withdrawal. The four parties failed to agree, the main sticking point being the role which the Khmer Rouge should play in any settlement. After negotiations broke down the various groups settled down to try each other out on the battlefield. The refugees at the border lived in anxiety at this time: in anxiety about any deal which would return them to Cambodia without adequate safeguards, in anxiety for the safety of their families and themselves in the inevitable fighting during the dry season, and above all in fear that failure to agree would deliver again to the Khmer Rouge control of the country.

At the end of this period, too, students came from the cities of Burma to live minority groups along Burma's 1,500 kilometer border with Thailand, and in some cases to seek refuge in Thailand.

In the case of refugees, consolidation is the clearly recognisable face of mortality. It is less clearly so for organisations. But in these years mortality was inescapable for JRS workers. In November 1985, shortly after the office moved to Bangkok, Neil Callahan died. He had been unwell at Phanat Nikhom, was diagnosed as terminally ill when he returned to the United States, and eventually died after a prolonged and painful illness.

At the beginning of 1988, Surimart Chalernsook (Look Nut) died. She had given herself tirelessly in giving life to JRS workers during the time she worked in the office. She had then begun herself to find a rich life in the border camps. She was killed in a road accident on the Chonburi road. At the beginning of the next year Bill Yeomens also died after a short illness. He had planned his dying in style: he left Bangkok on a trip which would take him to visit his friends in Canada, the United States and England. It was to be consummated at a meal of oysters in the Lutetia in Paris. He reached London, and died after finding consoling delight there in the brotherhood of the society.

These deaths were all griefs. But they also brought home sharply what is involved in refugee life. They were experienced as a call to share teh life of refugees. They recalled the prolonged agony of life and the way in which so many refugees experience life as a slow process of dying. They recalled the precariousness of refugee life, where sickness, violence and war always threaten. They recalled finally the extraordinary courage and panache [by] which many refugees contrive a generous life out of wholly inadequate materials.

The growth of JRS Asia Pasific should be set against other developments within the Jesuit Refugee Service internationally at the same period. In February 1985, JRS was made a secretariat of the Jesuit Curia. Mike Schultheis was made associate director. In 1987 he replaced Si Smith as coordinator of JRS Africa. Early in 1988, Si was appointed director of JRS in the United States, to be succeeded by Ron Ferguson in mid-1989, when the Refugee Service was separated again from the Jesuit Missions. Also in 1988, Michael Campbell-Johnston left Central America to become Provincial of the British Province. Dick Howard replaced him in that dangerous and demanding placement.

Many national coordinators were also appointed during this period. After working in Phanat Nikhom, Tom Steinbugler became coordinator for the Philippines. Late in 1989 he was named director of JRS Asia/Pacific. In Europe a number of Jesuits concerned for refugees came together in 1987. As a result of the meeting Johnny Muller became coordinator for Europe. A feature of this meetings and of the Jesuit commitment to refugees in Europe was the influence of younger Jesuits who had worked with refugees during their regency years.

In 1985 Celso Romanin was appointed coordinator of JRS in Australia. When he assumed the position he spent some months working in Hong Kong, He began to coordinate the work done with refugees among Australian Jesuits. Some of the initiatives taken included the establishment of Refugees Advisory Casework Service (RACS), a body concerned to represent the cases of those wishing to stay in Australia, and also the opening of a house for unsupported Vietnamese minors. Celso also began publication of Link, which was distributed to encourage interest in refugee issues in Australia. He was helped in this by many scholastics of the province. In 1989, he was replaced by Peter Hosking, who had spent ten months in Bataan over two periods. In 1989 he spent a further period in Hong Kong. When ABA closed in 1989 and was replaced by UNIYA, a social research institute under the direction of Frank Brennan, who in 1988 had also spent three months at Site 2, JRS moved with it to Sydney. Its office became the Asian desk of Uniya.

The list of people who have worked with JRS over this period is long. Because I mention others when describing the recruitment of religious and lay people, I shall confine myself here to Jesuit priests who spent some time with JRS in these years, despite the misleading impression this may give of a Jesuit dominated service or of a priest dominated Society. At all events the Jesuits who came were sent by thirty five or more provinces.

Bill Yeomens came to Pulau Bidong from Africa in 1985. He taught English there, and earned himself a lasting place in the hearts of the refugees there when he was removed from the island for defending their interests too bluntly. He later went to Ban Vinai to join John Blanchard. Godwin Genovese also spent some years on Pulau Bidong as did Quentin Dignam. Olivier Morin spent some time at Pulau Bidong before returning to France. He later came back to teach French at Phanat Nikhom.

In the Philippines, Vincent Dierckx worked for a few months in pastoral care in Bataan. Gildo Dominic also spent some time there, before being forced to leave because his criticism of vice rackets offended powerful interests. At the end of 1989 Joseph Tuoc, recently ordained in America, went to work with his people at the camp on Palawan island. Alfonso de Juan went to the border in 1988, and replaced Peirre Ceyrac as programme director of the large programme to which many JRS workers were assigned.

The list of scholastics and brothers who have been involved during regency or over vacation placements has been long. Stefan Bauberger, Johannes Siebner, Stefen Taubner, Lutz Muller, Dieter Bohler, Herbert Liebl and Richard Schniertshauer from German-speaking provinces, Harry Geib and Joe Cocucci from the United States, Kike Figaredo from Spain, Ashley Evans from Ireland, Frank Elvey from Australia, Bart Bosteels from Belgium and Matheo Choi Hong Dae and Gabriel Je Byoung Young from Korea, are some of those who have spent extended periods of time in the camps. [From Australia], Mick Smith, Peter Hosking, Greg Moffatt, Paul Fyfe, John Ryan and Antonio Allende worked for shorter periods, and have continued to maintain an interest in the welfare of refugees in their provinces of origin. To those we should add the names of priests who also spent a short time in camps. Among them were Alban Muller, Frido Pfuger, Frank McManamin, Bernard Hall and Tom Steinbugler.

