Geneva, February 21, 1961, 5 p.m.

930. Deptel 1305./2/ Schnyder welcomed US interest in question of Deputy, had intended even before our intervention to discuss matter with US authorities before taking any actual steps. He expects be in Washington soon after middle of March to consult on this and other matters with Dept officials concerned.

Schnyder said he has tried to conceive of structure of his office in terms of present and future activities, which are rather different from those undertaken to meet "classic" European refugee problems. He cited Algerian refugees as type of situation that seems likely command more of UNHCR's attention than situation which 1951 Convention was designed to meet./3/ His preliminary thinking therefore was that Afro-Asians should have stronger representation on staff. One approach might be to appoint Afro-Asian as consultant and see how he worked out (implying that if successful he would become Deputy).

Schnyder asked if we had any individual in mind. We said we did not know. He said and repeated twice that he would be very interested in Dept's reaction to his ideas, which he stressed were "preliminary."

In view of lack of urgency with which Schnyder considering problem and prospect of his visiting Dept in March, we refrained from putting forward counter-arguments during this interview. Would appreciate guidance for further talks. Our impression was that in spite of Schnyder's rationale for Afro-Asian candidate he would be disposed to make his final decision on basis of ability of individual candidate rather than his nationality.

Although not touched on in this conversation, it is obvious that Schnyder is well aware of personnel problems facing any new administration and concomitant political pressure for finding positions. This awareness may well be contributive to Schnyder's preference for going slowly. In any event, I suggest we seek between now and time of Schnyder's Washington visit outstanding candidate with background, experience, and other qualifications which will be impressive to Schnyder.

Martin

Washington, March 14, 1961.

SUBJECT
Rumored Appointment of New Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees

PARTICIPANTS
M. Claude Lebel, Minister Counselor, French Embassy
M. Pierre Pelen, Counselor, French Embassy
Mr. Wallner, Deputy Assist. Secretary--IO
Mr. Otis Mulliken, Deputy Director OES
Mr. Buffum--UNP
Mr. MacDonald--WE

Mr. Lebel wondered if we had heard of a plan to appoint an Afro-Asian as Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. He thought this would be a very poor idea. Article 1 of the Convention on Refugees limited the Commission's jurisdiction to pre-1951 refugees, and in addition, he pointed out, Europe and the United States were responsible for some three-fourths of the Commission's expenditures. He thought that the appointment of an Afro-Asian could mean a much more vigorous policy on Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco, which would be the worst sort of development now from France's point of view.

Mr. Mulliken said that we first heard of this plan from Mr. Schnyder, the High Commissioner. Upon hearing reports that he was thinking of appointing a deputy, we had approached him to say that we might be interested in suggesting some Americans for the post, especially since an American had held it previously. Mr. Schnyder then said he was thinking of an Afro-Asian. Since that time, we have even heard unconfirmed reports that Schneider was thinking of offering the post to the Aga Khan.

This was a totally new idea to Mr. Lebel, for whom the Aga Khan was "a special kind of Afro-Asian". However, he wondered if the Aga Khan would accept. Mr. Lebel asked if Mr. Schnyder could appoint a deputy on his own. Mr. Mulliken replied that he could, but added he would be most surprised if Mr. Schnyder would do so without prior consultation.

Mr. Lebel asked if we could name the Americans we were thinking of suggesting to Schnyder--and especially if we had decided on a candidate. He said that the French would certainly be prepared to support our candidate, if we had one. Mr. Mulliken said that we had not yet decided on a candidate, but would inform the French if and when we do.

Washington, March 31, 1961.

SUBJECT
Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Mr. Schnyder, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, will be in Washington for 3 days beginning April 11. A briefing paper will be sent to you prior to that date. One item which Mr. Schnyder will wish to discuss with you is the appointment of a Deputy High Commissioner. The following information is being sent to you now in order to provide time for such consultation and discussion as you deem necessary.

James Morgan Reed (U.S.) was Deputy UNHCR from 1951 until his resignation to become President of Wilmington College (Ohio) on October 1, 1960. Since Dr. Auguste Lindt (Swiss), who was the UNHCR at that time, was about to resign to become Swiss Ambassador to the U.S., he took no action to fill the vacancy. Felix Schnyder (Switzerland) was elected by the 15th General Assembly to serve as UNHCR from February 1, 1961 to December 31, 1963, which is the terminal date for the present UNHCR mandate.

Since assuming office on February 2, 1961, Mr. Schnyder has been considering the appointment of a Deputy. Through our Resident Delegation in Geneva he was recently advised of our interest in having qualified Americans at reasonably high levels in all international organizations, and that we are interested in having a U.S. national appointed to the "traditionally" American post of Deputy UNHCR. He was also told of our willingness to recommend a candidate or candidates for the position if this was agreeable to him. His reply was to "welcome U.S. interest" and to indicate that he planned to discuss the matter when he came to Washington. Mr. Schnyder stated that he is trying to conceive of the structure of his office in terms of present and future activities which he sees as being rather different from those undertaken to meet "classic" European refugee problems. His preliminary thinking is that Afro-Asians should have stronger representation on the staff. He suggested that one approach might be to appoint an Afro-Asian as consultant and see how he worked out. The implication was that if successful he would become Deputy.

Miss Aline Cohn, U.S. Representative of the UNHCR, has reported informally her understanding that Mr. Schnyder has already "offered" the Deputy position to Prince Sadruddin Khan (Iran). If Prince Khan "accepts" Miss Cohn thought it would be very difficult for Mr. Schnyder not to make him a formal offer. For obvious reasons, Miss Cohn does not want to be quoted on this although she has spoken to Prince Khan and believes her information to be correct.

In view of the above developments no attempt has been made to "select" a well qualified American to present to Mr. Schnyder as a candidate for Deputy UNHCR. The Department has, however, assembled a list of candidates for the position, some on the basis of direct application and others based on recommendations. Other qualified candidates could be found among our foreign service and departmental staff.

For your information, Mr. Roger Jones in a conversation with Mr. George Warren, Sr. expressed the opinion that the U.S. should make a strong effort to have Mr. Schnyder appoint an American as his Deputy.

1. That you discuss the matter of the Deputy position with Mr. Jones before your meeting with Mr. Schnyder at 4 p.m. on April 12. In your conversation with Mr. Jones you might indicate that the extent to which we can "push" for an American as Deputy UNHCR will depend upon developments during your meeting with Mr. Schnyder.

2. If Mr. Schnyder is committed to Prince Khan it would not appear to be in the U.S. interest to pressure Mr. Schnyder to appoint an American. (You will recall that you met Prince Khan at the Blair House Luncheon for Dr. Veronese. Prince Khan is "western" in his orientation and would be acceptable to us if we could not arrange for the appointment of an American.)

No. 213

Geneva, April 6, 1961.

REF
Department's Airgram G-190 rptd USUN New York G-74/2/

SUBJECT
Possible Shift in Emphasis in Program of UNHCR

Neither the U.S. Mission nor U.S. delegations have encouraged enlarging the scope of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) program or indicated any possibility of an increase in U.S. assistance to refugees outside of Europe.

Although the sentence, contained in Geneva Despatch 175/3/ and referred to in the referenced airgram concerning statements by U.S. spokesmen in support of a shift in emphasis in the program of the UNHCR away from problems involving European refugees, may exaggerate or over-simplify the situation, the record of U.S. public statements including that of Mr. McCollum before the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Hanes before ICEM Council (December 1960) and even the text of the Presidential letter to Dr. Lindt, the outgoing High Commissioner, appears at least consistent with such a shift in emphasis if not actually calling for it. Moreover, the lack of U.S. opposition to the trend apparent in recent years toward broadening the UNHCR responsibility through special UNGA resolutions, would appear to encourage such a shift in emphasis as the problem of European refugees is reduced to manageable proportions.

It is clear from several indications, including the UNHCR press release 638, dated February 1, 1961,/4/ that Mr. Schnyder envisages a liberal interpretation of the operative paragraph of UNGA Resolution 1499 (XV)/5/ and contemplates a shift of emphasis to refugee groups on other continents.

The Mission questions the wisdom of opposing this development in the face of historic trend. However, if the Department believes the opposition desirable, it is recommended that the U.S. position be made clear to Dr. Schnyder when he visits Washington and that it be incorporated in the position papers for the U.S. Delegation to the 5th Session of the UNHCR Executive Committee.

This despatch has been prepared in four parts. The first part contains a general discussion of the issue raised by the Department's Airgram, namely, whether the U.S. has encouraged a shift in the emphasis of the High Commissioner's program from Europe to other areas. The second part comprises quotations from statements made by U.S. spokesmen and from other public documents on or relating to this subject. Part three presents the High Commissioner's attitude, together with developments within the High Commissioner's Executive Committee and elsewhere which support his position. Part four is the Mission's recommendation for clarification of U.S. policy on this subject.

At no time has the U.S. Mission or its representatives or, to the Mission's knowledge, the U.S. Delegations concerned, referred to any possibility of an increase in U.S. assistance to refugees in non-European countries. Moreover, consistent with Department policy, the Mission has opposed the expansion of UNHCR operational activities in connection with Algerian refugees and has refrained from offering any encouragement to the UNHCR to enlarge the geographic or functional scope of his activities.

