TNAG-1182-FCO40-1484-Resettlement-of-Vietnamese-refugees-from-Hong-Kong-into-the--1982 — Page 123

CONFIDENTIAL

United Kingdom Mission

37-39 rue de Vermont 1211 Geneva 20

Telex 22956

Telegrams Prodrome Geneva

Telephone 34 38 00 33 23 85

RD Clift Esq

Hong Kong & General Department F CO

Enkin

|

144

AF'%

done

/ Copy Mr. Buria

Mr. McQuade

Mr. Hoare

Your reference

Actores pl

UN 243/5

Dear Dick,

Our reference

Date

13 July 1982

See 147

148

HKK 243/1

RECEIVED # RETRY NO. 5

A

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG

1.

131

74

No

CRE

AFAh

(71

We read with interest/Hong Kong telegrams numbers 456, 492, -608, 618 and 706 about the new closed-camp policy together with

your telegrams numbers 334, 356 and 455, and Hanoi telegram number 138. We did not chip in ourselves because we very much agreed with your telegram number 455 which ruled out involuntary 122) repatriation, largely on parliamentary grounds. I did however have

a routine contact with UNHCR on 2 July and enclose a copy of my letter of that day to Segar in SEAD, which I should have copied to your Department at the time.

2.

(140)

Hong Kong telegram number 723 however shows that Hong Kong are still interested in pursuing what they call the "option" of involuntary repatriation on the grounds that there is strong local interest in it. We must therefore point out the difficulties from here. The main one is that any such plan would be contrary to international law. We could expect the most lively reactions from UNHCR, on a solid legal basis (see below) which might then add to the parliamentary pressures against any such action.

3. The fact is that refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution are entitled to better treatment under international law than mere illegal immigrants. You can under certain circum- stances send illegal immigrants back where they came from. But you cannot legally send refugees back against their will to a territory where they legitimately fear persecution. (Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951). A11 the evidence from Hanoi suggests that refugees sent back there on any other basis than voluntary repatriation would receive the treatment described in the Article. It would go against UNHCR's most fundamental doctrine on protection and non-refoulement. Hong Kong might argue that they are not bound by this as not being a signatory of the Convention. But the United Kingdom is a signatory, and we believe that even non-signatories have to take seriously widely-accepted international conventions as indicative

/of

CONFIDENTIAL

(76)