Much of the growth of JRS projects at this time, however, has taken place through the network of volunteers. When the Mercy Refugee Service (MRS) was established, it put many sisters into the field in coordination with JRS. Joan Campbell, Carole McDonald and Maureen Lohrey were placed with the Malaysian Red Crescent at Pulau Bidong. Lizzie Finnerty went as midwife to Palawab in 1986, to leave at the end of 1989. Bernie Evens worked both at Phanat Nikhom and the Border. She had been joined at Phanat by Julie Rees, while [Faye.....], Mary Arnold and Denise Coghlan were also placed at Site 2. Maryanne Loughry worked for a short time at Bataan and later went with Marie Geddes to Hong Kong.

Religious of other conggregations also came to work with refugees and were placed and supported through JRS. Including the various groups of the Australian Sisters Mercy, some fifteen congregations have sent workers. The sisters include Anne Crowley at Phanat Nikhom, Trish Franklin, Joan Healy, Faye Kearns and Virginia Hasson and Marie Jeanne Ath at the border, Nancy Charlesworth, John Kingston, and Hank Slevin at Pulau Bidong. At Bataan Joseph Dao Vu, Joseph Vu Van Tri, Marie Adelphe Tran, Cecile Letibe and James Galligan worked. The initial contact with the Australian Marist Brothers who took over the Australian Orientation Programme at Phanat Nikhom was also through JRS.

These years have also seen the beginning of the recruitment of lay people. By 1989 Christine Stewart, John Walsh and Cecily Reading, Hiroko Horiuchi, Steve Patterson, Charie Abad and Malcolm Ramsay had been recruited for the border. Look Nut, Phonphan Phoktavee (Jub) and Panlop Muankeere (Tan) had also worked there under JRS auspices. Christine Stewart later worked with the COERR team at Sok Sann. Franz Stephen Bauer was preparing to work at Bataan. Dr. Dominica Garcia, who had worked in Cambodia until 19785, and subsequently with Lao, Vietnamese and Khmer refugees, joined a JRS programme at the Suan Phlu transit and detention centre in Bangkok. She was accompanied there by Yolaine Leduc. At the prison they were able to work both with people coming directly from Vietnam and with the "illegal immigrants'.

Finally, the Office grew rapidly over this period. The earliest members of the staff were Porphjan Jutisiriwatana (Tiew) and Ratana Kulsiripatana (Lek). Two who had a long association with Xavier Hall before joining the office, completed her work in 1989. Lek, who had previously worked with COERR at Phanat Nikhom, went a year earlier to study in the United States to prepare herself for a deeper commitment to refugees. Later, Dhananuch Prem-On (Kob) became secretary and Kitikorn Jotisakabratana (Ou) joined the Office administration team. Therese Caouete looked after emergency projects and particularly the Burma desk. Rossi von der Borch became information officer while Siriphen Limirikul (Ah) was a liaison person for projects in Thailand. Vilaiwan Phoktavi (Kep), sister both of Vichai (the student chaplain at Xavier Hall) and of Jub, took responsibility for the management of the office and for financial administration. Also associated with the office was Tan, who later went to the Border and was replaced by Theerawatana Rajanaetra (Tee).

Finally, many refugees contributed to the service of other refugees by their work with the office. Isabel and Joao from East Timor, Hossein, Seelan, Krishna and Mehdy from Iran, Geetha and Nala from Sri Lanka, and Wa Wa and Moei Moei form Burma are among these.

This then is a list people and places. While bald, it perhaps gives some idea of the growth of JRS over the period. But to understand the development of these years, we need to look more analytically at the programmes which were begun at this time and at their implications. I shall do this, beginning with the expansion of JRS in Asia.

During this period JRS expansion has had many facets. I would like to look first at the development of programmes in the camps, and then ask why JRS has developed these particular programmes. For we might expect to see the goals and ideals of any organisation expressed in the way it chooses and continues its commitments.

In some areas there has been little or no expansion. In Indonesia, where Vincent Soegondo and Adrian Padmaseputra succeeded Francis Wiyono, one or two Jesuits have served as pastoral workers. In Hong Kong, Louis Robert has also continued to minister in an increasingly demanding pastoral work. But in 1986 JRS became associated with a team of Vietnamese social workers in the closed centres. Sr. Christine Troung My Hanh was the first to work in this programmes.

In Philippines, Diane Schrader has replaced Lizzie Finnerty as midwife at Palawan. In the Philippines also, there have been many people placed at Bataan, particularly in counseling programmes. Many who have been placed there have, like Vincent Dierkx, worked in other, camps before and after their placement.

In Malaysia, JRS took responsibility after 1984 for unaccompanied minors, for the primary and secondary schools, and for a programmes directed to single young men. Workers also helped with pastoral care in the camp and with the training of teachers in an English language school. They work in collaboration with the Malaysian Red Crescent Society. The programme expanded later to include teacher training and counseling of traumatised refugees. The commitment to Malaysia and Philippines expanded in 1989 as the number of refugees in the camps increased.

Within Thailand, JRS workers have regularly worked at Phanat Nikhom with COERR in the English teaching school and the French school. In more recent years JRS personnel have also made a substantial commitment to the house for unaccompanied minors.

The greatest concentration of JRS personnel has continued to be at Site 2 within COERR programmes. These have grown markedly. In the early years COERR had responsibility for medical and health care services. Pierre Ceyrac and John Bingham gave financial support to the camp administration in Ampil camp to provide schools and other facilities which could not be funded through UNBRO. Particular assistance was given to Village Four, the poorest section of the camp, later to go to San Ro. They also taught some classes.

These programmes soon developed in two areas: social services which were centred around the Khmer Woman's Association under Nancy Gorman, and Education.

The growth of these programmes was rapid. Tom Williams helped establish the technical school for disabled. The education programmes flourished. Its development owed much to Virginia Hasson. She introduced a graduated programme of English teaching administered by the Khmer. With Ron Anton she extended the curriculum available, to include courses in management, psychology, mathematics and geography. Programmes in management and psychology were introduced for leaders in the camps, and later, despite the difficulties of a divided camp, an institute for training teachers was begun. In addition, a variety of courses in the French and English languages were introduced. These programmes were operated under the auspices of COERR.