Although the statement contained in Geneva Despatch No. 175, and referred to in the 1st paragraph of Department Airgram G-190 regarding the effect of U.S. statements may, in fact, amount to an exaggeration or at least an over-simplification, the statement is not basically inconsistent with what has actually transpired. In brief, although there has been no resounding endorsement by U.S. spokesmen of a formal shift of emphasis in the UNHCR responsibilities, the question has not been entirely skirted and there has been no U.S. rebuttal to statements of encouragement in this direction by representatives of some other governments and of influential voluntary agencies. It is difficult for the U.S., in its position of leadership, to avoid the appearance of supporting a premise of this nature short of actually opposing it.

Moreover, the carefully worded statements of U.S. representatives on this subject have seldom sounded altogether neutral or undecided on this point. Indeed, within the context of current trends and world developments, U.S. statements can hardly be considered as inconsistent with a shift in emphasis to meet these trends and developments.

To say the least, it has been only natural that the election and installation of the new U.S. Administration has encouraged UNHCR representatives, among others, to look to their own "new frontiers" where their services can be put to good or better use. The nomination of a new UNHCR who takes over as the program for Europe is well in progress toward liquidation has furthered this trend. The absence of forceful U.S. opposition has perhaps not formally encouraged this tendency but also has not resulted in its discouragement.

It is believed that the trend of world events in recent months has moved this matter well along to the point where a further formal expansion of the UNHCR's role in global refugee affairs may be difficult to avoid.

In one view it may be seen that the trend toward wider responsibility for the UNHCR has been developing for several years. With the termination of the UNREF program in 1958 the U.N. General Assembly approved Resolution 1166 (XII) which, among other things, contained provision for the UNHCR to undertake new refugee situations as they arise. Resolution 1167 (XII) appealed for assistance to Chinese refugees in Hong Kong and authorized the UNHCR to use his "good offices" in this connection. General Assembly action in behalf of refugees from Algeria and more recently in the form of GA 1499 (XV) are further steps in this direction. The sending by the UNHCR of a representative to Cambodia is another instance of events pointing toward wider UNHCR responsibilities. In extension of this trend it would seem logical to assume that the U.N. will call upon the UNHCR increasingly as new, unforeseen refugee problems arise as a result of political events in Africa and elsewhere.

The Mission assumes that the Department's concern, expressed in G-190, stems from a desire to avoid financial commitment rather than from opposition to this trend. However, should the Department wish to oppose this trend, a clear U.S. position should be developed as quickly as possible, and the U.S. delegation to the forthcoming Fifth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program beginning May 25, should be prepared to make this position known to all.

As to various U.S. statements made to the Executive Committee of the UNHCR and elsewhere in the past, there are quoted below several statements which doubtless have been interpreted as indicating a willingness to see the work of the UNHCR (and also of ICEM) not only continued but perhaps shifted, at least geographically, outside Europe:

A. The formal justification material presented to the House of Representatives' Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations in March, 1960 (and published in the volume of Committee Hearings in 1960) contained the following passage respecting the UNHCR program proposed for Fiscal Year 1961:

"In the past several years through the UNHCR program and through the efforts of the cooperating voluntary agencies and of ICEM and USEP much progress has been made in reducing the refugee problem, particularly in Europe. Nevertheless, events of the same period make it clear that refugees, as the product of international and nationalistic tensions, will continue to be an international problem. Therefore, U.S. assistance to refugees through the UNHCR must be anticipated as an annual program. Although the prospective cost of such programs in the years ahead will depend entirely upon the dimensions of the future refugee problem, every effort will be made to reduce the area of international assistance by stimulating greater acceptance of responsibility by asylum countries, thereby reducing the scope of the UNHCR program and the U.S. contributions thereto."/6/

In explaining the Department's view that the UNHCR must be anticipated as an "annual program," Mr. Robert S. McCollum, Deputy Administrator of SCA, said before the House Subcommittee, "I think the High Commissioner's program in the concept of the legal protection work must continue. This goes back many years, even back to League of Nations days; that as situations such as Algerian or Tibetan refugees arise, there will be need for international cooperation. We are not referring here to what ordinarily we refer to as the old caseload, which, as I mentioned, we hope to close out this year; at the end of this year. What we are anticipating, which has been true for the last 15 years, that something new occurs almost every year or every other year, such as the ones I mentioned, the Hungarian crisis, Algerians, Tibetans, which we think the U.N. as an organization would have a part in."/7/

B. The text of President Eisenhower's letter to Dr. Lindt, signed October 4, 1960, stated, inter alia, "You can, I believe, take proper pride in two major achievements. Your efforts to gain acceptance by more governments of the principles governing asylum and the protection of the legal status of refugees now stand as beacons of hope and security to countless thousands who are still striving to adjust to a new life in a new country. Of hardly less importance, your efforts to secure a greater world consciousness of the tragic material plight still suffered by many refugees has resulted in a remarkable increase in aid for these victims of oppression and political strife, and in substantial progress toward permanent solutions which we have all witnessed."/8/

Comment. This letter was read to the High Commissioner during the Fourth Session of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR Program. It is noticeably lacking in references to the mandate limitations and in any phrases indicating an official U.S. concern to restrict the High Commissioner's functions or future role. On the contrary, the praise for the UNHCR's "efforts to secure a greater world consciousness" almost endorses the notion of a global role for the UNHCR. Moreover, connecting this function with "the tragic material plight still suffered by many refugees" indicates a relaxation of the attitude frequently expressed by U.S. spokesmen, namely, that the UNHCR's future function should be primarily in the field of legal protection.

C. At the Fourth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program, October 1960, Mr. Richard R. Brown, Chief of the U.S. Delegation, is quoted as being "sure that everyone concerned with refugees must be extremely pleased with the results of World Refugee Year. The seed had been sown abundantly during the first part of the year, and the harvest was now being reaped. What was, perhaps, even more important, the world had awoken to its responsibilities towards refugees, and had at last come to regard them as human beings above everything. It was heartening to learn that World Refugee Year had done the refugees themselves much good psychologically. In addition, it had made it possible to help groups of refugees, in the Far East and in Africa, for whom the High Commissioner's Office had hitherto not been able to do much. That great effort must be continued."

D. Report from the Thirteenth Session of the ICEM Council Meeting December 6, 1960, at 10:30 a.m. at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.

"Mr. Hanes, United States of America, expressed his gratitude to the Director-in-Charge of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for his statement made at the 120th meeting. A superficial review might give the impression that the refugee problem had been practically solved; whereas just after the war there were eight million displaced persons in Europe, there were currently only about one hundred thousand in need of assistance.

"Nevertheless, in other areas, such as Africa, the Middle and Far East, there are several million refugees for whom the solution which had proved effective in Europe, namely immigration, was not always suitable. (Italics inserted.) Besides, the one hundred thousand refugees in Europe required urgent help from ICEM not only for humanitarian and moral reasons, but also because, with the regular arrival in Western Europe of refugees from the Eastern countries, the problem would probably become a permanent one. The Committee's operations in the migration field as well as the steps taken on behalf of refugees by the United States and the Office of the High Commissioner were inseparable; governments had well defined responsibilities regarding the problem as a whole.

"It might be feared that in the United States the enthusiasm raised by World Refugee Year would be followed by a period of relative apathy during which it would prove increasingly difficult for instance to find sponsors for refugees. The efforts which for the past ten years had led to such remarkable success must nevertheless be continued."

The new High Commissioner, Felix Schnyder, assumed his duties on February 1. Although he has not made controversial statements or given positive indications concerning his future functions, it is already apparent that he and his staff are inclined to interpret liberally his responsibilities both under his mandate and under certain U.N. General Assembly resolutions passed since 1957 which have broadened his original functions. Moreover, with most of the specific program and material assistance tasks assigned the UNHCR in Europe nearing a successful completion, the new High Commissioner and his chief aides are almost inevitably turning their eyes and their interest beyond Europe to the numerous refugee problems of Asia and Africa, seeking a basis for offering the assistance of the UNHCR and his office in helping alleviate these problems.

The very human desire to project the functions of the agency beyond its hitherto prescribed tasks has been whetted by the experience of World Refugee Year and by a growing awareness not only that large-scale refugee problems exist already in areas outside Europe but also that forces of change active now in the less developed continents bid fair to aggravate and even multiply these problems. The attitude of the new UNHCR was foreshadowed in the statement on World Refugee Year made by Dr. Lindt at the Fourth Meeting of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program last October, that there are "many indications--particularly the manner in which the national committees have decided to distribute the sums they have collected--that the refugee problem is tending to move from Europe to other continents." Dr. Lindt agreed then with the Swedish representative that the Executive Committee would be wise to examine the possible effects of that tendency on the High Commissioner's program at its next session, when the full results of World Refugee Year would be known.

In mid-January even before Mr. Schnyder took up his post, he expressed a distinct willingness to view his future functions as global, making particular reference to Asia and Africa. Speaking in New York to members of a special U.S. mission assigned to review the U.S. assistance to refugee programs in the Far East and South Asia, he said that, "although the (U.N.) mandate was useful in Europe, it had much less relevance to Asian conditions. He thought that in Asia the important thing was for the UNHCR to give practical help in the form of funds and immigration opportunities. And that . . . two (UN General Assembly) resolutions . . . gave him ample scope within which to operate. He considered it his function to focus world attention on specific refugee problems and to encourage governments to contribute. There had been little response to the resolution of 1957 on Chinese in Hong Kong, but quite a large response during World Refugee Year. Given the increased Afro-Asian representation in the U.N., he thought that the refugee problem of these areas would receive increasing attention." (Italics inserted.)

