840.4016 DP/8–1045: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:15 p.m.]
8072. 1. Letter of August 3, with attached annex, from FonOff to Winant gives UK views, summarized below, on what should be done about refugees and displaced persons who may ultimately be non-repatriable. Full text follows by airgram.78
2. HMG (His Majesty’s Govt) at the present time are “strongly of the opinion that at least all persons displaced as a result of the war must be regarded as eventually or politically repatriable.” They feel discussion on how definitely nonrepayable refugees should be handled should not be undertaken at present, because it would give impression decisions had already been taken regarding nonrepatriability of certain groups and because it might increase numbers of persons who would have to be resettled.
3. HMG feel that temporary relief for displaced persons pending repatriation or decision as to nonrepatriability is, in general, task for UNRRA. IGC (Intergovernmental Committee) should undertake this task only in case of “certain specific categories of refugees in conditions where it is clear that such refugees do not come within UNRRA’s mandate”. These views are based on three considerations:
- (1)
- Desirability of avoiding overlapping of agencies in field of temporary relief,
- (2)
- Belief that if UNRRA, which is recognized as a temporary relief agency, is put in charge of caring for these people, it would tend to strengthen HMG’s policy of concentrating “on establishing eventual repatriability rather than on recognizing at this stage grounds for considering repatriation impossible”,
- (3)
- Fact that “burden of expenditures by UNRRA on relief is shared as between governments on a fuller international basis than in case of expenditure on relief by IGC”. However, “HMG do not suggest that, because certain categories of refugees do not qualify for relief from UNRRA they should automatically be regarded as responsibility of IGC”.
4. Inquiry is made as to whether US concurs with above views, and if so, whether joint approach should be made to UNRRA and IGC “at early date with view to establishing procedure on lines indicated in annex”.
5. HMG also feels that structure of IGC, whereby US and UK bear equal share of operational costs constitutes excessive burden on UK and that they cannot increase present contribution. If responsibility for caring for persons ultimately declared nonrepayable is [Page 1184] given to IGC, “it would be an essential condition of the assent of HMG that steps should be taken to reorganize that body and in particular to readjust its financial arrangements so that each member Government contributed on a proper contractual basis in accordance with its means”. Inquiry is made whether US agrees that matter should now be pressed forward in IGC, and if so whether it has any views as to appropriate procedure.
6. Text of attached annex is as follows:
- (a)
- Present relief operations in which Intergovernmental Committee is engaged with approval of His Majesty’s Govt and of US Govt and of Executive Committee should be reviewed in order to ascertain whether any of categories of refugees thus being relieved can be held to come within mandate of UNRRA. If so, arrangements should be made to transfer responsibility for their relief to UNRRA as soon as possible.
- (b)
- Any proposals which may in future be made to Intergovernmental Committee to undertake the relief of specific categories of refugees should not be approved until it is quite clear that they are outside scope of whatever UNRRA’s mandate may be at time. Similarly, in event of UNRRA’s mandate being enlarged, proposals for relief which Intergovernmental Committee had previously been authorized to accept should be reviewed to ascertain whether they were now properly UNRRA responsibility.
- (c)
- When asked to approve any proposals to undertake relief of specific categories of refugees, govts represented on Executive Committee of Intergovernmental Committee (in first place His Majesty’s Govt and US Govt) should be furnished with as full particulars as possible of reasons to support assumption prima facie that refugees in question would prove to be nonrepayable. It would be clearly understood that unless these reasons were found to be adequate, His Majesty’s Government for their part would be unable to approve assumption of relief activities on behalf of refugees in question by Intergovernmental Committee and would press for their inclusion, at any rate for time being, within mandate of UNRRA.
- Not printed.↩