CONFIDENTIAL
countries, who, at the 11 January meeting in Bangkok of a
sub-committee on repatriation, were clearly impatient with the
reluctance of major resettlement countries to entertain any discussion of possible alternatives to voluntary repatriation.
They are our natural allies and we should build on this. It may be that at the end of the day we would have to settle for something
less ambitious than this. We could not in any case press our objectives to the point of causing the Conference to break down.
But only by openly advocating arrangements along these lines can we
move the international consensus in the direction and at the pace we
want.
Presentational considerations
11.
We would face major presentational problems in this country arising from the fact that we would be seen to be taking the lead
in pressing for repatriation a concept about which there are
strong reservations in Parliament and the media. But we would be
able to point out that no one would be repatriated unless there were
satisfactory reassurances about the treatment the returnees would
receive in Vietnam; that (hopefully) the UNHCR would monitor the
treatment of all returnees; and that at the end of the day mandatory repatriation under these circumstances is a lesser evil than the
prospect of the indefinite detention of tens of thousands of boat
people in detention centres with no hope of resettlement.
Regional Holding Centre in Philippines
12. Another idea which is gaining support within ASEAN is to establish a regional holding centre in the Philippines for all those screened out. They see it as an effective means of removing screened out boat people from their territory. It would suit
Hong Kong very well too. So far, UNHCR are resisting the idea. But it would certainly be worth pursuing. We can rely on ASEAN to make the running.
CONFIDENTIAL