Members of his staff have been hardly less subtle on the same subject.

Further evidence that the new High Commissioner considers a shift in emphasis as ordained may be found in his press release No. Ref. 638, dated February 1, 1961, in which he noted "a shift in emphasis to groups in other continents." In reply to the Department's query regarding the degree of liberality in which he will interpret the GA Res. 1499 (XV), this same press release states in its final paragraph as follows:

"The High Commissioner said that in his opinion the 'good offices' concept was elastic enough to permit him, when asked, to bring effective aid to nearly any group of refugees provided there was sufficient interest and support on the part of the international community."

There is no doubt that the UNHCR and members of his staff have received encouragement to adopt a more liberal and expanded view of the High Commissioner's functions, directly and indirectly from some governments and directly from representatives of certain international voluntary agencies, including American agencies, which have begun themselves to shift more and more of their staff and programming efforts to areas outside Europe.

At the Fourth Session of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR Program, October 1960, "the representative of Belgium stated that as the problems of refugees of European origin seemed to be in the course of being solved, equal attention should from now on be given to the considerable number of refugees in other parts of the world and particularly in Asia and Africa, where their plight remained a source of concern. The Belgian delegation hoped that in the course of the present session of the General Assembly the United Nations would clearly indicate their formal wish that the efforts of UNHCR should in the first place be directed towards assistance to these refugees. Some representatives supported the suggestion made by the representative of Belgium. Other representatives, while recognizing the needs of refugees in other parts of the world, felt that due consideration should still be given to outstanding refugee problems and in particular to that of the camp population."

Representatives of the Holy See and Norway heartily endorsed the view of the Belgian delegate. The representative of Sweden "agreed that in the near future the refugee programme would have to be reconsidered and given a new direction, but he did not believe that the matter was ripe for consideration at the present session. The camp clearance programme was running late, and if efforts were diverted from it those who had made generous contributions to enable the camps to be quickly cleared would be disappointed. The Executive Committee would be in a better position to make up its mind after the end of the year-for example, at its Spring session in 1961. All members of the Committee were agreed that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race or nationality; but the problem with which the Committee was faced at that moment was, in his opinion, mainly psychological, and not one of principle."

Also, at the Fourth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program, on October 14, 1960, Mr. Jean Chenard, a United States citizen speaking on behalf of the Standing Conference of Voluntary Agencies Working for Refugees, stated, inter alia, that "It is hoped that opportunity will be found for a full-scale debate on the Chinese refugee problem during the next Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program. However, the warning is not out of place here that the High Commissioner will not be able to initiate programs for the Chinese refugees, unless Resolution No. 1167 of the UN General Assembly passed in November 1957, is radically altered. That was the Resolution which recommended that the High Commissioner should 'lend his good office for the arrangement of contributions.' Not at all the same things as starting up programs.

"We are grateful for the intervention during this Session of the distinguished representatives of the Holy See, Belgium and Norway, concerning assistance to refugees in Asia and Africa. In these fields too the voluntary agencies are already carrying on programs of feeding, housing, integration and emigration assistance."

Another specific example of encouragement for the UNHCR came at the meeting last December of the Standing Council of Voluntary Agencies in Geneva, when a spokesman for the voluntary agency Jami'at al Islam, an international group with headquarters in the U.S., urged that both the UNHCR and ICEM be authorized and equipped to provide more services to refugees in Asia and Africa, most of whom he described as being practically excluded, at present, from receiving direct benefits from these international organizations. Similar views have been expressed, perhaps less vehemently but nonetheless earnestly, by representatives of the larger voluntary agencies, including NCWC and WCC. The International Conference for World Refugee Year (ICWRY), which convened in Geneva in January 1961, called for several forms of enlarged activity by the UNHCR in behalf of refugees in and from Asia and Africa: (1) to investigate the condition of Algerians in Europe; (2) to include within the UNHCR mandate Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal and Chinese refugees in Hong Kong; and (3) to send a competent fact-finding mission under UNHCR or other appropriate auspices to ascertain the present condition of Chinese refugees in India, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Macao.

Regardless of whether or not U.S. statements have had the effect of encouraging a shift in the emphasis of the UNHCR program away from the European refugees and in the direction of refugee problems outside of Europe, it seems clear that such a shift is imminent if not already in motion. To this Mission the alternative to supporting such a shift appears questionable and, indeed, rather belated. After supporting a series of General Assembly Resolutions assigning additional and diverse responsibilities to the UNHCR; after a series of public statements, if not actually in support of, at least not inconsistent with such development; and in an era in which the concept of collective action through the U.N. has acquired increased importance, it might appear detrimental to U.S. leadership to oppose what could be regarded as a historic trend.

Unless the Department is determined to oppose what might be termed the "new frontier" for the UNHCR program, it may not be necessary to adopt any special attitude or position with respect to it at this time. The U.S. can "go along" with developments and reserve its right to lend support to the extent desired to any aspect of the new program that appears to be in the U.S. interest. (The Mission assumes this is the thinking reflected in the referenced airgram.) Although somewhat at odds with the principle of U.S. leadership, this may be the more attractive policy in view of budget and related problems. Moreover, it would be generally consistent with the spirit of UNGA Resolution 1166 (XII).

On the other hand, should the Department be determined to oppose the shift in emphasis, it would appear highly desirable to make this position clear to the UNHCR during his forthcoming visit to the U.S. and of even greater importance to reflect this attitude clearly in the position papers prepared for the U.S. delegation to the Fifth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program.

For the Ambassador:
Charles H. Owsley
Deputy United States Representative to International Organizations

Washington, April 13, 1961.

SUBJECT
Courtesy Visit by Ambassador Felix Schnyder, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

PARTICIPANTS
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs--George W. Ball
Ambassador Felix Schnyder
Miss Arlene Cohn, Representative of the High Commissioner in the U.S.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard N. Gardner
Otis E. Mulliken, IO:OES

Ambassador Schnyder expressed appreciation for the assistance that the United States had rendered to the activities of his Office. He indicated that he thought there might well be a shift in the traditional activities of his Office, which had previously been concerned primarily with European refugee problems, to a concern with non-European refugees, as for example those in Cambodia. He indicated that, as a first principle of operating policy, he thought there should be a definite terminal date for all projects carried out by his Office, such as closing refugee camps. He described his views on increasing international cooperation over refugees, such as the increasing willingness of countries of first asylum to accept refugees.

In his general presentation, Ambassador Schnyder referred to the activities of his Office relating to Algerian refugees and, in response to questions by Mr. Ball, gave a brief description of the scope and character of these activities.

Ambassador Schnyder made no requests for any policy decisions or policy guidance and no commitments of any kind were made to him.

A-191

Washington, April 24, 1961.

SUBJECT
Possible Shift in Emphasis in Program of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

The Department appreciates the Mission's excellent despatch which discusses the role the United States may be expected to play in support of the continuing activities of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)./2/

The Department believes that the image of United States policy in this connection created by statements of various United States officials quoted in the reference despatch is essentially correct in that it is a reflection of United States awareness of the existence of refugee problems outside Europe, of its interest in seeking solution to those problems, and of United States support of the principle of international responsibility for refugee problems. However, the Mission should discourage any interpretation of these statements as indicating automatic increases in United States support for refugees outside of Europe. Pending review of these problems as called for in the report of the Department's Task Force on Refugees the Department has desired in prepared public statements of policy only to give recognition to the fact that the problem of older refugees in Europe is nearing solution and, consistent with traditional United States refugee policy, to call attention to the fundamental responsibility of asylum countries for refugees in their territory.

The Department has recently prepared a statement of the Executive Branch position on the continuation of the UNHCR as follows:

"The United States recognizes the principle of asylum for those fleeing from persecution and supports this principle through its own and international programs to assist Free World countries in maintaining liberal policies of asylum and in developing facilities and procedures therefor. It is in the United States interest to continue to join with other countries in accepting international responsibility for refugee problems in the Free World.

"To achieve specific national political and other interests, the United States Escapee Program (USEP) assists new anti-Communist escapees from Soviet bloc countries and from Yugoslavia, and certain escapees from Communist China or the Asian satellites. United States assistance to other refugees, exclusive of Palestine Arab refugees, is generally provided through the programs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and through the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.

"The UNHCR material assistance program was begun in 1955 with the objective of providing permanent solutions for the older groups of Soviet bloc refugees. It has been United States policy progressively to reduce its contributions toward the solution of this problem and where feasible to leave the burden of the residual problem on the countries of asylum. Consistent with progress achieved in the solution of this problem in Europe the Department has regularly reduced its requests to Congress for funds for this purpose. The United States has announced that it is unlikely that it would contribute substantially after 1961 to the solution of the residual European problem in those countries now able to bear the burden themselves.

