Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Nations at its fifth session in 1950 established an Office of High Commissioner for Refugees to be located in Geneva to continue this service. The functions of the High Commissioner were set down as follows:

"The High Commissioner shall provide for the protection of refu gees falling under the competence of his Office by:

"(a) Promoting the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, supervising their application and proposing amendments thereto;

"(b) Promoting through special agreements with Governments the execution of any measures calculated to improve the situation of refugees and to reduce the number requiring protection;

"(c) Assisting governmental and private efforts to promote voluntary repatriation or assimilation within new national communities; "(d) Promoting the admission of refugees, not excluding those in the most destitute categories, to the territories of States;

"(e) Endeavouring to obtain permission for refugees to transfer their assets and especially those necessary for their resettlement;

"(f) Obtaining from governments information concerning the number and conditions of refugees in their territories and the laws and regulations concerning them;

"(g) Keeping in close touch with the governments and intergovernmental organizations concerned;

"(h) Establishing contact in such manner as he may think best with private organizations dealing with refugee questions;

"(i) Facilitating the coordination of the efforts of private organizations concerned with the welfare of refugees."

Dr. J. G. van Heuven Goedhart of the Netherlands was elected High Commissioner by the General Assembly at its fifth session for a term of 3 years from January 1, 1951, and is authorized to appoint a deputy High Commissioner of a nationality different from his own for a similar term. He will have a small staff to assist him.

In order to provide legal protection of refugees and stateless persons the High Commissioner for Refugees will require cooperation from the governments as well as nongovernmental organizations in the countries in which these refugees reside.

In 1950 the United States participated with other governments in drafting a convention relating to the status of refugees which defines the term "refugee" and sets forth the obligations of governments which will adhere to it. Stateless persons who are not refugees were not included in this draft convention but were made the subject of a separate protocol relating to the status of stateless persons, which embodies most of the substantive provisions of the refugee convention but makes no reference to the High Commissioner or to the United Nations.

An Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness met at Lake Suc

cess from January 16 to February 16, 1950, and again in August at Geneva and drafted a convention relating to the status of refugees and a protocol relating to the status of stateless persons, which the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations considered and transmitted to the General Assembly in December 1950. The General Assembly decided to convene at Geneva a conference of plenipotentiaries to complete the drafting of and to sign both the convention and the protocol.

The substantive provisions of the convention follow generally those of the earlier conventions but reflect changes shown to be necessary by the intervening years of experience and changing social and economic developments. The Ad Hoc Committee sought to avoid on the one hand a mere codification of existing practices and on the other hand the formulation of ideal solutions which few governments would accept. There are provisions dealing with the legal status of refugees and their rights to employment, rationing, housing, education, relief, social security, freedom of movement, and freedom from arbitrary expulsion. The convention also incorporates the provisions of a previous agreement for the issuance of travel documents in the nature of the "Nansen Passport." As to these substantive provisions, the refugee would enjoy status and rights at least as favorable as those accorded to aliens generally. With regard to certain benefits, the refugee would enjoy the best treatment accorded in the particular country to any aliens. In some respects the refugee would be assured the same treatment as is accorded to nationals. The convention also accords to many refugees certain benefits normally accorded to aliens on a basis of reciprocity. The convention also guarantees the refugee freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, country of origin, or the fact that he is a refugee.

The United States, mindful of the humanitarian aspects of the problem and the concern of the United Nations for its effective solution, took an active part in the preparation of this convention. Like the other countries represented on the Committee, however, it reserved its position with regard to adherence to the convention. In making its reservation the United States pointed out that many of the benefits afforded refugees by the convention are provided in existing law and practice in the United States. Moreover, the refugees, as all other aliens, may apply for United States citizenship under our naturalization procedures.

The problem of defining refugees to be covered by the convention relating to the status of refugees and those to come under the protection of the High Commissioner has required close attention. The United States view was that the persons coming under the scope of

941458-51-13

175

the convention and of the High Commissioner should generally be those refugees and displaced persons defined in the IRO constitution and such other groups of refugees as the General Assembly might from time to time determine. Certain other delegations wished to give the High Commissioner broad discretion to intervene on behalf of the United Nations in any refugee situation which might arise. The United States preferred a more precise definition of clearly identified existing refugees in order to protect the freedom of action of the United Nations to deal in the future with all new refugee situations, any one of which may present political issues requiring special consideration at the time. The United States took the view that a simple global definition might commit the United Nations and the United States to responsibilities with respect to large movements of populations in which the persons involved do not require protection in their legal status under international auspices. The views of the United States substantially prevailed in the final decision of the General Assembly.

