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

320. Airgram From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State¹

A–104

Geneva, August 31, 1962.

SUBJECT

• Continuation of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Officers of this Mission have been advised by representatives of the UNHCR that the Canadian Ambassador in Geneva, Mr. S.F. Rae, has expressed the desire of his government to sponsor a resolution in the General Assembly supporting the continuation of the Office of the UNHCR for five years. The Canadian Ambassador added that Canada hoped to have the resolution co-sponsored on a wide geographic representation. He mentioned Congo (Leopoldville), Tunisia, or Morocco, a Scandinavian country and another British Commonwealth government as desirable co-sponsors. He did not name but seeks Asiatic co-sponsorship as well. Although the Mission has no copy of this Canadian draft it is endeavoring to obtain one.

According to Mr. Jamieson, the UNHCR is concerned about the text of the Canadian resolution which in addition to being extremely legalistic, commends the High Commissioner on his assistance in many politically controversial problems, i.e., Angolan refugees in Congo, Algerian refugees, and Chinese refugees in Hong Kong and Macau. The UNHCR feels that such a resolution would antagonize many countries with whom he has good relations.

The High Commissioner reportedly does not wish to be placed in a position of drafting or dictating his own resolution in the General Assembly. Accordingly, he is reluctant to advise Canadian Ambassador of the problems involved in the Canadian draft although he may do so if necessary.

Despite this reluctance one staff officer of UNHCR has prepared an informal draft of a resolution which reportedly has the UNHCR’s blessing. The text of this draft appears at the end of this airgram.

Mr. Jamieson was unable to suggest why the Canadian Government has particular interest in sponsoring the UNHCR resolution unless it was to counterbalance Canadian decision recently communicated to the Director of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) of Canada’s intention to withdraw from that organization.

UNHCR staff officials also expressed grave concern over a report that the U.S. may be planning to recommend that the composition and method of selection of the UNHCR Executive Committee be placed on a rotating basis similar to that utilized in the UNICEF Committee. Allegedly this concept would envisage the election of some governments for three years, some for two years and others for one year.

The Mission has not been advised by the Department that any such change in the composition or method of selection of the UNHCR Executive Committee is under consideration within the Department and Mission officers informed the UNHCR representatives to this effect.

Comment: Without knowledge of the validity of the report cited by the UNHCR representatives, the Mission considers that a rotation plan for the membership of the Executive Committee would be extremely ill advised for the following reasons:

1. The Executive Committee has been, is, and should be, composed essentially of countries sufficiently sophisticated, affluent and benign to interest themselves in participating in the program to the extent of contributing money to aid refugees. With very few exceptions, all such countries are already members of the Committee. Although it might be possible to rotate some of the recipient nations, the removal of any of the contributing nations would probably mean the loss of that nation’s contribution for the period it was off the Committee.

2. Despite the political implications inherent in all refugee problems, the Executive Committee and the UNHCR have been remarkably able to avoid involvement in political controversy in the several years of their existence. The rotation of membership, particularly with some one-year members, would mean raising the question of membership each year with the result that membership or denial of membership would inevitably acquire a much more political complexion. The rotation system would appear, by its very nature, to plunge the UNHCR, or at least his Executive Committee, into the type of political controversy the avoidance of which probably has contributed substantially to whatever success his program has enjoyed to date.

3. The UNHCR program in some of its aspects is so complex that a government elected for only one year would have difficulty learning what it was all about before its year was up.

4. The fact that UNICEF Executive Committee has a rotating membership doesn’t appear to have any particular application to the situation of the UNHCR. After all, there is nothing very controversial or political about assistance to children while refugee problems are created by political developments.

The draft resolution prepared by Mr. Jacques Colmar and approved unofficially by the UNHCR follows:

DRAFT RESOLUTION

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and having heard his statement,

Noting with appreciation the progress achieved by the High Commissioner in carrying out his task both in the field of international protection and in the search for permanent solution through voluntary repatriation, integration in the countries of asylum or resettlement in another country,

Satisfied with the way in which the High Commissioner has been able to adapt his action to the needs of new groups of refugees, while keeping within the limits prescribed by his statute and by the good offices resolutions,

Considering that only by sustained humanitarian action on the part of an organisation such as the Office of the High Commissioner is it likely that concrete, constructive and, where possible, final solutions to the problems of refugees will be achieved, and the extension and the deterioration of these problems, in so far as they continue to exist, will be prevented,

Taking into account resolution 1165 (XII) of 26 November 1957 in which it decided to review no later than at its seventeenth session the arrangements for the High Commissioner’s Office with a view to determining whether the Office should be further continued beyond 31 December 1963,

Decides to continue the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as from 1 January 1964 and to review no later than at its 22nd session the arrangements for the Office.

Tubby

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 324.8411/8–3162. Limited Official Use. Drafted by E.W. Lawrence (RMA). Repeated to USUN and Ottawa.