"The United States also contributes to support UNHCR action in connection with other refugee problems which have arisen since 1955. One such program initiated in 1957 for the re-establishment of Hungarian revolt refugees in the Free World is now virtually completed. Other programs of assistance to Jewish refugees in Europe from the United Arab Republic and to Algerian refugees in Morocco and Tunisia continue. The eventual solution of the Algerian refugee problem is dependent on a basic political solution to the over-all Algerian problem, and the reduction of the refugee problem meanwhile is beyond the control of the United States and the UNHCR. Therefore, United States contributions to the UNHCR for the purpose of providing care and maintenance pending a basic political solution will be required. The level of such assistance should remain relatively constant from year to year, but may possibly increase slightly as the refugee population is augmented by natural increase. Such United States assistance serves vital United States policy objectives by demonstrating United States sympathy and concern for the refugees and the people generally in North Africa.

"In addition to these current programs the UNHCR may become seized of other problems of new refugees falling within his mandate in consequence of the continuing interplay of dynamic political and social forces. Such situations may arise out of the unsettled conditions in Africa south of the Sahara, or in other areas of the world.

"In appraising new refugee emergencies or in reviewing current refugee programs, the United States will determine on the basis of its interests whether United States assistance should be provided or continued and, if so, will decide in the light of existing circumstances whether to arrange for the provision of such aid as may be required through the United States Escapee Program, through bilateral arrangements with the countries of asylum or through an international agency such as the UNHCR. In making this determination, the Department will take into account the advantages from the standpoint of achieving United States objectives which might accrue from providing assistance through USEP or through bilateral arrangements, and will also take into account political and cost advantages which may be gained from providing United States assistance through internationally supported organizations. The channeling of United States aid through the UNHCR, to which the normal contribution does not exceed 33-1/3 percent, offers patent cost advantages."

Within the context of this policy the United States would not oppose increasing UNHCR attention to refugee problems outside of Europe particularly within the framework of the good offices resolutions. United States support of General Assembly resolutions 1166 (XII), 1167 (XII), 1388 (XIV), 1389 (XIV), 1499 (XV), 1500 (XV), 1501 (XV), 1502 (XV) which deal inter alia with new refugee situations and the good offices function of the UNHCR is consistent with this policy. In considering the extent of its support of any UNHCR new activities which might be proposed the United States will weigh carefully its national political and security interests against the availability of resources as is the case with regard to continuing escapee and refugee programs including those of the UNHCR.

During recent conversations in the Department the High Commissioner indicated that his basic approach to the activities of his Office will be to seek, where possible, to avoid the development or creation of problems. He feels that the identification or recognition of certain refugee situations needlessly creates problems which then must be solved. As an example he cited Algerian refugees in Europe. Certain agencies claim that these Algerians are in fact refugees, as the Algerians in Morocco and Tunisia and as those escapees from Communist-dominated countries, and that they are in need of the protection of the UNHCR. It is the High Commissioner's view that these refugees are for the most part employed and in satisfactory condition, and that action on his part to recognize them as being within his mandate would merely create a problem and not help the refugees. He further indicated that the involvement of his Office in any refugee situations would follow, among other things, a cautious approach to the government of the country involved and recognition and agreement by that government that UNHCR action on behalf of refugees on its territory would be in the interest of that government. The High Commissioner is also cognizant of the necessity of consulting with members of the Executive Committee in connection with the provision of assistance to new groups of refugees. The UNHCR stated that he was not planning to bring additional groups of refugees within his mandate. If he felt that a given group of refugees should be helped through his Office he would plan to serve as a catalytic agent in obtaining the material support required. This he felt he could do under existing authority of the good offices resolutions.

The Department is in agreement with these views of the High Commissioner on the future work of his Office. It appears, however, that they differ somewhat in emphasis from the attitude reported in the reference despatch that "the new High Commissioner and his chief aides are almost inevitably turning their eyes and their interest beyond Europe to the numerous refugee problems of Asia and Africa, seeking a basis for offering the assistance of the UNHCR and his Office in helping alleviate these problems." The Department would appreciate receiving comments from the Mission on the possible divergency of views as between the High Commissioner and his chief aides.

The Department's views on the future of the UNHCR set forth above will be reflected in position papers to be prepared for the United States delegation to the 5th Session of the Executive Committee. The Department would welcome the Mission's comments on these views and any suggestions the Mission may wish to make with regard to the position to be taken by the United States on the agenda items for the forthcoming session.

Rusk

Washington, July 14, 1961.

[Here follow the first six sections of the report: 1. Background of the Conference, 2. Agenda as Adopted, 3. Participation, 4. United States Delegation, 5. Organization of the Conference, and 6. Work of the Committee.]

A copy of the report (with appendices) of the Fifth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme (A/AC.96/127) appears as enclosure 3./2/

The Committee:

(1) Noted the progress and financial reports and statements of the High Commissioner for Refugees dealing with the various programs under his jurisdiction, including the regular annual program and the former UNREF program as of December 31, 1960 (A/AC.96/110 and A/AC.96/111); the program for new Hungarian refugees (A/AC.96/112); the assistance program for refugees from Algeria in Morocco and Tunisia (A/AC.96/113 and Addendum 1); the Far Eastern program (A/AC.96/117); and the program of the World Refugee Year (A/AC.96/121);

(2) Noted the provisional financial statements for the year 1960 (A/AC.96/114 and A/AC.96/118);

(3) Recommended that the UNHCR continue his efforts to raise funds for assistance to refugees from both governmental and non-governmental sources (A/AC.96/115);

(4) Noted the progress made and agreed with the recommendations put forward by the Mental Health Advisor with respect to assistance to refugees in the "special cases" category (A/AC.96/116 and Addendum 1);

(5) Reviewed and endorsed the High Commissioner's proposals for additions to and modifications in his regular programs for the balance of 1961, including the projects for legal assistance and the country clearance program for Italy (A/AC.96/110 and A/AC.96/120 and Addendum 1);

(6) Approved provisional fund allocations by country for the regular program for 1962 (A/AC.96/124);

(7) Noted a report on housing for refugees and agreed that the High Commissioner should continue to study this program (A/AC.96/128);

(8) Noted and approved conclusions reached by the UNHCR regarding the financing of transport of refugees to the effect that, with full regard to the long standing division of financial responsibility between UNHCR and ICEM, his office would not hesitate to take immediate action to avoid a situation where refugees could not be resettled owing to lack of transport funds and would continue to support where needed the Director of ICEM in his requests for additional contributions from governmental and other sources (A/AC.96/126);

(9) Discussed and agreed to consider further, at a later date, the related questions of the future responsibilities of the UNHCR and the assistance to be rendered to refugees in various areas under the United Nations Resolutions pertaining to the use of the High Commissioner's good offices to deal with emergency problems. In this latter connection the Committee noted the developments to date with respect to the particular problems of Chinese refugees in Hong Kong and Macau and refugees in Cambodia.

(10) Examined and agreed to a proposal by the UNHCR that, in the future, major questions would be considered at a main session of the Executive Committee to be held in the Spring. Consideration of a related proposal for the establishment of a preparatory sub-committee of the Executive Committee was deferred to a subsequent session.

The reports presented by the High Commissioner indicated that funds now available were sufficient to insure that the problem of "old" refugees in camps in Europe could be liquidated by the end of 1961 or early in 1962 without additional international support. In connection with the problem of non-settled out-of-camp refugees areas which appear to require continued international attention relate in the main to handicapped persons. It is the intention of the High Commissioner to press for international assistance also in connection with the completion of certain so-called "country clearance programs" where the economic circumstances of the host countries would make for undue delay in the alleviation of the refugee problems.

From a policy point of view, the major item under consideration was that of the future role of the High Commissioner in facing new refugee problems, particularly those of refugees who do not fall within his mandate. There was evidence of considerable divergence of opinion on this important subject. The representative of Canada, for instance, questioned whether the Executive Commitee, under the Economic and Social Council Resolution XXV, was competent to consider problems of assistance to refugees outside of the mandate of the UNHCR. No formal decisions were reached and this subject will be discussed further at future sessions of the Committee. However, it was clear from the debate that, in connection with problems of refugees not within the mandate, there is general agreement for the cautious exercise by the High Commissioner of his good offices in their behalf.

Several delegations also questioned the propriety of the use of the High Commissioner of his emergency fund for assistance in emergency problems of refugees outside his mandate. After considerable discussion during which the U.S. Representative favored liberal discretionary usage of the fund, the majority opinion seemed to support judicious use of the emergency funds by the High Commissioner for new refugee problems on a provisional basis even where the status of these new refugees might be doubtful in terms of his mandate.

It was the view of the High Commissioner that the Resolution of the 13th and subsequent General Assemblies expanding the scope of his interest in refugees did not carry with them the legal authority to expend funds in behalf of such refugees without prior authorization from the appropriate organ of the United Nations. Certainly, further searching consideration of all aspects of the future activities of the High Commissioner with respect to emergent problems can be anticipated in future sessions of the Executive Committee as opinion is far from solidified to date.

With respect to the future work of the Executive Committee, it was agreed that the major session would be held in the Spring and that the Fall session would be shorter in duration and essentially limited to a review of progress. In taking this decision, it was recognized that special problems might arise between the Spring and Fall sittings of the Executive Committee and in support of the U.S. Delegation's contention, it was agreed that the projected arrangement should not prejudice the review of such problems by the Executive Committee at its Fall Sitting.

Other than brief mention by the High Commissioner within the context of an address on his good offices responsibility, the problem of the refugees from Angola in the Congo did not arise for discussion although it was the subject of numerous informal conversations between individual delegations and with the High Commissioner. Discussions were also held by the UNHCR with a representative of the Portuguese Red Cross who acted as Observer for Portugal to the Session, and it was the High Commissioner's opinion, shared by many, that open discussion of the subject in the Session would create difficulties of a political nature without advancing the humanitarian cause of assistance to the refugees.

