TNAG-1524-FCO40-2088-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-Sub-Committee-on-Race-Relations-and--1986 — Page 42

RESTRICTED

2 -

A

5.

Many delegations referred to this question. Australia stated that UNHCR and EXCOM must define UNHCR's proper role and coordinate it with other humanitarian agencies. A closer definition of mandates was certainly needed. Denmark maintained that "non-mandate" refugees should be transferred as soon as possible to organisations whose mandates were more geared to assisting them and that the special African emergency programme should cease to exist and the mandate refugees be transferred to UNHCR's General Programmes. Canada and Morocco agreed that the role of UNHCR for refugees needed to be redefined, especially in the context of the recent African emergency.

Canada added that there should therefore be greater participation of EXCOM members in consultations on assistance programmes and searching for durable solutions. agreed that the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol no longer corresponded to today's reality.

Zaire

6. The Netherlands stated that it was most important for a solution to the "non-mandate" refugees in Sudan and Ethiopia to be found either by broadening UNHCR's mandate or by transferring "non-mandate" refugees to another UN organisation. Mr Hocké agreed with this statement and suggested also that a new solution of development aid could be explored further. He wondered whether development aid should be kept just for refugees or whether it could be expanded for local inhabitants as well. He hoped that a further mechanism would have been agreed before the demise of the OEOA at the end of June 1986 so that everyone knew who would be doing what.

Financial Situation

7. The High Commissioner appealed to governments for resources to carry out UNHCR's programmes in full: he hoped that no more cut- backs would be required. He reminded us that available resources

Tould not last beyond the end of March for the General and Special Programmes and stressed the urgency of further resources being made available to UNHCR. It was generally agreed by Member States that maximum economy and cost-effectiveness were required by UNHCR and its implementing partners. Some Members also mentioned that receiving countries should waive port charges and import duties and offer the most favourable exchange rates. In particular it was noted that the same exchange rate should be offered for all UN agencies and not just for some as was the case in Somalia. Several Member States announced new contributions. Japan, as the second largest donor country, referred to the additional contributions announced in December and paid promptly and added that they may make a further contribution before the end of March. Switzerland announced that they would increase their contribution for 1986 and that the first contribution for 1986 would shortly be made. The US announced an additional pledge of $20 million to the UNHCR General Programmes, which together with the 30 million announced at the New York pledging conference in November, made a total of $50 million. Sweden announced that they would be increasing their contributions for 1986/87 and 1987/88, but no figures were given. Greece also announced that their 1986 pledge would show an 11% increase over the 1985 pledge.

RESTRICTED

/Organisation