CODE 18-77
RESTRICTED
-
4
Reference..
Although the RTG had said that their policy was to maintain the policy of first asylum in East Thailand and elsewhere, the practice was different and the Australians suspected that there was some authority somewhere for the authorities in the East to undertake push-offs. The Australians maintained that HLWG governments should question in a helpful way and should not condemn or criticise the RTG. Switzerland referred to the link between the push-offs and the resettlement rate: Thailand had signalled that they wanted an indication that the refugecs would be resettled. In answer to a question of whether the push-offs were being told to go to Indonesian islands, Mr Dewey said that UNHCR had no information on this, but would make enquiries. UNHCR were aware of smaller groups arriving in Indonesia with the involvement of smuggling groups but had no confirmation that these groups were connected with the push-offs from Thailand. The UK indicated that we had had indications that other ASEAN countries were concerned about the recent changes in Thai policy, that we were concerned that the Thai measures would result in the long-stayers in Hong Kong and elsewhere continuing to be over-looked by the resettlement countries and that the Thai policy would increase the burden on other first asylum countries and thus increase the feelings of tension and frustration in the region. Japan drew attention to the need to tackle the root cause and asked whether Anti-Piracy Arrangement boats (funded by some HLWG governments) were being used to push-off the refugees. The US stated that they shared the High Commissioner's frustration and had approached other governments to join with them in asking the RTG whether they wished to continue the practice of first asylum. It would not be opportune for the High Commissioner to go public. The US also raised the other points in the circular letter of 4 March that the US Mission had sent to various Permanent Representatives in Geneva. The US understood that boat refugees from Vietnam were being directed. down the South Coast to Thailand towards Indonesia, after being resupplied by the Thai authorities, and this was different to the practice on the East Coast.
14.
In reply to the UK, Mr Dewey confirmed that there was a high risk that other countries in the area would follow the Thai example of humane deterrence, particularly the possibility of setting up closed camps as Hong Kong had done. He agreed that some. of the refugees might be economic migrants, but this was academic as the Vietnamese refused to take any of them back and there was a risk of persecution for those who might at some stage be allowed to return. UNHCR would agree to set up screening if other conditions were met, but it was necessary first to have an agreement with Vietnam. In particular, any assistance programme would have to be targetted to returnees. He agreed that representations by HLWG governments should be sympathetic as Thailand had borne a great burden and Vietnam was the root cause of the problem. What HLWG governments needed to push was why the Thai practice differed from their stated policy. As far as the use of donor-financed APA equipment for push-offs was concerned there was so little equipment of this nature on the East Coast that it was unlikely that it was
RESTRICTED
/being