Some friction developed between the delegations of China and the U.K. over the question of a resolution the Chinese Delegation had intended to introduce at the Session. Relating to the future activities of the UNHCR, the draft resolution called upon the High Commissioner to take the initiative in discussing refugee problems with the authorities or governments concerned with a view to determining whether the problems in question were of a nature to warrant the exercise of the good offices or other responsibilities of the High Commissioner in their behalf. Considering that it was designed primarily to bring about greater international, and hence Chinese Government, participation in the alleviation of the Chinese refugee problem in Hong Kong, the U.K. Delegation was opposed to the resolution. After discussing the text of the draft resolution privately with several delegations, including the United States, the Chinese Delegation was persuaded by the UNHCR staff and by the U.K. Delegation to withhold the resolution with the apparent understanding on the part of the Chinese Delegate that he could submit the text of the resolution to the Committee in the form of a speech. When he attempted to do so the U.K. Delegate challenged this move as being "out of order" on the grounds that a delegation could not submit a resolution in such form. The chair ruled in favor of the point of order and a compromise was eventually reached whereby the Chinese Delegate alluded to the proposed resolution in his speech and the text of the draft resolution was circulated by the secretariat.

The next meeting of the Executive Committee was provisionally scheduled for the second half of October 1961, with the proviso that it should not conflict with the Meeting of the Executive Board of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.

The work of the Committee was expeditiously handled and no conclusions were reached that were not in accord with the instructions to the United States Representative. The U.S. Delegation was particularly gratified both with the manner in which Mr. Salvesen, the Chairman, performed his functions and with the work of the Secretariat.

Washington, October 18, 1961.

SUBJECT
UNHCR Report at ECOSOC

I was interested in the comments in the Official Use Only Report of the Chairman of the United States Delegation to the 32nd Session of ECOSOC on the UNHCR Report.

I know that as the heat of the Berlin Crisis/2/ grows hotter it is considered less and less in good taste to say anything that agrees with anything that any Russian officials say. However, I was interested that "in the course of the debate on the UNHCR report the U.S.S.R. and Bulgarian Delegations stressed that the virtual conclusion of the European refugee problem clearly indicated that the need for the Office of the UNHCR was drawing to an end and that measures should be taken to liquidate the Office and most of its functions over the next eighteen months. They argued that the functions of legal assistance and good offices could be carried on by other branches of the United Nations Secretariat."

This is exactly what quite a number of us around the Department feel. Particularly after attending the 15th General Assembly when the UNHCR Annual Report was debated, I came to be quite concerned that the continued existence of an Office like the UNHCR Office, created particularly for European problems, becomes increasingly anomalous in an expanding United Nations. It seems more and more unjustifiable that the United States Government continues to prop this office-one of the most costly of the United Nations programs. During the year and a half I was officially concerned with these matters, I found a wide range of criticism of our traditional stand on refugee programs throughout the Department-especially in EUR, FE, NEA, and M/OP. Their only defense appears to be among "refugee experts," such as those in ORM and those in the voluntary agencies which operate under contract with our refugee programs and in close harmony with ORM, and a sprinkling of Congressmen whose constituents include heavy representation of certain minority groups and who erroneously believe ORM legitimately represents the considered view of "the Department." Such people have been so closely identified with European refugee groups since the end of World War II that they have difficulty grasping current global perspectives. Especially under these circumstances I was disappointed to see that we said in ECOSOC that it was clear "it might be necessary to continue" the UNHCR Office "for some time to come." His mandate is now due to expire in 1963, and I believe it would be a serious mistake to continue it in its present form beyond that date.

I would suggest these views be considered in the preparation and approval of future Position Papers relating to UNHCR.

On February 1, 1962, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees announced that Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan was appointed as Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (Telegram 750 from Geneva, February 1, 1962; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960-63, 324.8411/2-162)

Washington, March 27, 1962, 5:39 p.m.

1411. Your A-151./2/ Re UNHCR proposed 1963 regular program the Department: (a) considers UNHCR should plan finance annual program of projects for which he can assure same year initiation and intensive action toward implementation. Thus US considers his budget should be submitted on year to year basis as refugee problem may dictate. In any event US will consider its contributions on year to year basis. (b) Mission should call UNHCR attention to continuing US belief that solution of remaining refugee problems in countries with flourishing economies should be primarily responsibility of host government with minimal contributions from international resources. This particularly applicable in cases of refugees fully employed and integrated except for provision adequate housing. US would wish impact its contribution directed toward solution problem in less flourishing countries.

Re continuing program primarily Europe Department in accord legal assistance activities. Department would wish more specific and detailed information re program content other items before commenting.

As UNHCR aware US contributions must be made on basis extant problems. Thus US unable contribute to "open fund account" but would not oppose creation such account if other governments desire contribute to it. US considers preferable emergency fund continue be used for good office's purpose as in past. Also considers that expenditures for housing unless on emergency basis should not be made from emergency fund but should be covered within regular program.

US over-all contribution to 1963 programs unlikely exceed 1962 level.

Falk will discuss administrative grant-in-aid with Schnyder during ICEM meeting.

Ball

Geneva, July 10, 1962.

[Here follow the first six sections: 1, Background of the Conference; 2, Agenda as Adopted; 3, Participation; 4, United States Delegation; 5, Organization of Conference; and 6, Work of the Committee. ]

In general the Seventh Session of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was concerned with receiving a current status report on the work of the Office of the High Commissioner and on progress made in the implementation of previously agreed programs and projects. These involved no basic difficulties for either the United States or most of the other governments present.

While the United States Government was in a position to support the various findings of the Committee it also had the opportunity to express certain views of the United States Government. These were as follows:

That the United States assumed that in the funding of the $5.4 million target program for the final aid projects for "old" refugees, the High Commissioner will not only utilize all of his present resources which may appropriately be devoted to this purpose but will also obtain substantial contributions from private voluntary sources and maximum matching assistance from governments of asylum countries. Without these assumptions a target program of $5.4 million would be too high. Several other governments also observed that the sum of $5.4 million appeared to be rather high as contrasted with the estimate of $700,000 for the new refugee groups, and stressed the importance of supporting contributions, recommending that the High Commissioner use all the uncommitted balances at his disposal.

The Committee's discussion of the $700,000 "open fund" to be used in connection with "good offices" programs was closely linked to its discussion of two other subjects. These were the use of the High Commissioner's emergency fund including loan repayments in excess of the authorized $500,000 ceiling of that fund and the proposal to utilize these loan repayments for a special housing project in France and for other similar projects.

In accordance with its instructions, the U.S. Delegation advised the Committee and the High Commissioner that while the U.S. fully approved of the continuation by the UNHCR of the exercise of his good offices to meet newly developing refugee problems the U.S. would not contribute to an "open fund" for this purpose.

The U.S. Delegation further set forth the U.S. position that the resources of the emergency fund, including loan repayments in excess of the ceiling of that fund, should be utilized for financing programs undertaken through the "good offices" function or other program requirements as approved by the Committee. The U.S. Delegation opposed the use of these loan repayments for such purposes as the proposed special housing project in France, maintaining that such projects should be considered by the Committee on the same basis as the rest of the material assistance programs for European refugees for which contributions are being requested from governments.

Following a rather prolonged discussion of these related matters, the Committee (1) decided in approving the allocations of the High Commissioner's program for 1963 to take into account the reservations expressed on establishing open funds, (2) expressed its interest in the suggestion for housing loans but asked the High Commissioner to consider other means for financing this suggestion, and (3) took no action with respect of the use to be made of the loan payments in excess of the $500,000 ceiling of the emergency fund.

During the debate on program allocations for 1963 (Document A/AC.96/162) the U.S. Delegate had the opportunity to commend the High Commissioner for giving high priority to the problem of camp clearance and to note with gratification that the High Commissioner hoped to have sufficient funds to complete this operation. He also noted that due importance had been given to the resettlement of the residual group. However, the thought was expressed by the U.S. Delegate that the UNHCR should use all the funds in its possession to implement the projects due for completion in 1962 instead of carrying over outstanding balances from one year to another.

In connection with the item on international protection, the United States representative reasserted the basic U.S. position which places emphasis on the importance of this permanent function of the UNHCR, particularly as the programs for material assistance are coming to an end.

Discussion of the item on assistance to refugees from Algeria in Morocco and Tunisia afforded an opportunity to point out that the U.S. had maintained a major interest in this program; that since the beginning of the program in 1958, the U.S. had contributed $13,922,750 in various commodities (including the cost of transportation) for the feeding of these refugees; that the U.S. had twice contributed tents and tenting material for their shelter; that up until the end of 1961 the U.S. had contributed an amount of $1,753,375 in cash to the UNHCR for the administration of the program and for the purchase of required items not contributed in kind through other governments and agencies participating in the program; that for 1962, the U.S. has continued its contribution of food and in addition has contributed $600,000 in cash for administration; that since this program may at long last be reaching a satisfactory conclusion, and as the full amount of the $600,000 contributed for this year may not be needed for administration of the relief program, the U.S. has suggested that the UNHCR use these funds for the repatriation program now underway; that in addition to the cash contribution, the U.S. has agreed to contribute food to the League of Red Cross Societies for the feeding of refugees being repatriated in the amounts of 9,000 metric tons wheat, 750 MT flour, 300 MT edible oil, 300 MT beans, and 150 MT dried milk; that in response to an urgent appeal for shelter for the refugees being repatriated, the U.S. has agreed to provide a total of 10,000 tents; that these tents together with the cost of tent poles, ropes, and tent stakes, which must be purchased by the U.S., will amount in total value to a contribution of $800,000; that, in addition, the U.S. has undertaken to provide transportation of these tents to North Africa. In concluding, the U.S. Delegate congratulated the UNHCR and the League of Red Cross Societies on the excellent job being done and all the governments which had contributed to this program.

