CONFIDENTIAL
3. The detailed arrangements for repatriation are made by ICM, who
are generally competent and efficient. The fallible link in the
chain is UNHCR.
4.
My suggestion is that we should be willing to take over more of the practical running of the programme. We would make it the responsiblity of UNHCR to put forward (initially) 120 people each
week. We would do the rest, including the liaison work with ICM and
Dragonair to book (to start with) one flight per week.
5. The tricky bit will be clearance with the Vietnamese of the
lists of those returning, and ensuring that the Vietnamese can cope
with a regular influx of people. It should be our intention to move
to two flights a week as soon as possible: we should focus the Vietnamese authorities now on the need to work out ways of receiving
120 rising to 250 people per week. In practical terms, this is an
essential element of the whole programme and the sooner we can get arrangements in place the better.
6. It is likely that the Vietnamese will need to expand their transit facilities on a large scale. They will ask for financial
support. We should consider diverting the £5m already on the table
for the Refugee Processing Centre to this purpose.
7.
7.
We would need to negotiate with the Vietnamese the principle of
accepting the returnees into a transit centre and clearing them quickly there, rather than allowing the whole process to be delayed
by the existing cumbersome arrangements of clearance before
departure from Hong Kong
8.
In an issue long described as a no-winner, this approach would
have a certain beauty to it: we could not lose. Either UNHCR would
succeed in putting foward sufficient volunteers each week, in which
case our snowball would begin to roll; or they would fail,
CONFIDENTIAL