TNAG-1803-FCO40-2563-Hong-Kong-Vietnamese-refugees-talks-between-the-UK--Hong-Kon-1988 — Page 182

D

however to receive financial assistance to do so, albeit on a relatively modest and realistic scale. They say they are not prepared to take back non-volunteers. They seek however to blur the distinction between volunteers and non-volunteers by professing to believe that all concerned can be persuaded to return. They may have real concerns about bad international publicity and about reintegration problems which could arise from involuntary returns. They are likely to press for a visit by Vietnamese officials to Hong Kong to help persuade people to return. The Hong Kong Government are ready to agree to a visit or visits as part of a comprehensive package but wish to avoid an early visit because of the risk that it could lead to disturbances in the camps.

The agenda for the talks

9. In order to focus discussion on the areas in which we are most interested, we have proposed the following agenda for the talks:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Report on the present situation in Hong Kong. Efforts to stop the outflow.

The first returnees.

Comprehensive settlement.

Argument

The return of volunteers

10.

There appears to be no dispute between the two sides that those who have asked to return should do so. While not losing sight of our overall objective that all illegal immigrants must be repatriated we need to press the Vietnamese hard to make an early start, in co-operation with the Hong Kong Government and UNHCR, by taking back volunteers. It is helpful that over 300 have already come forward. It is very much to our advantage that many more should do so: the downside risks associated with enforced returns need no underlining. We may need to consider, with the Hong Kong Government, mounting a campaign in the camps aimed at persuading people to go back of their own accord.

Reintegration Assistance to volunteers and non-volunteers

11. It may at first sight appear illogical to give assistance to those who are already prepared to go back. Our initial view was to resist any suggestion that this should be done, except possibly in the context of a comprehensive arrangement for the return of all illegal immigrants. On the other hand the more attractive we can make the idea of volunteering (whether or not in the context of a comprehensive arrangement), the more volunteers we are likely to get. A disparity between the treatment of volunteers and non-volunteers to the disadvantage of the former would be a disincentive to those thinking of volunteering. We conclude that volunteers should not be excluded from receiving assistance.

CONFIDENTIAL