In the course of the discussion of the Progress Report on UNHCR Regular Programmes for 1959, 1960, and 1961, and on the former UNREF Program, the Delegate from Yugoslavia gave a somewhat lengthy statement in which he expressed appreciation for the work done by the High Commissioner in clearing camps and assisting refugees outside of camps; reviewed the work done by his country in assisting refugees; recalled the joint efforts of the UNHCR, and the Governments of Belgium, France, and the United States begun in 1961 which had made it possible to clear Camp Gerovo; and appealed to the Executive Committee to take steps to include Yugoslavia in the 1963 program of assistance in connection with the integration of refugees in his country. In response the U.S. Delegation emphasized its satisfaction over the final closure of Camp Gerovo and extended congratulations to the High Commissioner, the Government of Yugoslavia and particularly the Government of Belgium which had accepted the great majority of the refugees moved from Gerovo. The U.S. Delegation further stated that the Government of Italy had also provided a haven for some of these refugees, that the Government of France is now undertaking a share of the balance of the refugees formerly in Gerovo, adding that the U.S. Government has participated financially with the UNHCR in the placement of the refugees in Belgium and France.

During the discussion on new refugee situations the Delegate from the Republic of China, noting the recent large influx of Chinese refugees from the mainland into Hong Kong, drew attention to the fact that these refugees were being turned back by the Hong Kong authorities and asked the Committee to give the matter close attention in order to find means of assisting the Hong Kong authorities to solve this problem. The Delegate from the United Kingdom was not prepared to discuss the present situation and merely outlined the Hong Kong Government's policy of immigration control which has been in effect since 1956, as well as restating the problems which faced the Hong Kong authorities with the ever increasing population there. With the tacit agreement of the Committee no particular action was recommended. However, after the close of the official Session, the Delegate from the Republic of China informed the delegations to the Session of a five point program that his Government was prepared to undertake on behalf of these refugees as contained in the final report of the Session. The Delegate from the United Kingdom simply stated at this point that the problem of Chinese refugees would be brought to the attention of his government.

Also during the discussion on New Refugee Situations and following the statements made by the Delegates from the Republic of China and the United Kingdom, the Observer for Portugal announced that a plan for the assistance of Chinese refugees in Macau had been submitted to the High Commissioner and circulated to the members of the Committee. The plan provides in particular for the construction of a reception center, housing, schools, and industrial premises designed to accommodate some 30,000 refugees. While the Committee members were not prepared to discuss this plan during the Session, at the close of the Session the U.S. Delegate endorsed the action taken by the High Commissioner under his good offices function to encourage contributions towards the establishment of Chinese refugees in Macau, and the Delegate from Belgium stated that the Belgian Government had earmarked part of its 1961 contribution to the UNHCR to be used for the Portuguese Government's project in Macau.

The next meeting of the Executive Committee was provisionally scheduled for the last week in October or first part of November 1962.

The work of the Committee was expeditiously handled and no conclusions were reached that were not in accord with the instructions to the United States Representative.

Geneva, July 20, 1962.

Dear Mr. Cleveland,

It was a particular pleasure for me to meet with you last Saturday/2/ and I want to thank you very much for the warm and encouraging interest you have, again on this occasion, shown for the problems of my Office.

The possibility to speak with you about these problems was highly welcome just now, shortly before the Economic and Social Council and then the General Assembly will discuss the question of the future of my Office and at a time when its work in new refugee situations is beginning to consolidate itself and when, finally, strong efforts should be made to finish its major aid projects for "old" refugees within the mandate.

As promised, you will find in the annex a note describing various aspects of the latter problem./3/

I am convinced that, if we want to complete this task, we must concentrate on it now in the most effective way. This is a challenging but certainly also a realistic aim. Otherwise the work of my Office, as it is now organised, would soon risk becoming somewhat futile.

However, the financial responsibilities with which I am confronted are heavy. The cost of completing the programme for "old" mandate refugees in 1962 and 1963 will total 10.4 million dollars of which 5 million dollars is the target for 1962 and 5.4 million dollars for 1963. In addition, for 1963 my Executive Committee has approved an amount of 1.4 million dollars to meet the needs for new refugee situations throughout the world and to provide for continuing complementary aid activities primarily in Europe. It is already apparent that there will be a shortfall of some 2 million dollars in contributions toward the 1962 regular programmes of 5 million dollars. Assuming governmental contributions for 1963 do not exceed the 1962 level there will be a shortfall of 4 million dollars in the amount required toward the completion of the major aid program which, added to the 1.4 million dollars for new situations and continuing activities in 1963, will make our total unmet needs almost 6 million dollars.

In view of this serious situation I feel it is my responsibility to make an earnest appeal to governments to renew their efforts to provide the necessary funds to carry out those programmes. I shall concentrate my efforts on countries in Europe and I have good hopes that it will be possible to stimulate among them a significant new movement of solidarity. I am also determined to take advantage of some rather promising other sources of income. But it is very evident that, without substantial help from the United States, I shall not be able to fulfil my task, or even to find the European countries ready and confident enough for the act of generosity required from them.

My Office, and indeed the entire international community, is ever aware and appreciative of the leadership and generosity of the Government of the United States over the years in the cause of refugees. Since the establishment of UNRRA immediately after the Second World War, and continuing through the implementation of the programmes of the International Refugee Organisation and more recently the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, your Government has been in the front rank of nations who have stimulated the conscience and inspired the efforts of the entire international community on behalf of refugees.

I feel that such an international humanitarian undertaking will ultimately and largely be judged by the way it will be brought to its completion. Countries which have carried and are still carrying the heavy load of that enterprise should therefore be interested in making an appropriate final effort to guarantee the success of this undertaking while, at the same time, highlighting what has been achieved by their earlier sacrifices, amounting literally to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Making such an effort would not only give them this satisfaction but also allow them, later on, to reduce very substantially the contributions to the regular programme of my Office.

Under the given circumstances, I would like to suggest that the United States Government may consider a level of contribution, regarded as justified in relationship to the Programme of complementary assistance of my Office for which it is expected to spend 1.4 million dollars for 1963 (and approximately the same during the following years).

Furthermore, it would be particularly helpful if the United States Government could envisage an appropriate contribution towards meeting the still uncovered financial requirements of my Office under its regular programme for 1962 and 1963, for the latter as far as the last major aid projects are concerned.

I do in no way wish to anticipate the conclusions which the American authorities may finally draw from these facts. But, reading these personal lines, you will perhaps forgive me or even find it useful if, looking on the question in a purely practical way, I give you an estimate of a final contribution with which the United States Government could effectively play its part to make sure that the last major aid projects for "old" mandate-refugees can be properly implemented. Having in mind the requirements of this task, amounting to 10.4 million dollars minus 3 million dollars already contributed, and a possible matching percentage of 33%, I think that a United States participation to the extent of 2 million dollars would well serve the purpose, it being understood that my Office would have to search for any additional (especially private) source of income available to finance the remaining difference. Such a one time United States contribution could hardly be considered unreasonably high if compared with contributions pledged by the United States Government during the last years:

1960--$1,650,000.
1961--$1,300,000.
1962--$1,200,000.

However, what has affected the financial position of the regular programme of my Office in 1961 and 1962 was the fact that 500,000. dollars and 600,000. dollars respectively were earmarked for the entirely separate and self-sustained action in favour of Algerian refugees.

I do not know what kind of budgetary problems could arise in this context. I would only like to point out that the final contribution towards major aid projects should, if possible, be paid or at least pledged early in 1963 so that the work of my Office, implementing these projects, will not be delayed (to the detriment of the refugees as well as of the United Nations budget and of the governments who have to finance it).

I would be most grateful to you for further sympathetic consideration of this matter. When, in this respect, any contacts with the European governments will have led to more tangible results, I shall not fail to inform you./4/

With kindest regards,

Sincerely yours,

Felix Schnyder

A-104

Geneva, August 31, 1962.

SUBJECT
Continuation of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Officers of this Mission have been advised by representatives of the UNHCR that the Canadian Ambassador in Geneva, Mr. S.F. Rae, has expressed the desire of his government to sponsor a resolution in the General Assembly supporting the continuation of the Office of the UNHCR for five years. The Canadian Ambassador added that Canada hoped to have the resolution co-sponsored on a wide geographic representation. He mentioned Congo (Leopoldville), Tunisia, or Morocco, a Scandinavian country and another British Commonwealth government as desirable co-sponsors. He did not name but seeks Asiatic co-sponsorship as well. Although the Mission has no copy of this Canadian draft it is endeavoring to obtain one.