Social work programmes also expanded. The work for needy families was extended by Sr. Marie Ath, a native born Cambodian, who worked at a very simple level, loaning money for small projects and establishing structures of accountability. In addition, programmes to support orphans and to combat the effects of alcoholism and depression were introduced. These recognised the evils inherent in prolonged exposure to camp life.

By the end of 1989, a significant change in the attitude to ministry to the Khmer people was reflected in the JRS commitment. In responses to the issues which I have mentioned previously, and as a result of processes which I shall discuss in the next section, it was widely accepted that the future of the commitment in Site 2 could be justified only as part of a commitment to the whole Cambodian people which was clearly concerned with reconciliation. There should be no support for one of the factions in the civil war. Visits to Cambodia by Denise Coghlam, Noel Oliver and Kike Figueredo prepared the way for a JRS commitment to work with the disabled inside Cambodia, which in turn might one day allow a role in facilitating the acceptance of returning refugees in the country. All the same time, Bob Maat, Joan Healy and others encouraged groups both of refugees and of volunteers to reflect on issues of human rights, and to examine what is involved in reconciliation.

At Ban Vinai, the educational work begun by Ed Brady was continued by Bill Yeomens. John Blanchard has been involved in programmes of social work. Other recent developments within Thailand have included work at Suan Phlu detention centre, and case work for resettlement.

Finally, JRS workers have consistently been concerned for the pastoral and spiritual care both of refugees and of volunteer workers. The regular Masses at Phanat Nikhom, Khao I Dang and in Nong Chan and Nong Samet camps as well as the daily and weekly Eucharist for the volunteers have engaged JRS workers. Included within the pastoral care of refugees has also been facilitating their communication with the outside world by passing on the letters and by meeting the small request which link them with the outside world. The ministry of friendship has often a very practical face.

Any account of the development of programmes should include movements of JRS workers. Bob Maat originally combined responsibility for the ARC TB clinic with the position of security officer for Nong Samet, and later for Site 2. In 1988 he was appointed Protection Officer by UNBRO. He resigned from that position on the grounds that the position itself masked the lawless and oppressive reality of camp life, and that no protection could be offered refugees. Similarly, Trish Franklin moved from Ban That, the Vietnamese section of Site 2, to join the groups of Vietnamese refugees when they were transferred to Phanat Nikhom.

These are the most visible signs of JRS expansion. But other aspects of JRS work, while less obvious, are no less important. JRS Asia/Pasific has supported the work with refugees by its sister organisation in Sri Lanka. These links with Sri Lanka and India have been informal, but helpful. Elsewhere, a small commitment to Afghanistani refugees in Pakistan was undertaken by Irie Duane and [Lizzie Finnerty] at the end of 1989. Moreover, visits to Cambodia and Vietnam by Kikr Figaredo, Noel Oliver, Gildo Dominici, Denise Coghlan, Louis Robert and Trish Franklin monitored the possibility of working inside these countries to prepare the way for the eventual return of the refugees.

Although the commitment of people and even of resources has been small, perhaps the most significant venture of JRS has been its response to the situation in Burma. Therese Caouete has carried through this initiative.

JRS first acted to ensure that agencies had adequate information about the situation in Burma from August 1988. A consortium of agencies had been working previously with Karen refugees from Burma living in Thailand.

As students began to flee in large numbers, these agencies came together to monitor their needs and to prepare to assist them as necessary. They began to negotiate a common policy and to look to funding. At the same time they came into contact both with students and with other groups from Burma. In this the tradition of hospitality developed at the JRS Office was of critical importance, for Burmese students found there a place where they were welcome.

Because many groups of different political convictions represented the students, the agencies had to choose from them partners with whom to speak. They decided to support the groups representing the majority of students, groups whose goals happened to include non-violent resistance.

By the end of 1989, the Burma Coordinating Group, of which JRS was a member and [to which it] contributed funds, supplied some half of the essential needs of the students near the border with Thailand. The members discussed with the student group the aid which was required and the programmes to which it should be given for the next six months. Thus, both funding and the issues involved in it are discussed regularly by students and agencies together.

In this work JRS has been a partner. It has worked principally by bringing people together and by disseminating information. The work has led to further questions; whether and how to offer support within Burma, how to care for asylum seekers in Thailand, and how to relate to the refugees among the minority groups. Each of these questions raises issues which have been discussed as they have arisen.

This outline of the development of JRS programmes says little of the reasons why these programmes rather than others were begun and funded. The question ins important, because JRS claims a particular spirit in its work and was founded for particular purposes. One way to test the claim that these purposes and this spirit are actually influential in JRS work is to ask whether they determine the choice of ministries. Do the works which JRS adopts and relinquishes differ from those taken on by other agencies ? Ang where the works chosen are similar to those accepted by other agencies, are the JRS programmes run differently ?

While these questions are complex, they must be raised, since commitments already taken on are the constraints which will govern the future development of JRS. To accept uncritically that what JRS has done has been undertaken for the best of reasons and is being done with the best of orintations, is to risk ossifying the service. I would like to suggest there factors which have influenced the choice of works by JRS and the way in which they have been carried through.

When we look at the range of JRS programmes, we cannot but be struck by the continuity between what was first done and what has developed later. In the Cambodian border camps, for example, the complex and richly endowed programmes of 1989 have emerged out of the simple commitments made in Ampil eight years previously to support the camp administrations in social work and in education. The services offered the refugees have grown organically, and have pursued the same aims of cooperating with the Khmer administration and of encouraging self reliance.

The continuity at the Border is echoed also in other fields. At Pulau Bidong, for example, work with unaccompanied minors, with youth and in education grew out of the short term commitments chosen for Ian Cribb and Renato Zecchin.

It is clearly true that the initial choice of works have influenced the development of JRS programmes. But it does not give a complete explanation. For it does not explain why the first workers chose or were directed to work as they did, and it does not explain the ways in which the programmes have changed. We need to identify a second factor: the particular gifts which individual workers brought to refugees, and the way in which those gifts were sought out and recognised by the regional director.

The shape of early commitments reflects the gifts and resources which workers brought to refugees. Thus, at the Cambodian border the Jesuits had acces to funds which could be used to aid refugees directly. In Pulau Bidong the Jesuits first involved had experience in youth work and in education. Their work in the camp reflected their experience and aptitude. Indeed, educational experience was common to most Jesuits and to the religious who worked with JRS. So was religious commitment. Pastoral work flowed naturally out of the nature of their calling to refugees.

