TNAG-1799-FCO40-2559-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-ex-China-Vietnamese-illegal-im-1988 — Page 118

272

COMMENT

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 365 625

OF 1321335Z FEBRUARY 88

INFO PRIORITY UKMIS GENEVA, PEKING

INFO ROUTINE HONG KONG GOVERMENT OFFICE LONDON

yes ✓1. Has this been distribute). Wa connets 2. Neew UND; FED Comments.

no cay

23. Comments from Petry, genera. 14. Our comments.

Reed 2439

REGELVO

YRY

* FEB 1988

MIPT: EX-CHINA VIETNAMESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (ECVIIS)

THE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM DESCRIBES THE INTERCEPTION LAND REPATRIATION OF ECVIIS SINCE MID-1987. AND ANNEXES DETAILS OF THE REMAINING 167 AWAITING REPATRIATION TO CHINA.

2. AMONG THESE 167 CASES THERE ABOUT 60 (OF WHOM 55 HAVE ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE CHINESE SIDE - GROUP I) FROM THE FANG CHENG REFUGEE CAMP IN GUANGXI PROVINCE. THE REMAINDER ARE FROM OTHER FARMS/CENTRES IN GUANGDONG. GUANGXI. YUNNAN AND FUJIAN PROVINCES. THERE ARE 8 CASES (GROUP III) IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPROVAL FOR REPATRIATION HAS BEEN GIVEN. BUT TIMING FOR THEIR REPATRIATION HAS NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED

3.

WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL IF THE CHINESE SIDE WOULD

(A) GIVE THE GREEN LIGHT FOR THE REPATRIATION OF GROUP III AS SOON AS POSSIBLE:

(B) VERIFY THE STATUS OF THE 103 CASES IN GROUPS IV AND V AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: AND

(C) AGREE TO ACCEPT FOR REPATRIATION THE 56 CASES IN GROUPS I AND II WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN VERIFIED AS HAVING BEEN SETTLED IN CHINA.

4. 1 IN RESPECT OF THE 55 CASES IN GROUP I (AND ANY OTHER FANG CHENG CAMP CASES) WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHINESE SIDE MAY HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY ACCEPTING THESE PERSONS BACK BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REGARD THEM AS HAVING SETTLED IN CHINA. THEY HAVE INDICATED TO US AND TO UNHCR THAT THEY COULD ONLY AGREE TO TAKE THEM BACK TEMPORARILY AS REFUGEES IF THE UNHCR WOULD PROVIDE GUARANTEES OF RESETTLEMENT FOR THEM AND AGREE TO THEM BEING HELD IN A CLOSED CAMP IN FANG CHENG AT UNHCR EXPENSE.

4.2 AS REGARDS THE QUESTION OF STATUS. WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT THESE PERSONS WERE RESIDENT IN CHINA FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE COMING TO HONG KONG. THERE IS THEREFORE A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT · THEY HAVE IN PRACTICE BEEN SETTLED THERE,

4.3 HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT WERE THE CASE THAT THEY WERE IN CHINA FOR ALL THIS TIME AS REFUGEES IN A TRANSIT CAMP, IT WOULD NOT BE EQUITABLE FOR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HONG KONG BECAUSE OF THEIR ILLEGAL MOVE TO THIS TERRITORY. WE SEE RESONSIBILITY REMAINING WITH CHINA UNTIL THEIR RESETTLEMENT. JUST AS WE WOULD

< set out

gps I-II

"