According to Mr. Jamieson, the UNHCR is concerned about the text of the Canadian resolution which in addition to being extremely legalistic, commends the High Commissioner on his assistance in many politically controversial problems, i.e., Angolan refugees in Congo, Algerian refugees, and Chinese refugees in Hong Kong and Macau. The UNHCR feels that such a resolution would antagonize many countries with whom he has good relations.

The High Commissioner reportedly does not wish to be placed in a position of drafting or dictating his own resolution in the General Assembly. Accordingly, he is reluctant to advise Canadian Ambassador of the problems involved in the Canadian draft although he may do so if necessary.

Despite this reluctance one staff officer of UNHCR has prepared an informal draft of a resolution which reportedly has the UNHCR's blessing. The text of this draft appears at the end of this airgram.

Mr. Jamieson was unable to suggest why the Canadian Government has particular interest in sponsoring the UNHCR resolution unless it was to counterbalance Canadian decision recently communicated to the Director of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) of Canada's intention to withdraw from that organization.

UNHCR staff officials also expressed grave concern over a report that the U.S. may be planning to recommend that the composition and method of selection of the UNHCR Executive Committee be placed on a rotating basis similar to that utilized in the UNICEF Committee. Allegedly this concept would envisage the election of some governments for three years, some for two years and others for one year.

The Mission has not been advised by the Department that any such change in the composition or method of selection of the UNHCR Executive Committee is under consideration within the Department and Mission officers informed the UNHCR representatives to this effect.

Comment: Without knowledge of the validity of the report cited by the UNHCR representatives, the Mission considers that a rotation plan for the membership of the Executive Committee would be extremely ill advised for the following reasons:

1. The Executive Committee has been, is, and should be, composed essentially of countries sufficiently sophisticated, affluent and benign to interest themselves in participating in the program to the extent of contributing money to aid refugees. With very few exceptions, all such countries are already members of the Committee. Although it might be possible to rotate some of the recipient nations, the removal of any of the contributing nations would probably mean the loss of that nation's contribution for the period it was off the Committee.

2. Despite the political implications inherent in all refugee problems, the Executive Committee and the UNHCR have been remarkably able to avoid involvement in political controversy in the several years of their existence. The rotation of membership, particularly with some one-year members, would mean raising the question of membership each year with the result that membership or denial of membership would inevitably acquire a much more political complexion. The rotation system would appear, by its very nature, to plunge the UNHCR, or at least his Executive Committee, into the type of political controversy the avoidance of which probably has contributed substantially to whatever success his program has enjoyed to date.

3. The UNHCR program in some of its aspects is so complex that a government elected for only one year would have difficulty learning what it was all about before its year was up.

4. The fact that UNICEF Executive Committee has a rotating membership doesn't appear to have any particular application to the situation of the UNHCR. After all, there is nothing very controversial or political about assistance to children while refugee problems are created by political developments.

The draft resolution prepared by Mr. Jacques Colmar and approved unofficially by the UNHCR follows:

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Having considered the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and having heard his statement,

Noting with appreciation the progress achieved by the High Commissioner in carrying out his task both in the field of international protection and in the search for permanent solution through voluntary repatriation, integration in the countries of asylum or resettlement in another country,

Satisfied with the way in which the High Commissioner has been able to adapt his action to the needs of new groups of refugees, while keeping within the limits prescribed by his statute and by the good offices resolutions,

Considering that only by sustained humanitarian action on the part of an organisation such as the Office of the High Commissioner is it likely that concrete, constructive and, where possible, final solutions to the problems of refugees will be achieved, and the extension and the deterioration of these problems, in so far as they continue to exist, will be prevented,

Taking into account resolution 1165 (XII) of 26 November 1957 in which it decided to review no later than at its seventeenth session the arrangements for the High Commissioner's Office with a view to determining whether the Office should be further continued beyond 31 December 1963,

Decides to continue the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as from 1 January 1964 and to review no later than at its 22nd session the arrangements for the Office.

Tubby

New York, November 13, 1962, 4 p.m.

1756. Verbatim Text. For: Bell (OES). Third Committee--UNHCR.

Heroux (Canada) presented Mission following draft resolution regarding UNHCR mandate continuation agreed on with 12 co-sponsors (Algeria, Morocco, Norway, Denmark, Colombia, Malaya, Tanganyika, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Congo (Lime), Iran):

"The General Assembly,

Noting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,

Recalling its resolution 1165 (XII) of November 1957, in which it was decided to review, not later than at its 17th Session, the arrangements for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees with a view to determining whether the Office should be continued beyond 31 December 1963,

Convinced of the continuing need for international action on behalf of refugees,

Considering the valuable work which has been performed by the Office of the High Commissioner in providing international protection for refugees and in promoting permanent solutions for their problems, with the joint participation of governments, international organizations and voluntary agencies;

Commending the High Commissioner for the efforts he has made in finding satisfactory solutions for refugee problems affecting groups of refugees within his mandate and those for whom he lends his Good Offices,

1. Decides to continue the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees for a further period of five years from 1 January 1964;

2. Requests the High Commissioner to continue to report to the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's programme, and to abide by the directions which the Committee gives him with regards to refugee situations;/2/

3. Invites member states of the United Nations and the specialized agencies to lend support to the High Commissioner's programme;

4. Decides to review, not later than at its 22nd Session, the arrangements for the Office of the High Commissioner with a view to determining whether the Office should be continued beyond December, 1968."/3/

Although all USG objections have not been met, Mission convinced serious attempt made to accommodate US position. Draft resolution to be tabled November 14 PM. Request authority to support text without reservations.

Stevenson

Geneva, December 17, 1962.

[Here follow Section 1, Background of the Conference; Section 2, Agenda as Adopted; Section 3, Participation; Section 4, United States Delegation; Section 5, Organization of the Conference, and Section 6, Work of the Committee.]

A copy of the report (with appendices) of the Eighth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program (Document A/AC.96/185) appears as enclosure 3./2/

In general the Eighth Session of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was concerned with receiving a current status report on the work of the Office of the High Commissioner and on progress made in the implementation of previously agreed programs and projects. The Executive Committee also was concerned with the approval of specific projects proposed by the High Commissioner within the framework of previously agreed programs.

While the United States Delegation was in a position to support the various findings of the Committee, it also had the opportunity to express certain views of the United States Government.

In commenting on the High Commissioner's opening statement, the U.S. Delegate noted that the financial situation seemed to have changed appreciably in the last few months and that a detailed and up-to-date statement reflecting the changes would be useful. Later in discussing the program for the completion of major aid projects, the High Commissioner recapitulated the status of financial contributions and explained that in July the 1962 program showed a shortfall of $2 million. At that date, a total shortfall of $6 million in the financing of the 1962 and 1963 programs taken together, was to be expected. Since then, there was reason to believe that the shortfall might be reduced as much as $1,500,000 with the result that the total target for the balance of 1962 and for 1963 stands at roughly $.5 million.

In accordance with its instructions, the U.S. Delegation supported a motion to note the document on the completion of major aid projects and congratulated the High Commissioner on the fact that progress by the end of 1961 and continuing into 1962 made it possible for his office to plan the comprehensive final effort toward the solution of the problem of "old" refugees.

With regard to the Far Eastern operation, the U.S. Delegation noted that its completion by the end of 1963 depends upon the movement of 2,000 European refugees from Mainland China in 1962 and 2,200 in 1963. However, by the end of July, according to the High Commissioner's report, only 506 had been moved with 172 moved in August, and a further 469 in September. The U.S. Delegation set forth its position that even considering this tremendously increased rate of movement in August and September, there was no assurance that this program could be brought to completion by the end of 1963. Therefore, should the $300,000 for the 1963 program be insufficient for completion of the operation, further activity could be funded under the current program for complimentary assistance.

Further, during the discussion on major aid programs, the U.S. Delegation expressed the concurrence of the U.S. Government in the High Commissioner's proposed allocation of $150,000 for settlement of approximately 200 mandate refugees in Latin America in 1963. It also took the opportunity to concur in the High Commissioner's statement in the Document, that requirements of this kind in Latin America which would develop during the coming year would be met to some extent under the program for complementary assistance.

During the debate on current programs for complementary assistance, the U.S. Delegation had the opportunity to congratulate the High Commissioner on the correct manner in which he has handled the problem of the Rwanda refugees, by taking care of their most urgent needs until they are able to support themselves without prejudice to their eventual return to their homes. It expressed the U.S. Government's opinion that this operation, which has contributed significantly to the stability of the area is a good example of the role the High Commissioner can play in stimulating action and funding under the General Assembly "Good Offices" Resolution. It also noted with interest that plans were being studied together with the Government of Tanganyika and the Government of the Congo to move an additional 25,000 refugees from Burundi into those countries at the request of the Government of Burundi and together with several other members of the Committee, gave support to the High Commissioner's action in this connection.

In accordance with its instructions the U.S. Delegation gave U.S. Government support to the High Commissioner's proposal to allocate $50,000 to assist voluntary agencies in helping extremely needy cases (20,000 to 30,000 persons), in Latin America, including refugees from Cuba.

