Hong Kong's refugee problem without taking on major new
responsibilities ourselves.
7. What would we be letting ourselves in for? As far as I
can see there have been very few rescues by Hong Kong
registered ships: the MV Andros (87) in February 1980,
the Hupeh in July 1980 taking 115 to Manila and in
September taking 73 to Singapore (on which we have heard no
more) and the Poyang in August last year landing 42 in
Hong Kong. We could of course agree to take the upeh/Poyang
42 on a one-off, 'ade hoc', case-by-case basis; but
tacitly
even if we accepted a dal responsibility (and none of
the papers I have seen is decisive on this) to take
which is,
unplaced refugees from Hong Kong registered ships, it
would add very little to our existing commitment, in practice,
A
to accept any of those refugees rescued by UK-registered
shops who are unresettled after three months by their
amount to country of first asylum; and it would still very little
compared, for example, with recent reception by the French and
German governments of those rescued deliberately by their
ships the Goelo and the Cap Anamuv
8. What about Bermuda? As I understand it we have taken
the line over 'British' ships registered in Bermuda or
Hong Kong that constitutively it is HMG who must issue the
govemment of the
guarantee to satisfy the first port of call that the
refugees will not end up on their hands, but that we
1
insist that the place of registry take responsibility for
settling (or finding places for) any residual refugees under
the guarantee issued on their behalf. We took this line
firmly with Bermuda over the Nedlloyd Crystal in 1981.
It
/led
X
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.