In most cases, however, gift was matched to need. In the Border camps UNBRO made no provision for education beyond primary level. The human dignity of refugees, and particularly the needs of young people in the camps, made education a high priority, and one which often could not be met by other agencies. It would also enable the people in the camps to participate more fully in the decisions which shaped their lives, and to preserve their own culture. It was a deep human need, which to meet required the faithful human presence commended by JRS, and hence the regional director both sought tasks adapted to the volunteer's gift and sought volunteers with aptitude for the tasks.

This matching of gift to need was also characteristic of other programmes. In them workers looked to longer term needs which were not met adequately by other agencies. They also looked to foster the self-reliance of refugees in their programmes and their ways of working. It was always a matter of argument how far particular programmes in fact respected these criteria, but they were certainly consciously intended. To the outsider, at least, it appears that the process by which priorities were chosen was at first more intuitive, but later, as in the case of work with the Burmese, became more explicit.

While the gifts of workers and the needs of refugees have influenced the choice of work for refugees, their development has been affected also by reflection and evaluation. The initial preference for a personal, understanding and face presence to refugees has remained, but it has been matched by the desire to work as effectively as possible for the refugees. As programmes were better endowed financially, they often aimed at becoming more professional. They were evaluated by the standards of the profession or discipline, which became also an important criterion in recruitment.

In conclusion, many factors have shaped the choice and styles of JRS work. The ideals enunciated early on have been important. They led people to seek to make a contribution which other agencies could not make. They inspired an ideal of personal and pastoral presence. They emphasised reflection on the lives of refugees, and led workers to look to the deepest and sometimes more hidden aspects of human dignity. All these ideals challenged the pragmatism and attention to more immediate needs which can control work with refugees.

But the goals of JRS have not led to a choice of a different range of works than those of other agencies. Nor is there for the most part any discernible difference in the ways in which programmes have grown or been structured. Like other agencies, JRS has initiated programmes to meet needs which others could not meet. Furthermore, professional standards and evaluation have helped shape the development and revision of programmes. And as in other programmes, the concentration on educational and pastoral services reflect the gifts and network upon which JRS drwas most naturally. Finally, the ideal of understanding the causes of refugee situation and the goal of preventing them - the political and analytical elements of refugee work - appear to have had only a marginal influence in the choice and ordering of programmes. They have, however, influenced other aspects of JRS to which I shall turn later.

Expansion of programmes demands increased funding. It will be helpful, then, to turn briefly from work with refugees in th field to consider how JRS is supported financially, and how it arranges partners and funds for its programmes.

From the beginning JRS has sought not to rely heavily on any one source of funds. About one third of its budget is met by the CISDE group of agencies. The partnership of JRS with the CISDE agencies was formalised and extended in 1986, after three years of generous support by some of the member agencies of CISDE, notably Cafod, Trocaire and CCFD. These funds are given to meet the projected yearly programme, but are not tied to particular projects within the budget.

Another third of the budget is met by general donations which are again not tied to particular projects. These donations come from many sources. Finally, about one third of the income comes from grants given for particular programmes, such as the Suan Phlu prioson, the support of the work in Malaysia, the Khmer - Chinese programmes at the Border, the Technical school or Burma. In 1989 the total budget will amount to nearly $500,000.

Expenditure is divided between administration and projects. The costs of administration have risen fairly sharply from $54,000 in 1986 to $83,000 in 1987, and to $126,000 in 1989. This reflects the growth of the Office. Expenditure on administration remains, however, only about 25% of the total budget, a remarkably low proportion.

Apart from projects like the annual meeting, the remainder of the funds supports projects directly concerned with refugees. The budget includes provision for emergency projects. Thus, unexpected needs can be met. Provision for emergencies has been raised from $24,000 in 1986 to an estimated $150,000 in 1989. The great increase reflects the demands of the Burma project and also perhaps the greater desire of JRS to anticipate needs.

The JRS budget has increased massively since the Office was moved to Bangkok. The increase reflects the development of the office as more demands are made of it and the extension of JRS projects. The diverse sources of funds extend the public involved through JRS with refugees, and give some assurance that projects can continue even if particular funding bodies withdraw their support due to financial hardship or changed policies.

The network of friendship and working relationships between the agencies which guarantee much of the financial support for JRS also underlines the way programmes are taken on and serviced. Projects usually follow a long series of discussions and shared exploration with other agencies. In some cases JRS arranges funding for projects administered by others, while in others JRS commits workers and other agencies assume the burden of financial support. The network provides flexibility both in work and in funding.

While the commitments of JRS have grown over this period, the relationships which are its strength have also become richer and more complex. So they have also often come to be defined in more formal ways.

I have already drawn attention to the importance of the short term work with refugees by scholastics and by other Jesuits. They have later brought to their own provinces a strong commitment to refugees, and have strengthened the Jesuit network. Such placements, however, cannot be justified exclusively by the good of the Society or even by the long term good of refugees. They need to benefit the refugees whom the Jesuits meet. The need also to help the scholastics or brothers in their growth as Jesuits and as priests.

To reflect on these issues guidelines for regency were drawn up in 1986. They clarified the relative roles of the scholastic's own provincial, of the superior of the region where he works, and of the JRS regional director for the placement and care of the young Jesuits. They set out some of the qualities which should be brought to the work, and also the quality of community life which might be expected.

Both refugees and JRS have also benefited greatly from the establishment of the Mercy Refugee Service (MRS). An instrument of the Australian Sisters of Mercy [Institute Sisters Mercy of Australia (ISMA)], its significance surpasses its local origins, and its development has challenged JRS.

The origins of MRS lie also in the world wide concern for refugees after 1979. When individual sisters sought to work with refugees, they could look to JRS as a resource.

The establishment of MRS followed Patricia PAk Poy's return from the JRS meeting in 1984. Mary Densley was then appointed national MRS coordinator. She is assisted by an advisory council [committee] which has included a representative of the National Executive of the Mercy Sisters and the Australian coordinator of JRS. The task of MRS is to encourage commitment to refugees among various congregations of the Sisters of Mercy in Australia.

Apart from work done within Australia, MRS has placed some 12 sisters and lay people overseas. Initially it was dependent on its relationship with JRS for preparing, placing and evaluating volunteers. But the partnership has gradually become one of greater equality and partnership. In the projected joint venture in Pakistan the Mercy Sisters will take the initiating role.

The development of the MRS illuminates that of JRS in three respects. in the first place, the structures of the Mercy Sisters in Australia mirror those of the worldwide Society of Jesus. For the Sisters of Mercy form a federation of congregations each of which was originally based in a single diocese. They now form an institute in which local congregations collaborate while keeping a measure of autonomy. For all the differences in juridical structure, they face the same challenges as does the universal Society of Jesus with respect to its provinces. The appointment of workers, the encouragement and coordination of wokrs need to be done cooperatively. To JRS, the success of MRS provides both reassurance and a model for future development.

Secondly, MRS relies on a network of the Sisters of Mercy which is quite different in character from the Jesuit network. For because the Sisters of Mercy originated in local congregations, the sisters work instinctively and naturally from a strong local base. They are integrated into the local communities of town or suburb. As a result they create and draw upon a natural community in their work.

The networks and publics of the Mercy Sisters are much more tightly knit and based in natural communities than is typically the case with Jesuits. For the Jesuit way of working has traditionally been to transcend local boundaries. Journeys are the natural Jesuit spiritual home.

Consequently, the Sisters of Mercy have been able to involve their local communities and their public in work with and for refugees in a strong way. But because the local networks play a less important part in Jesuits work, they do not bring to their work with refugees a strong local network. The success of MRS defines precisely and renews Fr. Arrupe's challenge to animate the Jesuit network and publics.

Thirdly, MRS has faced the challenge of cooperating closely with JRS while maintaining its own identity. Cooperation with JRS and with other religious congregations offers great advantages, but it also poses a potential threat to one's identity. This challenge is faced by any group which is involved in JRS.

MRS has met it by developing a tradition of hospitality - by inviting all those who wish, to use resources and to attend its biennial meetings, while insisting on the importance of the Mercy traditions and network.

In this respect MRS perhaps faces a further challenge. The question of identity has shown how important it is to express the values found in presence to and representation of refugees in terms of the Mercy tradition. In the light of male occupancy of the places of articulation in the everyday life of the church, and of the renowned articulacy of Jesuits, this task may need to be undertaken more systematically in future. Otherwise, the language of refugee spirituality may be derived narrowly from Jesuit experience.

The appointment of volunteers recruited and placed through JRS Asia Pacific followed much reflection about who should be recruited, and how they should be placed and supported. In the selection and placement of volunteers, JRS tried to cooperate with other agencies with facilities for evaluation, insurance and other forms of support. Volunteers were placed with church and other agencies in different camps. In this way people with skills could be recruited to fill particular positions, while advantage was taken of the experience and organisation of other agencies.

Perhaps the most important effects of the experience recruitment of lay and religious volunteers have been intangible. They lie in the area of 'living together'. The comparison between the first JRS meeting in 1983 and the latest in 1989 show the extent of the change. Whereas at the first meeting only two participants out of 18 were not Jesuits, in 1989 the proportion had grown to some 43 out of 90 who took part.

These number themselves are impressive evidence of change. But the effects on patterns of life within JRS have also been great. For the JRS community in the camps can [no] longer described simply as a community of Jesuits who have pastoral care for other volunteers. The community is composed of all the JRS workers who live there. Jesuits themselves find support for their own religious life from other JRS workers in what is becoming a fully collaborative form of religious life.

This development is reflected also in the ways of praying together. JRS workers together take responsibility for the prayer life of the community, and have pressed for discernment within the common work. Moreover, while in earlier years, workers often asked at meetings for support from outside in their spiritual life, more recently people have taken responsibility to one another. The visit of Patrick O'Sullivan, in his role as a spiritual guide, to work with communities of workers in Thailand was significant in encouraging workers to strengthen one another in faith.

So JRS has grown as a community in which non-Jesuits and Jesuits can work together, encourage one another, and express the faith which motivates them. The extent to which this happens depends on personalities and on background. The growth has been easier in the field than in the office, where relationships more clearly have the added dimension of that between employer and employee. But here too the challenge has been accepted. A measure of success is the rarity with which one now hears people ask who precisely are members of JRS. This may indicate that for all the daily abrasions and challenges, the distinction between JRS as Jesuit network and as a network of relationships in the field as well appreciated.

As JRS projects have expanded, the relationships in JRS have grown more complex, and more people have become involved in the Service, the identity of JRS has inevitably been subject to question. Vision statements and mission statements witness to interest in the question.

At the first JRS meeting the participants drew up an appeal for assistance and support by their Jesuit brothers. It was followed by other articles on JRS in Jesuit publications. In 1985, the JRS coordinators drew up a document which described the life of refugees, the gift friendship with them could be for the church, and the justice of which they were victims. This mission statement gave a challenging and comprehensive view of JRS. Subsequently, vision statements have yielded to reflection on more narrowly defined issues. But early in 1990 Fr. Kolvenbach wrote a letter to all Provincials renewing the mandate of JRS, and defining its role in the light of the changed circumstances since Fr. Arrupe's letter of establishment.

But while there have been no new definitions what of JRS is about, in the annual meetings new associates can be introduced to its spirit. There, too, discussions of experience, of ways of working and of possible new directions all implicitly grapple with the identity of JRS.

Because the review of programmes and ways of working have been the vehicle for broader reflection on the mission of JRS, it has been important to find ways of carrying out these reviews systematically. There have been many such reviews.

Many of the most effective instruments of review have been informal. Virginia Hasson, who had worked in educational administration at Gwynedd College, drew on her experience at the Cambodian border to write a doctoral dissertation on educational programmes for refugees. She also introduced new courses in the curriculum of the border camps, and gave new shape and coherence to the educational work there. She introduced clear patterns of participation and accountability both for the Khmer and for foreign workers.