The Agenda item which brought the most extended discussion was that dealing with housing for refugees as it related in particular to the establishment of a housing loan fund for refugees living in France. It had been proposed at the Seventh Session, that sums arising out of the repayments of loans granted under UNREF and UNHCR projects in so far as they exceeded the $500,000 ceiling fixed for the Emergency Fund, be used for this purpose. The U.S. Delegation, with the U.K. Delegation in strong support, maintained the U.S. position in opposition to this plan as expressed at the previous session. In dealing with the question at this present session, the U.S. Delegation commented on the financial aspects of the proposed scheme rather than on the merits of the project itself. The U.S. Delegation stated that if the Executive Committee was convinced that the urgency of the project justified the use of the already limited UNHCR resources, the U.S. Government would prefer that it be financed as part of the so called "regular program" rather than by the allocation of sums derived from loan repayments which would create an undesirable precedent bringing with it requests for similar financing of additional special programs of this nature.

Although the viewpoint of the U.S. and U.K. Delegations was not sustained by the majority of the Committee, the expression of this viewpoint was instrumental in the Committee's decision to have the matter reviewed again at its next Executive Session. On the basis of a proposal made by the Swedish Representative and a compromise text proposed by the Turkish Representative, the Committee decided by 19 votes to none, with the U.S. and the U.K. Delegations abstaining, to authorize the High Commissioner to:

(a) Sign with the French Government, an agreement of principle concerning the form which the scheme should take, its implementation being dependent on the availability of the necessary funds, and

(b) Use, for the implementation of the said scheme, up to the amount of $100,000 the sum arising out of the repayment of loans made under projects UNREF and UNHCR regular programs in so far as the repayments in question were not required to maintain the Emergency Fund at its ceiling of $500,000, on the understanding that this decision would not prejudice the subsequent policy decisions which the Committee would be called upon to make.

At the conclusion of the discussion on assistance to Algerian refugees, the Committee paid tribute to the United States, along with the French and other Governments, for its support and assistance to these refugees.

The next meeting of the Executive Committee was provisionally scheduled for the last week in April or first week in May, 1963.

The work of the Committee was expeditiously handled and with exception of the Committee's decision to approve financial support of the French housing scheme while reserving the decision until the next session as to whether this would be part of the regular program, no conclusions were reached that were not in accord with the instructions to the United States Representative. The U.S. Delegation was particularly gratified both with the manner in which Lady Tweedsmuir, the Chairman, performed her functions and with the work of the Secretariat. The U.S. Delegation joined with other Delegations in congratulating Lady Tweedsmuir on her excellent Chairmanship.

Washington, January 11, 1963.

SUBJECT
UN High Commissioner for Refugees

You will recall Mr. Gardner's note of December 28 on the above subject./2/ In discussion of the matter with Mr. Abba Schwartz so as to determine the position our Government will take, we should keep the following thoughts in mind:

1. Mr. Schnyder might not have performed his duties as UN High Commissioner in a most dynamic way, but he appears to have carried out his mandate and his "good offices" in a creditable manner. As you know, the U.S. Government has sought a rather limited area of responsibility for the organization. There appears to be a consensus here that Mr. Schnyder has performed in a satisfactory manner and if we continue to take a rather restrictive view of the functions of the office, it may be to our advantage to propose another term for him. This conclusion would probably not incur too much opposition from other Member Governments.

2. If we decide that we cannot support the incumbent for another term, we should then determine whether a U.S. national should be supported or a national of another government. In my opinion, there are a number of other international organizations of more importance which calls for our efforts to secure appointments of Americans.

3. Should we decide to support the national of another country, we ought to keep in mind the limited terms of reference we have consistently supported for this organization. If we continue to follow this line we should make certain that we do not support a national who would tend to extend the Charter of the UN High Commissioner beyond that which presently governs.

On November 6, 1963, Secretary-General U Thant proposed that Felix Schnyder's term of office as High Commissioner for Refugees be extended for 2 years, from January 1, 1964, to December 31, 1965. On November 27 the General Assembly decided, by acclamation, to extend Schnyder's term. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960-63, REF 3 UN, and Yearbook of the United Nations, 1963, page 367)

Geneva, December 11, 1963.

[Here follow Section I, Background of the Conference; Section II, Agenda as Adopted; Section III, Participation; Section IV, United States Delegation; Section V, Organization of the Conference; and Section VI, Work of the Committee.]

The Executive Committee sat as a committee of the whole throughout the proceedings without resort to sub-committees, working parties or other similar arrangements.

The report of the Tenth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Program (Document A/AC.96/214) is the official report of the meeting and can be referred to as appropriate. Brief comments on the main items of discussion follow.

In general, the Executive Committee at its Tenth Session was concerned with receiving a report on the last phases of the work of the Office of the High Commissioner as it dealt with the Major Aid Programs on behalf of the residual group of European Refugees and more specifically in assessing the new direction the UNHCR would follow in meeting new refugee problems which have arisen in other parts of the world.

The Executive Committee also was concerned with the budget proposal being presented by the UNHCR to meet the programs envisaged for CY 1964.

In commenting on the High Commissioner's opening statement the U.S. Representative congratulated the High Commissioner on the work done in the past and noted that the work of his office had been done with a minimum of guidance from the Executive Committee. He stated, however, the desire of his Government that the Executive Committee assume a more active role in giving guidance and direction to the UNHCR program and not merely serve as a "rubber stamp." He expressed the view that the Executive Committee should carefully analyze and evaluate the manner in which the old program was being brought to a close and should assess with more precision what the new programs were to be and in particular the financial arrangements for their implementation. He indicated his Government's reservations toward the financing of the future program as outlined by the UNHCR. The Committee subsequently agreed to defer action on the UNHCR proposal for the future financing of his program.

In concurring with the expression of the Committee in noting with satisfaction document A/AC.96/205 dealing with the Resettlement of Refugees, the U.S. Representative drew the Committee's attention to the immigration record of the U.S. Government. He said that most of the 190 million inhabitants of the United States were immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. He pointed out that recently the United States had given asylum to 200,000 Cuban refugees; that 8,000 Chinese from Hong Kong had already been resettled within U.S. borders; and that the United States had authorized the immigration of 500 difficult cases of whom 350 had already been settled, including many "Jensen" cases. He said that paragraph 21 of the report put the basic principles of resettlement in the right order and agreed that the vital role of the countries of first asylum should be given first consideration. The report, he concluded, gave reason for satisfaction and he was encouraged to note that many countries were prepared to do even more than they had already done. The United States was continuing its direct program of immigration, which was needed in addition to the international program.

In his observations concerning document A/AC.96/206 (Corr. 1 and 2) the U.S. Representative congratulated the mental health adviser on the excellent work he had done. He expressed the desire that at some ensuing session the Committee would be furnished with a detailed final report on the subject, showing the areas in which operations had been cancelled out with the relevant expenditures and results. He agreed that the work should be continued in the field but expressed the hope that the High Commissioner would be able to arrange for the countries concerned to finance and handle such assistance themselves. He expressly drew attention to paragraph 6 of document A/AC.96/209 which in brief expressed the objective that the asylum countries "having been helped to solve serious old problems, should, as far as their present economic conditions allow, be expected to assume the main burden of smaller, current and new problems."

In referring to the Administrative Expenditure document (A/AC.96/212) the U.S. Representative noted that his delegation was prepared to support the administrative expenditure for 1964 as proposed in the document. He said that the position of the UNHCR was unique among international organizations in that its administrative budget was included within the United Nations overall budget which meant that the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly had ultimate authority in establishing the amount and details of the High Commissioner's operation. Since this budget had already been established in the printed budget of the UN (A/5505) after being reviewed by the ACABQ, he thought it rather late for the Executive Committee to discuss it. He suggested that it endorse what had been done by thought that the members of the Executive Committee, who were more intimately connected than anyone with the operation of the UNHCR programs, should be more closely informed about the development of the administrative budget in the future before it reached the stage of publication. The Executive Committee in noting this document expressed a need for more information in the future on the administrative expenditures of the Office of the High Commissioner.

Commenting on Section III of document A/AC.96/R.2, Grant-in-Aid, the U.S. Representative proposed in respect to 1964, and without prejudice to the principle involved and to the Committee's decisions on the amount of grant-in-aid in future years, to adopt the figure of $350,000 as grant-in-aid for 1964, this amount to be financed by means of interest on investments and savings in the programs. After considerable discussion this proposal was adopted by the Committee.

In commenting on document A/AC.96/213 dealing with the program for 1964, the U.S. Representative expressed continued support for the legal and political protection activities of the UNHCR. He then stated that the French Representative had rightly pointed out that the 1964 program consisted of two broad groups of projects: first, reasonably well justified projects amounting to $1.5 to $1.6 million; and secondly, projects amounting to about $1 million for which firm justification had not been presented. The U.S. Representative said that his Government would be prepared to support the projects in the first group but could not support projects in the second group in the absence of adequate justification. The Committee finally took note of the estimated financial target of $2.6 million submitted by the UNHCR but only approved specific projects amounting to $1,583,000. The UNHCR was authorized to submit additional projects during 1964 for the consideration of the Committee.

The next meeting of the Executive Committee was provisionally scheduled to open in June 1964.

The work of the Committee was expeditiously handled and the U.S. Delegation was gratified with the manner in which Mr. Alacam, the Chairman, performed his functions and especially with the active participation and interest of many delegations in considering the 1964 UNHCR budget proposal. It was felt that a good start had been made in having the Committee assume its proper responsibility rather than merely act as a "rubber stamp." This feeling was shared by many delegations and hopefully will lead to more careful review of UNHCR projects by member governments in connection with future sessions of the Executive Committee.