CONFIDENTIAL
contemplate a really significant offer (say, 10,000 plus), too overt support for the island proposal would expose us to charges of hypocrisy however much money we might pledge towards it.
10. I conclude that, on the basis of the information at present
available to us, the case for setting up an island processing centre is not justified. However, bearing in mind our relations with ASEAN countries and our special responsibility for Hong Kong (with the need to support them in coping with the flood from Vietnam) and taking into account the fact that no viable alternative
solution has so far been produced, it would be wrong for us to reject the present proposal out of hand. We should not in any case wish to be seen to be a stumbling block.
11.
Further discussion and investigation may conceivably produce a reasonable solution (if only a temporary one) which might benefit at least some refugees. If, after further investigation, the UNHCR should wish to implement this proposal, the UK should then take stock and consider whether to support it.
Recommendation
12.
I recommend that
(i) Our line (in public and with the ASEAN countries) should be generally sympathetic, but we should not disguise the
fact that we see considerable difficulties and we should
contemplate no commitment whether of resettlement places or finance until the UNHCR has completed a full
assessment.
(ii) Sir James Murray should explain to UNHCR, on the same
personal and confidential basis employed by Mr Hartling,
our doubts about the proposal, on the lines of para 9 above (omitting the last two sentences of sub-para (f)), and answer the specific questions in para 6 of the UNHCR paper on the lines of the Note at Annex.
CORDAT TYTANTET À T
/13. SEAD
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.