Other instruments of review were devised by short term workers with special skills. In 1987, Antonio Allende and Filippo Grandi carried out surveys of the technical schools for the handicapped and the agricultural programmes respectively. At the end of 1988, Noel Oliver returned to Thailand to discuss and to make recommendations about general programmes of technical education in the camps. Both he and Kike Figaredo were involved in similar discussions within Cambodia.

1988 saw a more sustained and systematic review of all JRS operations. In their meeting of May, 1988 the advisory board planned a review which would examine the operative purposes of the programmes and also further develop a corporate spirit among workers. the occasion of the review was the approaching end of Mark Raper's term of office, [did we know that in May 88] and the consequent need to look to an easy transition to his successor. The need had been pointed out at the annual meeting of the previous year.

As part of the review, those working with JRS were asked to fill out questionnaires which formed the basis for later interviews, conducted in most cases by Tom Steinbugler and Quentin Dignam. As part of this process, Peter Hosking and Ah also studied the social services programmes at Ban Vinai, while Virginia Hasson reviewed the services offered by JRS in Malaysia.

The most significant review, however, may prove to be that conducted in late 1989 by the JRS team at the Cambodian Border with the help of Howard Gray. It was significant for two reasons: it weighed the JRS commitments there in the light of the political context, and it was conducted in the context of prayer and [of the] deep sharing of faith.

The discernment committed those who took part to pray regularly and to reflect on their prayer. They also met for several days over a three month period. They were asked whether JRS should continue to work at the border in the light of the support which their presence appeared to give to the forces which crushed Cambodians both in the camps and inside Cambodia. The process encouraged a more discerning presence at the Border and more public stands on abuses of human rights and the way in which refugees were used for political ends. It also allowed workers with very different moral and political perspectives to share the passions which moved them.

The instruments of review and discernment gradually replaced the large annual meetings as the focus for reflection on the directions of JRS. The annual meetings had become too large and cumbersome to discuss issues in depth. But they retained their importance as a place for workers to find joy in one another's company, to share experiences, to find a common spirit and purpose, and above all to arrive at a more whole and nuanced understanding of the life which refugees face throughout Asia.

The meetings grew rapidly in size. The 18 participants in 1983 had grown to 27in 1984, 40 in 1985, 46 in 1986, 53 in 1987, 70 73 in 1988, and to 90 in 1989. The increase in size eventually made it necessary to pass up the hospitable welcome of Sig LAschenski and the Xavier Hall community, and to meet at Hua Hin or Chachoengsao. The meetings also depended contacts between JRS and its various publics.

As JRS grew in size and complexity, it became important to establish more regular forms of review. So an advisory council was established, comprising Mark Raper, Ando Isamu, Alfonso de Juan, Louis Robert, Bob Maat and Pierre Ceyrac. Later Tom Steinbugler and Quentin Dignam joined the board. The members represented different fields of JRS work and a broad range of experience. The fact that all were Jesuits points to the significance at this time of the Jesuit network. But it is likely that the composition of the advisory council will come in time to represent also the character and importance of the field network.

When the Office was moved to Bangkok it took up its present home in the compound in Soi Luecha, although it has since moved, expanded and contracted there.

From the beginning, the Office has been a house of hospitality. Visitors have been met at the airport at all hours of days and night. Both visitors and workers from the camps have been welcome in the guesthouse which was established in 1986. The structure of the office itself has encouraged people to drop in, drink coffee, look at photographs and meet old and new friends at lunch. Hospitality of this order has inevitably cost the office staff a great deal and can affect other aspects of their work. But through all the changes designed to improve the efficiency of the office, the emphasis upon hospitality has remained central.

If the price paid for hospitality is evident, the advantages have been intangible but great. As the office has become known for the welcome given visitors, the JRS network has been greatly extended. But at a deeper level, hospitality expresses the faith which animates the JRS commitment to refugees. This is stated simply but strongly in the Eucharist regularly celebrated in the office. The celebration recalls the life of the refugees, particularly when such events as Look Nut's death or Bill Yeomen's illness have lain heavy in people's minds and hearts.

The care for Bill, and more recently for Yee Yee, during their illnesses has given a simple human focus to the life and death issues which the office is about. This focus has also been maintained by the refugees who work in the office. JRS work is clearly with and not simply for refugees, and the faces of refugees working in the office prevent their cause ever being seen as an abstraction, or commitment to it as a kindness.

The most significant changes in the office, reflected in the large increase in the administration budget, followed the review of 1987 [1987 or 88]. The immediate occasion both of the review and of the changes was the realisation that Mark Raper's term of office was due to end at the end of 1988. The office therefore had to be shaped in such a way that would facilitate the succession. The review proposed that Mark should stay for three more years but should prepare the way for his successor. This decision was overtaken by his appointment to Rome in late 1989. But the review of the office had already been implemented by this time.

The review pointed to the need to move from a personal and charismatic style of office management to one which was more institutional and formalised. There are perhaps two structural reasons why a personal style of management had been developed, and why it is difficult to adopt another style.

In the first place, because JRS is a network the contacts and friendships which directors develops are central. Their memory and experience are of crucial importance. It is likely then that the office will become the extension of their personality. To move towards a more institutional form of office will require deliberate planning.

Secondly, the peculiarly understanding of authority has perhaps influenced the development of the JRS office. The structures of authority in the Society are hierarchical, so that in theory important decisions are taken centrally. In practice, the taking of decisions is decentralised, particularly among the Jesuits obstinate enough to find themselves working with refugees, but the hierarchical structure does mean that administration is always personalised. The office is represented by the person of the director. While functions can be developed, responsibility is less easily handed on. It is therefore also less readily assumed when it is delegated.

New arrangements for the Office had to come to terms with these factors. But the increasing demands made of the Office necessarily demanded a division of functions. So, in the expansion of the Office, tasks were assigned to different desks. The disposition of space in the office emphasised both the division of function and the call to hospitality.

When the office was restructured, Rossi von der Borch was appointed information officer. The appointment furthered capacity of JRS to publicise the cause of refugees. It also extended communication with workers in the field. In 1985 a news sheet directed to JRS workers which contained news and reports of interest had already been introduced. It was called News from the field. Rossi introduced another news sheet for JRS workers, Light and Dark. It contained personal communications about work and the condition of refugees in the different camps.

JRS had also commissioned other research. The largest project was undertaken by Asian Bureau Australia. It resulted in the publication of the survey of a situation of refugees throughout Asia. The book, Stalemate, Refugees in Asia, was written by David Feith, and followed visits to the major refugee camps. There were many other smaller projects - articles, interviews etc. The small theological wing of JRS, too, gave some assistance to the Holy See to prepare a document on refugees, an enterprise encouraged and promoted by Archbishop Martino. Unfortunately, when a long interval of time separates the initiation of such projects and their final completion, changed situations can render the original emphases irrelevant or even unhelpful.

Considering its small budget the office has worked most effectively and fruitfully. As more demands are made on it, and more desks are established to gather, coordinate and distribute information, it will have a more important role. Its growth has been for the good of refugees, but it also raises questions in the longer term. Greater power, resources and solidity can easily lead to a pragmatic approach to refugees in which the emphases of Christian faith are lost. All work with the poor people faces this dilemma. It has not been posed urgently to JRS, but in time the hard questions now asked about programmes to refugees may well be asked of the office.

The same issues continued to focus discussion over this period. They were raised at each JRS meeting, as they were in casual meetings between volunteers. By the end of this period, however, they had become more urgent as world attitudes to refugees hardened.

The first issue concerned the political context within which work with refugees is carried out. All programmes for refugees served interests other than the good of the refugees. Although difficult, it was necessary to identify these interests, and to situate JRS work within them.

In the case of Cambodian refugees, the issues had been focused sharply by the failure of the peace talks between the different factions. It then became inescapably clear that aid going to the resistance camps aided the military factions in their war against the government of Cambodia. Their part in the civil war was supported by the desire of other nations to punish Vietnam and Cambodia, 'its client state'. The civil war was intensified by the United States recognition of the resistance forces as the legitimate government of Cambodia. The consequence was that the refugees could neither go freely into Thailand or freely return home to Cambodia. The consequences of their prolonged and forced stay in the camp were by then well documented. Domestic violence, depression, family breakdown were just a few.

In that context the work of the agencies, which supported a camp with medical and educational services of a higher quality than could be secured in Cambodia, seemed to have a definite political bias. Those who argued that the resistance cause was a just cause found no problem with this. But for others, alliance with the resistance which had caused so much suffering to the refugees in the camps, raised acute questions. They called for a concreted response by JRS: to follow the lead of other major agencies which had denounced the way in which the refugees were manipulated by political interests.

Issues concerning the future of Vietnamese refugees had also become urgent at the end of 1989. The Vietnamese government, which had the reputation for being corrupt and discriminatory in its administration of policy, faced great difficulties even in maintaining s subsistence - level economy. The return and demobilisation of many soldiers from Cambodia at the end of 1988 had exacerbated the economic problems. Many people had left Vietnam, including the North, by boat and land, so putting countries of first asylum under pressure.

Resettlement, which had hitherto been seen as the only answer to the problem, no longer appeared feasible for fewer refugees found a welcome each year. But the United States had consistently blocked aid, trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam, so that it was difficult to conceive the change in economic conditions in Vietnam which might discourage asylum seekers from leaving. In this case, too, the fate of refugees was intertwined with political considerations which JRS could hardly avoid entering. But to abandon a simple and principled opposition to compulsory repatriation would make it difficult to work with Vietnamese immigrants in countries of resettlement.

The political context was important because it led to so many abuses of refugees human dignity. The anguish of seeing these and the realisation that they were bound to political interests led to frequent discussion about the proper ways of handling them. The issues became more demanding and urgent as the period drew to a close. Both the cost of taking a stand and the need for information became apparent.

So JRS moved to gather and disseminate information about the abused rights of refugees. The movement towards a stronger stand upon human rights was accompanied by the desire to seek more information and to disseminate it as well as by the impetus to develop an ethical voice to contribute to the largely pragmatic discussions which were conducted about the future of refugees. In the apparent moral vacuum within which the future of refugees was being discussed, the intellectual traditions out of which JRS came promised to make an argued ethical vision possible and invaluable.

A further issue which arose naturally from discussion of human rights and the political context had to do with the way in which JRS should work. It would be preferable to identify problems and to monitor them before they become crises. It would then be possible to reclect before moving to meet the crisis.

This emphasis demanded the leisure and resources to gather information and to monitor situations. It would require a larger office. It would also redefine to some extent the priorities of JRS and its public image. From being concerned primarily with emergency relief, JRS would take on some of the qualities of a development agency.

The review of JRS had also illustrated the difficulties and necessity of collaboration with others. The JRS network did not simply involve Jesuits and their relationships with other individuals, but also the relationships with corporate bodies. To discern about withdrawal from the Border, for example, must eventually involve reflection with all the COERR team members. For Jesuits or JRS personnel to withdraw without full discussion and deliberation with the members of the agencies to which they were committed would be unconscionable.

Discussion about the proper ways in which JRS should work focused also on presence to and work with refugees. To make prophetic gestures by leaving refugees could be justified only if it were clearly for their eventual good. It could only be done in the name of love. The love which could leave people for their own good is rare, but sometimes demanded.

Discussion of the stand to be taken on issues of human rights inevitably opened to scrutiny the relationship between JRS and those who worked with it. Any statement made by JRS on controversial issues would be effective, it seemed, only if it represented and bound all JRS workers. Where workers dissociated themselves from positions taken bay the group, they would weaken their force greatly. On the other hand, JRS had its origins in the initiative of individual Jesuits, and its strength was to incorporate into its network people of very different views and temperament. The call increasingly recognised to adopt a corporate voice on behalf of refugees demanded a strong commitment to pray, share experience and to reflect together at a deep level.

The JRS commitment to Burma was of particular interest because it effectively took positions on all these issues. The shape of the commitment had been adopted partly in reaction to the way agencies worked at the Cambodian border. JRS tried here to monitor situations early and not merely to react to them. Funding was small and came only after serious reflection both among the agencies and with the beneficiaries. Thus, the massive commitment of money and of relief personnel was avoided. The response to the need in Burma was small, and was based on an active and well informed network of agencies which constantly monitored the situation in cooperation with the students themselves. As a result the low pressure system associated with massive aid programmes, where life is disrupted as people are attracted to the source of aid, was avoided.

