HEATHERINGTON (CANADA)
SAID ON MONDAY 13 OCTOBER THAT
HOCKE'S PAPER HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN A VERY FRANK MANNER.
SO
MUCH SO THAT HOCKE HAD AGREED TO RE-DRAFT IT. HUGHES (AUSTRALIA)
SAID THAT THE MEETING HAD PROVED TO BE A VERY USEFUL FORUM FOR
STRAIGHTFORWARD DISCUSSION WHICH WAS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN
FORMAL MEETINGS OR IN CORRESPONDENCE.
ROBERTSON (AUSTRALIA)
EXPLAINED THAT THE PAPER PRESENTED BY HOCKE WAS WRITTEN IN VERY
STRANGE ENGLISH (HE SAID THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT HAD BEEN
DRAFTED FOR HOCKE BY AN IRANIAN). HOCKE WAS ATTEMPTING A
REDRAFT WHICH WOULD RECONCILE HIS VIEWS WITH THOSE
EXPRESSED AT THE MEETING. IN PARTICULAR, HOCKE WAS PROPOSING
A THIRD CATEGORY BETWEEN REFUGEE AND NON-REFUGEE
SOMEONE
WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN HIS HOME COUNTRY HAD CHANGED SO DRASTICALLY
THAT HE WAS FORCED TO LEAVE. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS NOT-QUITE-A-
REFUGEE CITED BY HOCKE WAS A FISHERMAN FROM NORTH VIETNAM
WHO WAS TOLD THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BECOME A FARMER IN CENTRAL
VIETNAM. HOCKE WAS SUGGESTING THAT ANYONE IN THIS CATEGORY
WOULD NOT (NOT) BE ELLIGIBLE FOR RESETTLEMENT, BUT WOULD BE HELD BY PLACES OF FIRST ASYLUM PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS
SITUATION.
HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO CLARIFY EXATLY HOW THIS WOULD
WORK OUT IN PRACTICE.
5.
HEATHERINGTON (DATE ON MANDAY 13 OCTOBER) SAID THAT THE IGC
MEETING HAD MADE A VERY FIRM COMMITMENT TO RESETTLEMENT.
BUT THE HIGH COMMISSIONER SEEMED TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL
PUT TO HIM BY THE IGC THAT SCREENING WAS NECESSARY. HE WAS
RE-DRAFTING HIS PAPER (WITH NO TIMETABLE) TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE SCREENED OUT. NO CONCLUSIONS HAD BEEN
REACHED AT THE SATURDAY MORNING MEETING. BUT IT WAS NOT THAT
SORT OF MEETING (SEVERAL OF MY CONTACTS STRESSED THIS).
WAS AN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS.
IT
5.
THERE HAD BEEN NO (NO) DISCUSSION OF HMG'S
MEMBERSHIP OF THE IGC, ALTHOUGH THERE HAD BEEN SOME (INCONCLUSIVE) DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO WIDEN THE DEBATE TO FIRST ASYLUM
COUNTRIES AND THOSE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM OF
INDOCHINESE REFUGEES.