TNAG-1803-FCO40-2563-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-talks-between-the-UK--Hong-Kon-1988 — Page 142

RESTRICTED

010143

MDHOAN 6425

IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE DURING THIS ROUND OF TALKS TO REACH AGREEMENT ON ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FIRST GROUP OF RETURNEES. 7. I SAID THAT WE FULLY ACCEPTED THAT AS MANY AS POSSIBLE OF THOSE BOAT PEOPLE IN HONG KONG WHO WERE NOT REFUGEES SHOULD BE PERSUADED TO RETURN TO VIETNAM VOLUNTARILY BUT WE WERE DEALING WITH SOME 9,500 PEOPLE WHO HAD ARRIVED IN HONG KONG SINCE THE

SOME 350 HAD SO FAR EXPRESSED THEIR CHANGE OF POLICY ON 16 JUNE. WISH TO RETURN TO VIETNAM. NATURALLY WE HOPED THAT THAT NUMBER COULD BE GREATLY INCREASED. BUT REALISTICALLY IT WAS DIFFICULT

GRANTED THAT BOTH TO IMAGINE THAT ALL 9,500 WOULD VOLUNTEER. SIDES WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HUMANITARIAN ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM WHAT DID THE VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT THINK WOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE BOAT PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT REFUGEES AND WHO WERE NOT GOING TO BE RESETTLED ELSEWHERE?

A

8. KHOAN SAID THAT VIETNAM HAD BEEN CONDEMNED FOR SEVERAL DECADES FOR VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS AND THAT THIS WAS WHY PEOPLE HAD LEFT VIETNAM. NOW THE SAME PEOPLE WERE SAYING THAT IF VIETNAM DID NOT TAKE THEM BACK AGAIN THIS WOULD DAMAGE ITS INTERNATIONAL IMAGE. VIETNAM DID NOT WANT TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DID NOT SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE TO RETURN PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL. THE BOAT PEOPLE WERE NOW IN HONG KONG. VIETNAM COULD DO NO MORE THAN TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO RETURN. WELL ORGANISED REPATRIATION PROGRAMME WOULD BE ONE MEANS OF

IT DETERRING FUTURE DEPARTURES OF BOAT PEOPLE FROM VIETNAM. WOULD ALSO BE AN INCENTIVE TO THOSE ALREADY IN HONG KONG WHO HAD

WE NO OTHER OPTIONS OPEN TO THEM. THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. SHOULD PROCEED STEP BY STEP. WE SHOULD LOOK FOR A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SETTLEMENT BUT NOT ONE THAT WOULD BE CONDEMNED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

9. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BOTH SIDES FACED A DIFFICULT SITUATION. WE HAD NO WISH TO MINIMISE THE DIFFICULTIES OF REPATRIATING THOSE WHO DID NOT WISH TO RETURN TO VIETNAM. WE AGREED THAT THE FIRST TO BE REPATRIATED SHOULD BE THOSE WHO HAD VOLUNTEERED BUT THE

WE DID NOT REGARD RETURN OF THIS GROUP ALONE WAS NOT THE ANSWER. THE RETURN TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT REFUGEES AND WHO HAD ENTERED ANOTHER COUNTRY ILLEGALLY AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THIS WAS STANDARD INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE. WE AGREED THAT REPATRIATION SHOULD BEGIN WITH VOLUNTEERS BUT THE PROBLEM WAS THE NUMBERS INVOLVED. IT WAS OUR VIEW THAT HOWEVER A REPATRIATION PROGRAMME MIGHT BE PHASED, THE EVENTUAL SOLUTION MUST ENCOMPASS ALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT REFUGEES AND WHO COULD NOT BE RESETTLED ELSEWHERE. WE MUST FIND A WAY TO DISCUSS THIS CENTRAL PROBLEM AS WELL AS THE EARLY REPATRIATION OF THOSE WHO HAD ASKED TO GO BACK.

3

PAGE

RESTRICTED