TNAG-1424-FCO40-1907-Vietnamese-refugees-in-Hong-Kong-general-1985 — Page 14

CONFIDENTIAL

?

Send them

back"

Mr Luce that involuntary repatriation was unacceptable), and there would certainly be severe Parliamentary and public criticism if an approach became known publicly."

3.

Dr Carter of SEAD has made the following additional comments which Mr Nash has passed on to me:

"1.

In general I agree with Mr Nash's comments on the draft and have added some of my own.

2. My fundamental disagreement with the paper concerns paras 11-14 (involuntary repatriation). I believe that HMG should have the courage and foresight to stand up to the Hong Kong Government on this issue and not allow itself to be pushed

appne into what we know will be a fruitless and very likely counter- productive 'dialogue' with the Vietnamese. An approach to the Vietnamese would be no more than a sop to Hong Kong and no substitute for action (ie Britain taking a substantial and continuing number of Vietnamese refugees as the paper elsewhere sensibly proposes).

3.

-

us

There can be little doubt that if we do approach the Vietnamese about repatriation it will become public either through disenchanted elements in the UNHCR or, for example, through Hong Kong (we should presumably need to tell the Hong Kong EXCO of our initiative to ease pressure on from that quarter). It is for ministers to judge the political risks to the Government in being found to have countenanced the forced repatriation of innocent refugees to a hard line Communist country infamous for its human rights abuses and military occupation of neighbouring states but we, as officials, cannot escape responsibility if we recommend approaching the

The arguments are against doing so.

Vietnamese.

pyribly

Chite

is similan

4. It seems to me that what we should be concentrating on in the submission is resettlement in this country and other traditional 'acceptors' (paras 5-8 of the draft). We should not duck our own responsibility. Discussions with the Vietnamese should be put on ice till the climate there substantially changes.

4. Finally, Mr Nash has provided Mr Hartland-Swann's comments orally

-

(a) "Too much focus and weight on involuntary repatriation" (b) need to "indicate that involuntary repatriation is the least beneficial of the options, with least chance of success. It should therefore have least coverage of the options in the submission."

(c)

need to "satisfy EXCO that all possible is being done, therefore approach Vietnamese on repatriation (not specifying involuntary) - if Vietnamese react, ask what guarantees they can provide on the future treatment of those returned ie follow Hartling's line last September. By limiting approach to repatriation alone, can avoid leak.

―

11

irrelevant

CONFIDENTIAL