GRS 320
PRIORITY CYPHER/CAT A
M F C O 231725Z
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
TP PRIORITY RANGOON TELNO 74 OF 23 JULY
RUF
80
(92)
INFO PRIORITY TOKYO, ROUTINE HONG KONG, WASHINGTON, UKMIS GENEVA AND HANO1.
YOUR TELEGRAM NO 116: VIETNAMESE REFUGEES.
1.THANK YOU FOR SUGGESTION IN YOUR PARAGRAPH 4. BUT WE DO NOT REPEAT NOT THINK THAT AN INITIATIVE ON THESE LINES WOULD BE HELPFUL.
༩
2. WE WERE NOT IN FACT SURPRISED BY THE NEGATIVE BURMESE REACTION TO OUR APPROACH.(PARAGRAPH 1 OF MY TELNO 1561 TO WASHINGTON SHOULD
HAVE READ QUOTE NOT UNEXPECTED UNQUOTE. PLEASE CONFIRM IF THERE WAS AN ERROR IN TRANSMISSION). SEE ALSO FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 5 (3) OF MY TELNO 1543 TO WASHINGTON.
3. OUR OWN OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN, AND REMAINS, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NEITHER WE NOR HONG KONG HAS ANY FORMAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE UNFORTUNATE REFUGEES. WE HAVE NOT SUGGESTED TO THE BURMESE THAT
THEY HAVE ANY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY: BUT THE FACT THAT THEY.
ARE ON A BURMESE SHIP MEANS THAT THEY HAVE AN INESCAPABLE PRACTICAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROBLEM FOR THE TIME BEING. (AS THE NORWEGIANS HAVE TACITLY ADMITTED IN A SIMILAR CONTEXT:
(69) TOKYO TELNO 637, PARAGRAPH 2). IT APPEARS FROM PARA 1 OF HONG KONG 83 TELNO 735 THAT THE BURMESE MAY NOW HAVE DECIDED TO ACCEPT THIS.
(44)
WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE BURMESE THAT OUR APPROACH TO THEM WAS MOTIVATED BY HUMANITARIAN CONCERN FOR THE REFUGEES. 44) (MY TELNO 67). WE HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PUT THEM. INTO A LEGAL BOX AND CORTAZZI'S CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BURMESE AMBASSADOR WERE NO MORE THAN A REQUEST FROM ONE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT TO ANOTHER.
4. IF YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, YOU MAY EXPLAIN TO THE BURMESE THAT WHILE WE (LIKE THEM) DO NOT REGARD OURSELVES AS HAVING ANY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROBLEM, WE HAVE OUT OF HUMANITARIAN CONCERN FOR THE REFUGEES APPROACHED A NUMBER OF GOVERNMENTS ABOUT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, AND ARE IN TOUCH WITH THE UNHCR:
Id