Mr. Nata?N.
CONFIDENTIAL
Amade
Mr Smith HKGLY
Enter (Repatriation) epa.
Reference........
2.1
submit
1 Clift many wish to discurs with My Bunno. I think the best thing may be for you
to
Wine off the existing chaft,
aking the Say my that SEAD
VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
1.
do not beleive
that we should doseurs
fxible repatration, but O.K.
an volumtim.
Thank you for showing me the draft papers on repatriation Bu for Lord Belstead's meeting on Thursday with the Governor. I attach copies with some amendments we should like to see included.
8/71
2. It may well be that given the present context of our relations with Hong Kong we need seriously to explore (or be seen to explore) the possibility of reclassifying boat-people and making arrangements to send some of them back to Hanoi. It is not necessarily impossible nor a breach of any of our international commitments. But since it was first mooted at the end of 1981 we have twice firmly advised Hong Kong (our tels 334 and 455 of last year) that we regard forcible repatria- HKK 243/1 1982 14 tion as highly unlikely to be either practically possible or
MKK 243 11
1987
CODE 18.77
politically defensible. I presume we would not consider pur- suing repatriation unless we now had some idea of the circumstances in which we would be prepared to go through with it.
3.
Even if we achieved what seems to be the minimum requirements guarantees of non-reprisals by the Vietnamese authorities (or perhaps merely an assurance of modest punishment consistent with illegal emigration), and their agreement to accept planeloads of repatriate boat-people- we would still be placing ourselves in a very vulnerable position:-
a) there would be many, in UNHCR and elsewhere, who continued to regard boat-people as bona fide refugees and questioned our ability to sift out economic migrants from refugees. It is interesting that the US press line on the annoucement of the closing of category 6 last April specifically stated:
'In no respect does this adjustment.... reflect an adverse presumption on the bona fides of those without ties to the US'. We might be criticised for deciding to change our policy towards boat-people on the basis of US immigration criteria rather than our own assessment of the nature of repression in Vietnam, which surely has not changed, any more than has that of the US (the latest State Department human rights league has Vietnam at the bottom and their spokesman has made a point of saying so);
b) we would put ourselves in the very difficult position of having to defend publicly the assurances we had been given by the Vietnamese;
c) even if the UNHCR agreed to cooperate we should recognise that for the first time (and unlike the closed camp policy) we would be 'setting the pace' on handling of boat-people,
CONFIDENTIAL
MKK243/5
/It
RECEIVED IN POLSTRY NO. ST
1 1 MAR 1983
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA