PRINCE SADRUDDIN AGHA KHAN'S STATEMENT IN THE THIRD
COMMITTEE OF THE U. N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
November 18, 1971

 

Madam Chairman, when I spoke to this committee earlier, it was the sixth report that I presented to this distinguished forum on the regular work of my office since my election as High Commissioner for Refugees. Each year, I have pointed to the changes in the refugee situation and our efforts to deal with them. Whilst new and serious problems have arisen in the course of these years, I have been immensely grateful for the growing support and understanding of the inter­national community. It has helped immeasurably in facing the situation effectively and with courage, and in fostering permanent solutions which remain the constant objective of my office. Today, unfortunately, I speak with urgency of an over­whelming problem. A problem that has grown in dimension and anguish, almost beyond comprehension and endurance. That this should coincide with the Twentieth Anniversary of UNHCR, when we had been appealing for, and working towards, an end to the refugee problem, is the starkest commentary on the times in which we live. Four months ago, on July 16, I informed the Economic and Social Council of the humanitarian efforts of the U.N. system to alleviate the suffering of East Pakistani refugees in India. Early in October, I spoke to the Executive Committee of my regular programme of the situation as it then existed. But this is a situation that has relentlessly grown more tragic from day to day. The suffering is not over, but continues; the number has not lessened, but has increased; the gap between needs and resources, which has consistently been adverse, threatens catastrophically to become a chasm. And all this, despite a truly remarkable relief effort being made by the Government and people of India and an unparalleled response by the international community. Where will this deteriorating spiral end?

 

If I have, at the very outset of my statement, sounded a voice of deepest concern, it is because that indeed is what the situation demands. It is not for me, today, to analyse the complexities of the political, economic and social factors that are responsible for this situation. The analysis of the United Nations is clearly expressed by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his report on the work of the organisation (document A/8401/Add.1 of 17 September 1971). What I shall speak of is the purely humanitarian task entrusted to me on behalf of the United Nations. It is a task in which I seek your assistance as' never before, for it touches the life of many millions of refugees-upon the fate of whom depends the restoration of tranquility in a sub-continent. I could do no less for the refugees. They would expect no less from us, here in the United Nations. It has been quite evident since April 23, when the Government of India requested the Secretary-­General for assistance from the United Nations, to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and to ease the burden on India that their presence entailed, that this was a problem the magnitude of which required exceptional measures of the U.N. system. The varied and colossal nature of immediate relief requirements-whether for food, shelter, medical care or logistical support-was far beyond the financial or technical means of UNHCR alone. Accordingly, following consultations in a meeting of the administrative committee of co-ordination, the Secretary-General decided, on April 29, that the High Commissioner for Refugees should act as the Focal Point for the co-ordination of assistance from the U.N. system. This decision was also in line with the thinking of the Government of India which, in its request, addressed itself to the whole U.N. system. Immediately after assuming these additional functions, I sent to India a team headed by the Deputy High Commis­sioner to study and assess the situation. A succinct report of the team's findings was made available to Governments. An analysis of the situation and of the views of the two. Governments principally concerned, namely India and Pakistan, made it clear that United Nations action had to concentrate on two objectives: First, urgent relief measures for the refugees in India; second, the promotion of their voluntary repatriation-it was generally agreed that only this could provide a lasting solution to the problem. Consequently, on May 19, 1971, the Secretary­General whilst expressing deep concern for the plight of the refugees, expressed the hope that they would be "voluntarily repatriated at the earliest possible time". He further indicated that, " pending such repatriation, massive external assistance will be required on an emergency basis" and he appealed "to governments, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, as well as private sources, to help meet the urgent needs. At that time, it was estimated by the Government of India that some dollars 175 million would be required to meet the minimum needs of three million refugees for a period of six months. Neither needs, nor numbers, have stood still since, and our efforts have had to race against them and time. On June 26, 1971, the Government of India indicated that the requirements would be dollars 400 million for six million refugees for six months. Subsequently, on October 1, 1971, and essentially as an illustration for the broad order of magnitude, we received from the Government of India a calculation estimating that dollars 558 million would be required in expenditure to care for eight million refugees for six months. More recently, a special meeting of the consortium of Governments and institutions interested in India's economic development was held in Paris on October 26, 1971, under the Chairmanship of the World Bank. According to the announcement issued, the meeting "discussed the impact on the economy of the recent large and continuing influx of refugees from East Pakistan and assessed the cost relief at dollars 700 million in the financial year ending March, 1972 ".