The problem of the creation of an international fund for the provision of material assistance to those refugees requiring legal protection after the termination of IRO preoccupied the General Assembly at its fourth and fifth sessions. The United States view is that such an international fund will not be required after the completion of IRO services. This question remains unresolved and was referred for further consideration to the next session of the General Assembly.

6. Needs of Children

The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund in its third full year of operation extended its plans and programs to 60 countries and territories. Programs carried over from 1949 and new programs initiated in 1950 included infant and school feeding; antituberculosis and antimalaria measures; provision of raw materials for processing into clothing for children and infants; provision of supplies and technical advice to governments for the erection of milkconservation plants; training and fellowship arrangements in the field of health, nutrition, and welfare.

During this period the Children's Fund gradually began to shift the emphasis of its programs from those of a purely emergency relief character to those having more lasting benefits to governments in the development of their national and local institutes for child welfare. The geographic emphasis also shifted away from Europe to Latin

America, the Middle East, and Asia. At the end of 1950 the UNICEF missions in Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary had been closed upon the request of these countries, and it is anticipated that the missions in Poland and Czechoslovakia will be terminated early in 1951. Funds for programs in Albania and Communist China were suspended owing to the failure of the representatives of those countries to effectuate satisfactory agreements with the Children's Fund.

Closer working relations under programs in behalf of children were established with the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the United Nations itself. The Children's Fund provided, to a large extent, the financing of these programs, while the specialized agencies provided the technical staff to advise governments on how the programs should be carried out.

As of November 1950 UNICEF had received $150,633,000 from governments, private sources, and UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) residual assets. Approximately $75,000,000 had been contributed by the United States by the end of 1950 under a matching formula whereby the United States contributed 72 percent of all government contributions.

As early as June 1949 the United States in the various United Nations bodies began the task of obtaining the support of other governments for the discontinuance of the emergency organization for children and the establishment of permanent arrangements for children in the U.N. structure. The position of the United States was predicated on the conviction that it was important for the United Nations to continue to focus attention on the needs of children on a world-wide basis and that maximum effort should be made toward the utilization of the resources of the United Nations and specialized agencies. Although relief might be given in special emergencies to mothers and children, it was the view of the United States that permanent arrangements should place the major emphasis on training services, demonstrations, and advisory assistance accompanied by supplies as appropriate. It was also the view of the United States that the administrative costs of a continued program should be shared to some extent by all governments and, therefore, that a modest amount should be added to the regular U.N. budget in addition to the voluntary contributions from governments.

These elements in the United States position became the principal issues debated by governments in the sixth session of the Social Commission convening at Lake Success in May 1950; at the eleventh session of the Economic and Social Council held at Geneva in July 1950; and at the fifth session of the General Assembly. The United

States position was defeated at the Social Commission; a compromise was reached at the Economic and Social Council; and the United States position was not accepted at the General Assembly. The reason for defeat of the United States position included opposition by the delegations from Asia and the Middle East, who felt that there was no reason for the termination of the present emergency organizations simply because "the emergency" was over in Europe. Their children had been in a "state of emergency" for centuries.

Although the General Assembly had before it the resolution of the Economic and Social Council cosponsored by the delegations of Brazil, France, India, Iran, and the United States, the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee of the Assembly decided that the resolution would not be debated at the outset. Rather, a resolution sponsored by the Australian Delegation was debated, amended, and finally adopted. In effect the resolution continues the present emergency organization until 1953 and creates a new Executive Board to consist of governments represented on the Social Commission and eight additional governments elected by the Economic and Social Council. The resolution specifies that greater emphasis should be given to countries outside of Europe and greater emphasis should be given to those activities for children that are of a long-term character.

The United States abstained in the final vote on the resolution. The United States representative in explaining the vote indicated that the Government of the United States and the American people were sympathetically aware of the plight of children in many parts of the world and that, as shown by the record, the United States was second to none in its willingness to help those children. The United States representative expressed disappointment that it had not been possible at this session of the General Assembly to establish a fund for children on a permanent basis; he said that we had wanted to make certain that the United Nations would be spearheading childwelfare programs, particularly in underdeveloped countries, on a permanent basis and that such work for children would become an integral part of the program of the United Nations. The United States regretted that the resolution adopted offered no such

assurance.

Title V of Public Law 535 of the Eighty-first Congress, approved June 5, 1950, authorized an appropriation of $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 1951 for contributions to the United Nations for international children's welfare work or to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund in accordance with the provisions of that title. At the time the Congress adjourned, no appropriation under this authorization had been made. An appropriation request for

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »