CODE 18-77
Mr McQua
Mr Hoare
CONFIDENTIAL
THICK 243/1
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
1 0 JUN 1983
DESK OFFICER
cc:
Mr Segar, SEADNDEX Mr Williams, UND
PA
VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
1.
assistant.
REGISTRY
Action Taken
ATM
Reference
Miss
-Spoken
Plathave a look at our draft studs in the light of the tree
Them speake
•
it needs amendment.
THE 16
I discussed this question in Hong Kong on 24 May with Mr Jeaffreson, the Secretary for Security, and with Mr Mason, his
We reviewed possible action in the light of the relatively discouraging response to our initial approaches to our allies proposing an international initiative with the Vietnamese. Mr Jeaffreson described a meeting which they had recently had with Mr Symington, the UNHCR regional coordinator for South East Asia (based in Bangkok). Mr Symington, an Australian who takes a relatively forthright attitude towards Vietnamese refugees, gave his personal opinion that UNHCR might be prepared to speak to the Vietnamese on Hong Kong's difficulties, including even the question of repatriation. But it had to be stressed that Mr Symington was not speaking on behalf of Geneva.
2. After some discussion, we agreed that the best next move might be on the following lines:
(a) We discuss the whole Hong Kong situation with the UNHCR
and ask them to approach Hanoi, if possible broaching the idea of involuntary repatriation and how satisfactory guarantees for returning refugees might be obtained.
(b)
(c)
3.
If the UNHCR are not willing to act in this way, we should follow up our discussion with the allies and try to get as many as possible to raise the general question of Hong Kong's difficulties in Hanoi. Obviously there would be no question of involuntary repatriation being discussed then.
If that did not work, we should ask the UNCHR to raise the question with the American Government. The object of this would be to explain the difficulties arising from the American categorisation of most of the refugees in Hong Kong as economic migrants. UNHCR could say that in their view, whatever the original motives for people leaving Vietnam, they would now suffer unacceptable punishment if they were returned and must therefore be regarded as refugees in practice. Hong Kong could not accept them for resettlement. Would the Americans therefore adjust their categorisation and take more?
I said that we would need to submit to Ministers after the election. We would let Hong Kong know whether we did make proposals in this sense and how they fared.
4. I emphasised to Mr Jeaffreson the importance of Hong Kong ceasing to refer to involuntary repatriation still being under consideration. He said they would cease to do this. He was obviously unhappy about this but I think we should see the end of Hong Kong officials taking the initiative on this subject.
Bun
, R D Clift
31 May 1983
CONFIDENTIAL
Hong Kong Department