 

I quoted this from the actual announcement of the World Bank; the consortium had before it a report on the cost of refugee relief prepared by the World Bank, which worked on an estimated 9 million refugees in camps by December 31, 1971. The precise costs will naturally be proportionate to the caseload of the refugees who are in camps by that date. The direct costs of refugee relief are governed, broadly, by three considerations: first, the number of refugees involved; second, the length of time over which relief is provided; and third, the norms of assistance. As regards the first and second of these factors, we have been kept informed continuously by the Government of India of the position as they have registered it over the past seven months. As of November 12, the Indian authorities indicated that the number of refugees is 9,744,404. Members of this committee are also aware that the Government of Pakistan has informed the Secretary-General on September 2, 1971, that it estimated the number of persons displaced from East Pakistan to be 2,002,623. 1 shall not endeavour here an independent projection of numbers into the future, since clearly there are far too many conjectural elements involved. In particular, I would not do so because of the ever present hope that the uprooted people may soon be able to return to their homes. Nevertheless, there can be no preparedness without working hypotheses, and I wish to assure this committee that we are conscious of the contingent. Turning to the third factor, i.e., the norms of assistance, these are well known to us. They comprise the base and the common element in each of the calculations that have been made of anticipated costs, calculations to which I have referred earlier. Broadly, these norms draw a distinction between recurring costs (such as food, medicines, salaries for relief personnel, maintenance of facilities, etc.) and non-recurring costs (such as shelter, medical and other equipment, vehicles, etc.). For the purpose of all the calculations made so far, the non-recurring costs have naturally been treated as one-time expenditure. However, should the problem continue for any length of time, certain of these costs would need to be repeated-for example, on some of

the polythene flown out as shelter material. As regards the norms themselves, they are modest indeed. They have been worked out in close consultation with the Focal Point and the staff of the other U.N. Agencies associated with this effort, treating, as already indicated, non-recurring costs as one time, it has been calculated that average relief expenditure amounts at present to Rs. 2.74 per capita per day (or less than 37 US Cents).

 

Such, briefly, are the direct costs of the relief programme with which we in the Focal Point are concerned. There are other indirect costs, that have a wide­spread effect on the Indian economy. These have been discussed, inter alia in the recent meeting of the India consortium, at which my office was represented. I wish to make it quite clear, however, that consideration of these indirect costs and the long term economic repercussions of the refugee influx go beyond the concern of the Focal Point. Here, I wish to address myself strictly to the direct costs of the emergency relief operation. And these direct costs, based on the three criteria I mentioned earlier, namely the numbers reported, the period for which assistance is provided and the norms of assistance, lead to the staggering requirement that I have referred to earlier. It is not hard to conclude from this that the expenditure involved in sheltering, feeding and treating this mass of several million refugees is already far in excess of the international assistance pledged or delivered. Turning now to the response of the international community, may I say once again, that it is unparalleled in U.N. experience and I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for it. Till November 16, 1971, the Focal Point had received pledges totalling dollars 161,412,986.84. Of this amount, dollars 89,261,753.35 were pledged in cash and dollars 72,151,233.49 in kind. Lists of these contributions are annexed to an information paper that I have made available to this committee. The paper, in essence, recapitulates and brings up-to-date information that I provided to my executive committee in Geneva last month. Also contained in this paper is break-down of the actual and prospective deliveries by the U.N. system to India, as of October 31, 1971. 1 wish to thank most sincerely all these Governments, non-governmental organisations and private individuals who have channelled their help through the U.N. system.

 

I would also like to mention our deep appreciation of those who have contributed bilaterally or directly. This is clearly a situation that calls for universal response and the greater the universal effort the better. Taken together, all pledges from external sources now total an estimated dollars 247.6 million. Need I amplify on the gap? Seeing how patent it is, and after a summer of following up on the Secretary-General's May 19 appeal, I addressed a comprehensive aide-memoire to Governments again on October 11 and appealed on Television and Radio for further generosity. In particular, I stressed the need for unearmarked cash contri­butions to allow the greatest flexibility. I further pointed out that whilst some of the requirements could be met expeditiously in kind (e.g. Rice, Pulses, Sugar), the Focal Point, in line with the express wishes of the Government of India, would welcome contributions in cash to enable the purchase of as many commodities in India as possible. By mid-October, practically all the aid, whether in cash or kind, that had been pledged to the U.N. system had either been transmitted to the Government of India or was in the pipeline for delivery before the end of this year. It had been committed for the purchase and movement of shelter material, medicines, food supplies, blankets and clothing and for the provision of logistical support.

