TNAG-0498-FCO40-563-Deportation-of-foreign-nationals-from-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 104

10/3.

BRITISH EMBASSY

SAIGON

17 September 1974

331

M F Chapman Esq

South-East Asian Department Foreign & Commonwealth Office London SW1

MsAhting

Picraft in commulti-

with Bullet

Kic

2014

240

295)

315

Dear Mark-

(295)

NOK

312

ILLEGAL EMIGRANTS

1. While waiting for a reply to my telegram 261 of yesterday, I think it useful to suggest that, in the light of your exchanges with Amnesty, we may need to agree between us further action that may become necessary at or after the trial.

2.

Subject to Hong Kong's views (where there may be a special problem of local reactions), probably the deciding factor will be the desire or otherwise of Amnesty to pursue their allegations. Seen from here, it looks as though a useful step forward towards curbing their extravagance has been made by our pressure on Amnesty to reveal their sources of information. Although I have not had a copy of Lord Goronwy-Roberts' letter of 14 August, it seems from Ennals' reply (of 28 August) that our request was pressed again. In connection with this latter I look forward to seeing Lord Goronwy-Roberts' further answer, but I hope it will be possible to pursue Ennals about Sanguinetti's report, which "confirms the information we had previously conveyed to you regarding ill-treatment" After all, this ill-treatment occurred allegedly in Vietnam and since the British Ambassador in Saigon is in effect charged to watch that ill-treatment does not occur surely he should receive a copy of Sanguinetti's report in order to help his examination of the matter.

•

3. Of course, Amnesty will no doubt be very cagey about letting

see such a report and no doubt also, as the Annals letter of 28 August shows, they will continue to mix fact and fiction in an appropriately difficult manner. All this I must leave to you.

But I wonder if, despite Sanguinetti's being on holiday, they will still wish to try to attend the trial.

If so, I hope I may get some warning.

4. But my more important question revolves round trial and post-trial periods. For the trial we have guidance in the letter to Brighty from Jones-Parry of 12 August. Do you now wish to amend this in the light of Amnesty's continued activity? Does, for example, paragraph 4 of your letter to me of 10 September suggest that you want us to make a serious effort at checking the

/defendants

}

- 1

CONFIDENT JAL