This approach, however, constantly raised difficult questions which needed to be discussed as policy was being formed. The political implications of ecah question were large. The initial step of coordinating agencies and of gathering information was comparatively straightforward. It was essential only that the information be reliable.

The further processes of consultation and of funding, however, are more complex. It is important to consult the students and to allow them to decide the allocation of resources. To do this, however, involves choosing groups with whom to negotiate, and also constant decisions about which of the students aims are [incompatible] with the donors philosophy and which are not. The virtue of the work with the Burmese students has been that these decisions have been made in consultation with the students and have been made before aid is given. Finally, the operation has aimed to meet only a small part of the students needs, and the funding is reviewed and renewed each six months.

In this work, JRS also had to choose ways of working. To give money or to send workers would be easy. But at the Cambodian border that has tended to weaken the responsibility and autonomy of the refugees, and in the long run has probably left them less protected. In work with Burmese, to choose ways of working has meant looking at the different groups of people in need, and asking how the responsibility of the international community to them can best be discharged.

Of the groups, the 20,000 Karen in camps within Thailand receive little aid, but perhaps for that reason are self-reliant. But it is important to monitor their situation and to look to their future return to Burma. The students inside the Burmese Border have received aid in the ways I have spoken of. Many groups within Burma are also in great need. But any support for them must guarantee their security, and also be given in ways that avoid the crippling taxes imposed by an artificial exchange rate. Finally, the many asylum seekers within Thailand need access to education and protection. While programmes could be begun to help them, this would absolve UNHCR of the its primary responsibility. So, support for them must encourage UNHCR to honour its responsibility.

The challenge of Burma has been to see the situation as a whole. Policy choices have been recognised and faced. Some groups have been supported, others not. Support has involved looking seriously at the context of peoples lives, not merely those of the students but also of the ethnic minorities who have suffered equally. It has also involved weighing the likely consequences of any action taken, both those intended and those unintended. And it has involved finally studying the political context which will shape the future of all Burmese.

In all refugee work the call to meet immediate needs stands in tension with the need to weigh consequences. JRS work in Burma has commended the virtues of consultation, observation, preparation and parsimony within any initiative.

The meeting at Chachoengsao in November 1989 perhaps pointed to the future directions of JRS. The meeting welcomed Tom Steinbugler and fare welled Mark Raper and Dieter Scholz. Like so many other meetings, it was shadowed by sickness. Yee Yee, a young Burmese student, lay at the guesthouse in her last illness, cared for by her fellow Burmese students and the office workers.

At the meeting Dieter spoke somberly of the crisis facing UNHCR. The crisis indicated that the order which had shaped the fate of refugees since the war was breaking down. But nothing had replaced it. UNHCR had been denied sufficient funds adequately to continue their programmes into 1990. So while the numbers of refugees increased, they received less support.

The pressure on UNHCR had many causes. It reflected the antipathy of influential governments to United Nations bodies, which they regarded as ideologically partisan or as overstaffed and self-serving. Furthermore the mandate of the UNHCR to protect refugees inevitably brought it into conflict with governments, whose sensitivity to criticism made them more reluctant to open their pockets to their critics. It also reflected the fear of asylum seekers in the developed nations, and the widespread antipathy to them. Finally, it was perhaps part of a growing desire to limit the role of government, and to transfer the burden of caring for those in need to the churches and philanthropic organisations.

The crisis in funding was symptomatic of a wider crisis for refugees in the region. The hope of Vietnamese asylum seekers to find resettlement now appeared utopian. Most would face screening and involuntary repatriation. If they continued to leave Vietnam in great numbers, many would certainly die after being refused even temporary asylum.

The future of the Khmer at the border appeared equally bleak. The civil war in Cambodia put at risk their families inside the country. They were prevented from returning by the leaders in the camp, while the guerilla war would both drive others to the border and endanger their own security.

The crisis of the refugees was also a crisis for those who worked with them. For they were forced beyond their natural identification with the hopes of the refugees to ask how they should act now that those hopes seemed certainly illusory. To work with integrity in this situation asked of workers serious reflection on the political context of their work and on the way it shaped refugees future lives. It also demanded a serious ethical analysis of the situations and of the options which were canvassed within them. Otherwise, the solutions imposed upon refugees would consider only logistics and not the human dignity of the refugees themselves. the discernment at the [camp] had shown how demanding and potentially radical in its consequences this kind of reflection could be.

In the face of these demands, the meeting generally endorsed a more active political role and a more public defense of human rights. This role would find expression in statements of concern and protest, collaboration with other groups of workers in reflection and activity. Participants at the meeting differed, however, about the extent to which JRS should adopt a corporate position on these issues. Its effects on the work of all those associated with JRS needed also to be weighed carefully.

The desire to take a more active part in defending the interests of refugees entailed an equal commitment to collect and disseminate relevant information. So people asked that the office extend its operations to undertake this task. In this, the commitment to Burma provided a model for future work. Id these proposals are carried through, the shape of JRS could change, as it devotes greater resources to monitoring, analysing and reflecting on situations, and gives less resources to field programmes. It may also entail a more dispersed presence. The desire to place JRS workers in Cambodia and Vietnam, where they could be in a position to monitor resettlement was a sign of this.

At the meeting, the parlous position of refugees and the potential cost paid in publicly defending their human dignity became apparent. The cost was shown dramatically on the last day of the meeting, when news came that six Jesuits had been murdered in Salvador. This event overshadowed the day, which concluded with a Eucharist at which Jon Sobrino, a member of the community where the six Jesuits lived, joined the group. His presence and the death of his brothers brought home sharply the murderousness of the forces which produce refugee, and the potential dangers in representing their cause.

The Mass was followed by a party to farewell Mark and Dieter, and to celebrate companionship in service. That, more than anything else, marked the call of JRS both to name the darkness without curing it, and to light candles without naming them as more than candles. The meeting had said that to find life in the company and friendship of refugees is legitimate only if it leads us to mourn and denounce the conditions which make and keep them refugees. But denunciation and grief are life-giving only when we can celebrate and laugh together.