318. Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Seventh Session of the Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner’s Program for Refugees1

[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. ]

Working of the Conference

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 [Page 698] 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 [Page 699] 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 [Page 700] 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 [Page 701] 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.

8. Future Meetings

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

9. Conclusions

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.

  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 324.8411/7–1062. Unclassified. This regular semi-annual meeting of the Executive Committee was held in Geneva May 14–22. Richard R. Brown led the U.S. Delegation.