Ms
CONFIDENTIAL
From: R A Burns
7
p.a.
why not
Ryman apt gen
1THICC 241/2
Date:
12 July 1991
Cc:
Sir J Coles o/r
Special Advisers Mr Colvin, SEAD Mr Paul, HKD Ms Barrett, Legal
Advisers
Ms Major, HKD
Mr Tansley, SEAD Mr Walwyn, UND
PS/Lord Caithness
VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS : ABANDONING FIRST ASYLUM : POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
1. Lord Caithness has asked for my views on Mr Colvin's minute of 11 July about the domestic consequences of a decision by HMG not to prevent the Hong Kong Government from abandoning first asylum.
2. In the first instance, HMG would be accountable to Parliament and would have to articulate to Parliament (and to the Foreign Affairs Committee, say) the arguments that the Government of Hong Kong had been faced with force majeur and had no alternative. This suggests therefore that, if the Hong Kong Government is obliged to contemplate the abandonment of first asylum, then we should be consulted at a very early stage about what is decided so that we can muster the best case. It would be easier to defend a temporary suspension of screening than an end to first asylum, push-offs etc.
3. There are a number of UN bodies which examine the peformance of individual countries under the various covenants and conventions on human rights. The most important of these is the UN Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for the examination of States Parties' reports under the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The next report on the UK is due in 1994. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination might also criticise HMG if it was shown that Hong Kong had infringed the ICERD.
4.
It is also possible that another State might choose to take the UK to the International Court of Justice. However, the country which might be expected to object most strongly to Hong Kong abandoning first asylum (the US) is unlikely to do so for political reasons. HMG could not be taken to the
A27AAX/1
CONFIDENTIAL
47
!