Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

840.48 Refugees/11–245: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)

Washington, November 2, 1945—7 p.m.

9660. Kindly transmit to Fonoff following further reply to Fonoff letter Aug 2 [3]⁸ re functions of UNRRA and IGC.

Reference is made to para (c) of the annex to Fonoff letter of Aug 2 [3], 1945 in which it is stated that Br Govt would be unable to approve projects of relief presented by IGC on behalf of refugees unless it were clearly shown that the refugees in question would prove to be non-repatriable.

In this connection attention is also called to limited categories of refugees receiving benefits from IGC as stated in IGC proposal for operational expenses in France and Belgium May 14, 1945. It is noted that limitation to German and Austrian refugees originally proposed for French and Belgian projects appears to have been adopted by the administration as a principle applied to all projects of relief by IGC in other areas.

Two qualifying or limiting tests appear to have been applied in administrative action.

(1) Elimination from benefits of those refugees who are nationals of a state and are therefore assumed to enjoy its protection even though they receive no assistance therefrom or from their country of residence.

(2) The test of repatriability as proposed in Fonoff letter of Aug 2 [3] and as stated in the Br refusal to approve IGC project of relief in Hungary and Rumania.

This Govt is not aware of any action on its part to date and does not now accept the foregoing limiting interpretations of the broad terms of reference adopted by IGC in Aug 1943⁹ nor does it understand that any action has been taken by the Plenary or Executive Committee to limit these terms of reference. In approving the French and Belgian projects this Govt did so in the belief that the categories of beneficiaries listed had no other significance than that of an ad hoc working arrangement between IGC and indigenous voluntary agencies in France and Belgium through which relief was to be administered.

In the view of this Govt the elimination from the benefits of the relief activities of the Committee of the foregoing groups has produced a situation in which numbers of refugees falling within the terms of reference of IGC are now without relief in countries in which IGC is functioning. Furthermore, IGC during 1945, a period of great need, having some 8 millions of dollars available for relief, will only spend approximately 2½ million dollars.

The work of IGC and of UNRRA is at present divided on geographical lines. At the London meeting of UNRRA both the Br and US Govts supported the proposal that refugees unwilling to return to their countries should be given time to make up their minds as to return and that UNRRA should be authorized to assist them during a reasonable period. The principle of extending relief to them pending repatriation was clearly adopted. This decision affected refugees only in areas in which UNRRA is operating. In the view of this Govt refugees in the same categories living in areas in which IGC is operating should receive similar treatment. IGC which has adequate authority under its terms of reference should be permitted to extend relief in areas in which it is operating to refugees who possess nationality but receive no relief from their govts or from their countries of residence and who are unwilling to return to their countries. Extension of such relief by IGC will not imply any decision as to the repatriability of the persons involved any more than UNRRA relief to persons in the same categories in enemy areas involves such a decision. While the danger is recognized that relief to such persons may tend to increase the numbers delaying their return, it is urged that this is a consideration of relief administration inherent in any relief operation and should not operate to withhold relief to these categories in Western European and neutral countries pending their repatriation or disposition through settlement in the country of residence or elsewhere. In summary this Govt does not believe that the two Govts or IGC can defend policies in relief administration by IGC which are so obviously irreconcilable with policies supported by the two Govts in UNRRA, particularly when the only distinguishing difference between the beneficiaries of UNRRA and of IGC is the place or the country in which they are found. This Govt therefore believes that the administrative policy of relief of IGC resulting from the foregoing interpretation of the terms of reference adopted in Aug 1943 should be reviewed at the earliest possible date. In the light of the foregoing this Govt also requests the Br Govt to reconsider its decision in respect to IGC project for relief in Hungary and Rumania as soon as possible. In this connection reference is made to letter of Henderson of Sept 7, 1945 in which it is stated that Biddle expressed general concurrence with Br views upon which their negative action was based. It is suggested that Henderson may have been misinformed on this point as the discussion at meeting referred to was confined solely to the pacing in time of contributions of the two Govts to operational expenses of IGC.

Byrnes

8. Not printed; for summary, see telegram 8072, August 10, 3 p.m., from London, p. 1183.
9. The Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees was reorganized in August 1943, and its mandate was extended so as to increase the number and categories of persons who came within the activities of the Committee. See Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, Report of the Fourth Plenary Session, August 15–11, 1944, London (Washington, 1944), pp. 6–12.