TNAG-0891-FCO40-1101-Refugees-from-Vietnam-in-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-boat-people-1979 — Page 101

governments to help reduce the burden on Hong Kong which is

our prime responsibility unless we have declared a sizeable

quota.

For us (as indeed for other maritime countries) the

problem is complicated because the international practice,

generally observed until recently, that people rescued from

distress at sea should be allowed to disembark at the ship's

next port of call, has largely lapsed (it never had the force

of law and cannot be enforced). We could not therefore count

on refugees picked up by British ships finding asylum elsewhere, nor would it seem preslicable to employ the

proposed conference as a forum to seek to reinstate the though we should try for this.) have to

previous practice, We shall therefore make allowances within any new British contribution for the probability that we shall

be obliged to accept refugees in unpredictable numbers and at

unpredictable intervals in the coming months.

The Lord Privy Seal has discussed with the Home Secretary

the total number of additional refugees whom Britain might

absorb. Whatever figure we arrive at will be a burden for

Britain. The most we could aim at would be 5,000 once a year,

ie half the UNHCR suggestion, and even that would have to

subsume new rescues at sea. We would have also to make it

clear that the bulk of our quota would come from Hong Kong.

There seem to be three main approaches: -

(a) To name a figure, possibly around 7,500 (which would be

presentationally attractive for Dr Waldheim) as a quota

immediately for the next 12 months, from which would be deducted the

unexpired portion of our present quota and the refugees

already accepted from the Sibonga, Roachbank and, if

applicable, Norse Viking This would yield an actual

figure of some 5,000 refugees.'

1

/(b)