>
United Kingdom Mission
37-39 rue de Vermont 1211 Geneva 20
Telex 22956
Telegrams Prodrome Geneva
Telephone 34 38 00 33 23 85
DJ Peate Esq
UND
FCO
Dear David,
W
Your reference
Our reference
Date
10 June 1983
UNHCR: RESCUES AT SEA
1. Moussalli (Director of Protection at UNHCR) called a meeting on 30 May with flag states and resettlement countries to exchange views on UNHCR's Memorandum entitled "Rescue at Sea Resettlement Offers" (RASRO) (enclosed with my letter to you of 19 May). Feldmann (Head of Resettlement) was also present. Moussalli said that his decision not to include coastal states at this stage was deliberate. UNHCR wished first to obtain the views of other parties. In any case he doubted whether coastal states would have any problem with the proposal. In short, the meeting was inconclusive and the enclosed letter from Moussalli, sent to missions on 3 June, will therefore allow you an opportunity to present our views to UNHCR in writing. Please note the important amendment in para 6(b) of the Memorandum which has been made since the meeting.
2.
Although few present on 30 May had received detailed instructions from capitals, the meeting was lively and frank. (In this respect, many thanks for the useful oral comments you provided). The main protagonists were the Greeks (as a major flag state) and the Canadians (who have a massive resettlement waiting list). Moussalli explained that the Memorandum was based upon a Danish draft with which UNHCR wished to associate themselves. It highlighted a major protection issue on which the High Commissioner had been instructed by EXCOM to submit a report. The problem was simple: thousands of boat people were dying simply because many ships were passing them by or taking different routes to avoid the likely rescue areas. A viable solution had to be found. Greece asked whether UNHCR were happy with all the Memorandum's proposals. Moussalli replied that they had reservations about 6(b). UNHCR did not wish to be held wholly responsible for the timely removal of refugees. Netherlands noted that the numbers being picked up were unpredictable and that the periods taken to resettle these people varied considerably. They accepted the need for some form of guarantee but could not accept 7(g). In principle, therefore, they could not accept the proposal as it stood. Moussalli pointed out that the coastal states would not accept anything short of a formal guarantee along these lines. If Netherlands could not accept this then the whole proposal would be a non-starter. Norway offered their support, but cautioned that they wished to see a more even distribution of burden sharing. While Australia also mentioned this point, they said that they would be willing to participate on a trial basis, subject to other members' replies, and on the understanding
/that
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.