TNAG-1903-FCO40-2705-Hong-Kong-cabinet-meetings-on-Vietnamese-refugees-1990 — Page 95

SIPACL

Hos Sten

Mrstime Thank

CONFIDENTIAL

HK B

040 19

rach

2

20 SEP 09

totalin

you.

revised the

I have

From:

M V Stone

papu

Date:

20 September 1989

(which is now being further

Mr

Paul

VBP's

—

revised turday) W/22/1

DRAFT OD(K) PAPER

1. Para 15 is inadequate. It needs to be firmed up. I suggest a

rewording as follows:

"15. Our aim at SC3 should be to obtain acceptance that

voluntary repatriation has not worked and that there are only

two possible "additional measures" UNHCR monitored return and

-

a regional holding centre. Since the latter has not got anywhere and is most unlikely to do so for a very long time

until the cast iron guarantees of repatriation are forthcoming,

UNHCR monitored return is the only alternative. This should be accepted now certainly for Hong Kong, and implemented within one

month.

>

16. Given the US attitude, it is unlikely that this will be

agreed and a more likely result is the acceptance of one or both

of the two alternatives, as soon as it is agreed that the

voluntary method has failed. If we are only able to achieve the

this latter we could still plausibly argue that when the first involuntary return from Hong Kong takes place, and there is great pressure for this to be by the end of October, that we

have merely anticipated implementation of the CPA approach by a few months. This is justified by Hong Kong special

circumstances (screening introduced more than a year before

other first asylum countries, overcrowding etc) and was

foreshadowed by us at SC3".

2. I also suggest adding to existing para 18(b) "Even if such a guarantee were obtained fairly quickly, it would be a long time

before physical facilities were built. This is not a realistic

solution to Hong Kong's pressing problems."

CONFIDENTIAL