CONFIDENTIAL
BRIEF NO 4:
PROCESSING CENTRES/TRANSIT CENTRES
POSSIBILITIES FOR RESETTLEMENT IN SOUTH EAST ASIA AND THE
SOUTH PACIFIC
ESSENTIAL FACTS
ISLAND PROCESSING CENTRES (SEE ALSO US PAPER (ii) )
History
1. The Malaysian Home Affairs Minister Ghazali Shafie suggested
at the 11 December 1978 UNHCR consultations the use of a Pacific
Island (eg. Guam) to hold refugees pending resettlement outside
the countries of first asylum. After inter-ASEAN consultations
ASEAN proposed the establishment of such a centre on an Indonesian
island on 21 February 1979, with a running capacity of 10,000
refugees. The proposal was further discussed at a 24 nation
meeting in Jakarta on 15-16 May, at which UNHCR agreed to conduct
a feasibility study, largely at Japanese expense, of a centre on
Galang Island, about 20 miles SSE of Singapore. The Philippines
offered a similar island (Tara) about 150 miles SSW of Manila in
the Palawans. At a meeting with ASEAN Foreign Ministers in Bali
on 29 June the Japanese Foreign Minister announced that Japan would
meet half the cost of the Galang centre (estimated at US$ 13 million)
Australia offered AS 0.25 million at the May meeting.
UK Problems
2. The ASEAN concept has serious defects. . It does not help the
final resettlement of refugees although it eases pressure at the
point of arrival, but lengthens the pipeline at UNHCR donors'
expense. In the ASEAN form it would not include refugees arriving
in Hong Kong, and would only be available to those with guaranteed
resettlement places. With a capacity of only 10,000 each they would
also have only a limited effect. At the May meeting our Delegation
said that we would be prepared to make a financial contribution if
"a modest number" of refugees from Hong Kong were eligible.
Large transit sites
3. UKMIS Geneva Telno 286 reports Mr Vance as having asked ASEAN
Foreign Ministers to provide islands with a capacity of 100,000
with the US arranging finance from Japan and South Korea for UNHCR,
setting them up directly and handing them over as a running concern.
Subsequent reports from Washington suggest that this misrepresents
CONFIDENTIAL
/the