Foreign Secretary
CONFIDENTIAL
HOME
SECRETARY
Ps
Lond Citra Tha
Еддал
ser
My Gillmon
SEAD
Mi Traskah
MD
VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
Klamers for
26 April
As you will recall, we announced in May last year that we would accept 468 named Vietnamese refugees from camps in Hong Kong who had been present in Hong Kong since before October 1986 and who had family links week m the United Kingdom. Their arrival was to be phased over a two year period, at a rate of about 20 per month. I now understand that for various reasons not all of the 468 refugees will be coming to the United Kingdom and that there is, therefore, likely to be a shortfall of at least 70. The Hong Kong Government and the various voluntary agencies involved, including UNCHR, anxious that the shortfall should be made up. The purpose of this minute is to inform you of my proposals.
2.
are
an
been
Our commitment to accept the 468, which was not agreed without some debate, was based on the argument that action on our part was needed as incentive to other countries to be more generous with their resettlement offers. I understand that the response to our commitment has, in fact, somewhat disappointing and that there are now 9,610 refugees in Hong Kong, as compared with 8,039 on 1 January 1987. Although the figure of 468 was not a quota as such, but simply the number of people who met our family reunion
failure by us to criteria, it has been put
meet what is perceived by others to be a commitment to accept 468 refugees could seriously damage our efforts to persuade other countries to be more helpful and would undoubtedly undermine our credibility. I am, moreover, mindful of the effect which an apparent failure to play our part would have on the Hong Kong Government at what is already a very difficult time.
11
3.
to
me
that a
our relations with
to the conclusion that it would Against this background I have come
There are a number of ways be right for us to seek to make up the shortfall. in which this might be done. One proposal is that we should turn the 468 into a general quota and accept people coming for training, for example, rather than insisting on family ties. Another suggestion, which was put to Simon Glenarthur on his recent visit to the Colony, is that we should agree to take some of the 130 or so refugees who have previously refused offers of of these resettlement in the United Kingdom. The difficulty with both proposals, as I see it, is that they would involve extending the present criteria and therefore take us clearly beyond the policy previously agreed. The "UK refusals" are people who met earlier criteria but who, for various reasons, decided that they did not after all wish to settle in the United Kingdom. If any of them had met the present family reunion criteria they would have been included in the original 468. As for the suggestion of general quota, this would go completely against the view which we consistently taken that the existence of quota was likely to "pull factor" and encourage purely economic migrants to try their luck.
a
a
have
act as a
NO
1.
AT