325. Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Tenth Session of the Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner’s Program for Refugees1
[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.
VII. Working of the Conference
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 [Page 715] 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 [Page 716] 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 [Page 717] 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.
Future Meetings
The next meeting of the Executive Committee was provisionally scheduled to open in June 1964.
Conclusions
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.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, REF 3 UN. No classification marking. The meeting was held in Geneva September 30–October 8. Stanislaus B. Milus prepared the report; Elmer M. Falk led the U.S. Delegation. Two enclosures were attached but are not printed. The first outlined the agenda of the meeting, the second was a list of participants.↩