Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

315. Memorandum From John Harter of the Office of International Economic and Social Affairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs to the Director of the Office (Kotschnig)¹

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 Crisis² 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.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 324.8411/10–1861. No classification marking. A copy was sent to Frank Hefner (OIA).
2. A handwritten note reads: “written when it was growing hotter.”