CONFIDENTIAL
MK:2:
51
174145
MDLIAN 2266
CONFIDENTIAL
FM HONG KONG
TO PRIORITY FCO
TELNO 2529
OF 121048Z AUGUST 91
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
48
reply issued
2018
TOP COPY Q DIST?
YOUR TELNO 1434 AND FAX: MEETING WITH CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS NGOs.
1. WE ASSUME THAT YOU WILL HAVE REFUTED MOST OF THE POINTS IN
PARA 7 OF THE FAX (REQUESTS RELATING TO HONG KONG) DURING THE
ORIGINAL MEETING.
2. 7.1 TO 7.3 ARE GENERAL. ON 7.4 YOU NO DOUBT MADE THE POINT
THAT THE FACT THE COURTS REJECTED THE LOUDSPEAKER PROSECUTION
CASE DEMONSTRATES AS CLEARLY AS ANYONE COULD WISH THAT HONG KONG
IS GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF LAW AND THE GOVERNMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW. YOU ARE ALSO MORE THAN FAMILIAR WITH OUR LINE ON REFUSAL
OF ENTRY TO THE STUDENTS.
3 7.5 TO 7.8 CONCERN EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM CHINA ARE RETURNED THERE. WE DO NOT GRANT ANYBODY ''POLITICAL ASYLUM' BY THAT NAME, ALTHOUGH IT IS COMMONLY USED AS SHORTHAND. WE DO HOWEVER SOMETIMES GRANT PEOPLE EXCEPTIONAL
LEAVE TO STAY. IN TAKING SUCH DECISIONS WE FOLLOW THE UNHCR GUIDELINES ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO DO SO.
4. AS YOU KNOW, THE 1951 CONVENTION IS NOT APPLIED TO HONG KONG PRECISELY BECAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD IT TO BE. BY THE STANDARDS OF MOST BRITONS, VIRTUALLY THE WHOLE POPULATION OF CHINA HAVE A CASE FOR POLITICAL ASYLUM. CRUDE THOUGH THIS POINT IS, WE THINK IT ESSENTIAL TO CONFRONT HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS WITH THE REALITY. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT TRULY DESERVING CASES, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN A SYSTEM IN HONG KONG WHICH RETURNS ORDINARY ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS WHENCE THEY CAME. SINCE JUNE 1989 IT HAS BECOME KNOWN IN GUANGDONG THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED MORE CASES OF ASYLUM THAN WE
HAVE IN THE YEARS SINCE THE END OF THE TOUCH BASE POLICY. WE THEREFORE GET A NUMBER OF TRY-ONS. HOWEVER, THE EXPERIENCE OF BOTH INTERVIEWERS AND ASSESSORS IS THAT THE GENUINE CASE USUALLY STANDS OUT QUITE CLEARLY. WHERE THERE IS REAL DOUBT, WE HAVE TENDED STRONGLY TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF GIVING THE BENEFIT.
5. THE CASES OF LIU XIANG AND YAO KAIWEN WERE SPECIFICALLY
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL