able (atached) containing details (at 1 May 1979) of the number of Indo-China refugees resettled in Third countries and the numbers still awaiting resettlement. Mr Murray noted that the American, French and Australian responses had been good. He also noted that the table included the number resettled in each country as a ratio of land area. Mr Murray said that from this it clearly stood out a mile that the place where relief was most needed was Hong Kong. Mr Heidler agreed that it was evident. Mr Murray commented that this was a major reason for our grave concern over the growing and appalling refugee problem. Mr Heidler said this was entirely understandable. Referring to the number of Vietnamese refugees accepted by China (230,000), Mr Heidler replied, in answer to Mr Murray's question that these had been accepted by China for permanent settlement.
Regulating the flow from Vietnam
·
4 Mr Heidler then handed Mr Murray the text of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Hanoi on 30 May between Mr de Haan and the Vietnamese Government. He said the Vietnamese Government had a list of 20,000 names of people they were prepared to allow to Leave the country. These would be compared with the names on lists of potential resettlement countries. Where the names appeared on both lists the people concerned would be allowed to leave Vietnam forthwith. Mr Murray said that this was all very well but would have no effect on the real problem which was that the Vietnamese were still pushing their people out of the country at an appalling rate. We had ufficient reason to believe that they intended to push out in the region of a million, perhaps 1.2 million ethnic Chinese. What was the world to do about that? The Vietnamese Government's apparent willingness to allow people to leave in an orderly fashion was obviously adding to the already immense UNHCR burden. Mr Heidler replied that one of the conclusions of the December Conference had been that the Vietnamese Government would ensure an orderly outflow. The Vietnamese Government's aim was to allow about 10,000 a month to go if this could be arranged with UNHCR. Mr Heidler thought there might well be room for some progress here. It just might be a mechanism which could work.
5.
Mr Heidler then asked how the British Government envisaged the proposed Conference. Mr Murray replied that we
we had deliberately not gone into more detail at this stage.
We wanted to hear more from the Secretary-General himself ; it was clear that much would depend on his consultations with other governments. But our determination to see a full conference take place soon was
firm.
Mr Heidler said the Secretary-General was very much in the hands of governments on this matter. Mr Murray noted that Sir James Murray had already given Mr Harling an indication of our thinking about the Conference. We should wish to look at the matter in greater detail in the light of the results of the Secretary-General's own discussions with the UNHCR and with governments.
6.
Mr
i)
Heidler said he had a number of specific questions to put.
How soon should the Conference take place, in weeks, months or days? The Secretary-General did not see how the Conference could be well organised without at least some weeks of preparation. Mr Murray replied that our consideration was not in terms of time. If we were faced with a a million refugees over and above the quarter of a million the UNHCR now had to look after in South East Asia, then a rapid convening of the
Conference
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.