BESTBACTER
UND/15B/8/105243/25 F
2017120 RECORD OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR I W MACKLEY, UND, AND DR D F DE STOOP, COUNSELLOR, AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION, ON 23 SEPTEMBER 1980
1. Dr De Stoop had requested this meeting in order to discuss the Australian memorandum entitled 'Australian views on the International Protection of Refugees: temporary refuge and international solidarity'. He said Australia believed there were lacunae in the 1951 Convention which did not deal adequately with the question of temporary refuge. There was a need to improve the current status of refugees, coupled with international agreement on burden sharing. This would reduce the pressures on the host country, particularly in the case of mass exodus. He agreed that Australia was principally concerned with the refugees from Cambodia and Vietnam, but said that in developing their ideas for the memorandum they had in mind all parts of the world.
2.
Mr Mackley said that an assessment of the Australian memorandum was difficult when each refugee situation was sui generis, In some ways the Australian memorandum could be said to be purely hypothetical, We had nevertheless had a brief look at the Australian paper, as had the Home Office, and we looked forward to hearing a fuller explanation at the Executive Committee in Geneva. Our initial reactions can be summarised as follows:
(i)
'temporary refuge' appears to be designed to cure the symptoms rather than prevent the disease, We are not sure this is necessary, The international community is coping, after a fashion, with both the relief of suffering and the status of refugees, albeit on an ad hoc basis. Although much more could be done, especially over coordination of humanitarian relief, refugees are being re-settled reasonably quickly. International efforts should now, perhaps, concentrate more on repatriation or, in other words, persuading countries not to create the conditions which cause people to flee.
(ii)
The Australian ideas have theoretical merit, but we have doubts about their practicability. Not all countries are even parties to the 1951 Convention; what chance is there of the Australian ideas gaining currency? (Dr De Stoop referred to the last page of the memorandum concerning temporary refuge and international burden sharing. He felt that if in the process of developing new standards better guidelines could be laid down on burden sharing, that might be an attraction. Mr Mackley said the whole concept of durable solutions raised last year had not made any progress. Is this not an example one of those subjects which generate a great deal of talk but very little action? Dr De Stoop said it was a sensitive issue, and agreed that one of the main problems is solving the root causes of refugees,)
(iii) it was at least possible that if a new status, or clans of refugees were created giving them more security, some receiving countr (eg Thailand) might be less inclined to let them in in the first place, At least in present circumstances receiving countries still feel that they have some options, and are therefore willing to accept arriving refugees. Dr De Stoop said that while that
RESTRICTED
/was
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.