governments to help reduce the burden on Hong Kong which is
our prime responsibility unless we have declared a sizeable
quota.
For us (as indeed for other maritime countries) the
problem is complicated because the international practice,
generally observed until recently, that people rescued from
distress at sea should be allowed to disembark at the ship's
next port of call, has largely lapsed (it never had the force
of law and cannot be enforced). We could not therefore count
on refugees picked up by British ships finding asylum elsewhere, nor would it seem preslicable to employ the
proposed conference as a forum to seek to reinstate the though we should try for this.) have to
previous practice, We shall therefore make allowances within any new British contribution for the probability that we shall
be obliged to accept refugees in unpredictable numbers and at
unpredictable intervals in the coming months.
The Lord Privy Seal has discussed with the Home Secretary
the total number of additional refugees whom Britain might
absorb. Whatever figure we arrive at will be a burden for
Britain. The most we could aim at would be 5,000 once a year,
ie half the UNHCR suggestion, and even that would have to
subsume new rescues at sea. We would have also to make it
clear that the bulk of our quota would come from Hong Kong.
There seem to be three main approaches: -
(a) To name a figure, possibly around 7,500 (which would be
presentationally attractive for Dr Waldheim) as a quota
immediately for the next 12 months, from which would be deducted the
unexpired portion of our present quota and the refugees
already accepted from the Sibonga, Roachbank and, if
applicable, Norse Viking This would yield an actual
figure of some 5,000 refugees.'
1
/(b)