 

In consequence, the flow of material and financial resources was in imminent danger of interruption. Since this latest appeal, there ha^ve been further generous contributions, but the position remains exceedingly grave. Without wishing to belabour this committee with the details of the operation, which can be gleaned from the information paper, permit me to illustrate the dimensions of the effort with a few vivid examples of the response through the U.N. system: Food: nearly 142,000 MT of rice have been pledged and 62,671 tons delivered; transport: over 2,200 vehicles have been ordered of which over two-thirds have been delivered shelter: polythene sheeting, providing roofing for over 3 million refugees, ha reached from abroad; blankets: about three million have so far been located and are being transported after a worldwise search; medicines: in one of the longest humanitarian airlifts ever, over 700 tons of medicines and medical supplies have been flown to India; health: provision is being made to combat malnutrition in it early stages and to cure it when it exists in camps scattered along the length o the border. None of this would have been possible without the excellent co-operation and co-ordination that has grown between my office and the other members o the U.N. system principally concerned. Which leads me to the actual mechanism of the Focal Point. Immediately after assuming this responsibility, I set up it Geneva a standing inter-agency consultation unit. Its task is, first to mobilize and secure international support and contributions; second to arrange for the procurement of supplies in a co-ordinated manner and to deliver the supplies t< India; third to maintain close liaison with the Government of India. Parallel to this consultation unit, the Government of India has set up in Delhi a co-ordinating committee where all the ministries concerned of the Central Government as well as the U.N. Focal Point and the U.N. Agencies directly interested are represented.

 

This double mechanism, in Geneva and in Delhi, is yielding most positive results to the satisfaction of all concerned. I wish to extend my warmest appreciation to the specialized agencies of the United Nations for their immediate response and effective co-operation. It is important, too, that I should clarify for a better understanding of the combined efforts in this situation, that the role of the United Nations is not an operational one. Subscribing to the express wishes of the Government of India, we have left the operational responsibility to the authorities. My representative and his Focal Point team act essentially as a liaison and co-ordinating link and their duty station is Delhi. From there, they frequently travel to the States where the refugees are concentrated and they have visited numerous camps in each of the States. Additionally, staff members of UNICEF, WFP and WHO have undertaken missions to the refugee areas, UNICEF also having an office in Calcutta and Liaison Officers in the States of West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura. The responsibility of the United Nations system is essentially to take action at the international level to raise contributions, to channel these to the Government of India and to co-ordinate activities in regard to their use in order that the Focal Point may be able, with the help of the Government of India, to give a satisfactory account of the use of their contributions to the donors. Additionally, the team in Delhi is associated with the planning of needs and priorities, particularly in regard to items that have to be obtained from abroad or for which financing from the Focal Point is feasible. The utility of the Focal Point mechanism is being proved by the results obtained. A centre exists within the United Nations system to co-ordinate information and activity. This facilitates contacts both with Governments and non-governmental organisations and is convenient for all concerned. Additionally, the United Nations system has been especially suited to offshore procurement of items, such as shelter material, vehicles, blankets, etc. I believe this has been of real assistance in the emergency. The mechanism has also enabled flexibility in seeking commodities at the most economic world prices and has thereby assured an optimum use of aid for the cash pledged. With all these advantages, I think it is important to stress that the United Nations does not have the means to operate itself a relief programme of such magnitude for an indefinite period of time. This is all to the good, for to try to do so would be to run the risk of institutionalizing and perpetuating a situation that no one desires, least of all the host country. It would also expose the international community to an economic and political burden without end, affect the morale of the refugees and become a confession of hopelessness. The principal objective must, therefore, categorically remain the promoting of conditions leading rapidly to voluntary repatriation. On the other hand, being non-operational, it is relatively less easy to report on and have readily available all details relevant to the assistance measures taken. For obvious reasons, it is essential not to neglect this aspect of the work in view of the natural desire of donors to receive full satisfaction that their contributions have been used to the maximum benefit of recipients. In this regard, I am sure I can count on the full co-operation of the Government of India. I cannot express sufficient admiration for the countless men and women of India who are joining together against frightening odds to bring succour to the refugees. You have heard at length of the relief operation, of the funds needed and contributed and of our efforts to be of assistance. Critically, important as this is-and it is clear we need to more than double our efforts-the only viable and lasting solution lies, as obviously, in another direction.

 

This is the terrible paradox of the situation. We all know and agree that this cruel and gigantic problem can only be resolved by the repatriation of the refugees; the question is, how can this best be achieved, particularly since it is the expressed wish of both the Governments principally concerned that the refugees be repatriated. The life of the uprooted refugee is a tragic one. Undoubtedly, the best solution for a refugee lies, whenever it is possible, in voluntary repatriation back to his home, where he can live again a normal life among his own people. This has been the experience of my office throughout its twenty years of work all over the world and was indeed reiterated yesterday by many speakers in the Third Committee. In our past experience if and when a settlement had occurred in the country of origin a system of mutual co-operation was established with the active participation of UNHCR which facilitated repatriation. Until this stage is reached, substantial and well organised repatriation cannot be a success and the trend is difficult to reverse. I should point out additionally that UNHCR has achieved results only when there has been a consensus of opinion between the host country and the country of origin leading to voluntary repatriation. This consensus must apply not only to the solution, but also to the timing and modalities. It has been with this in mind, and to further the two objectives of our effort to which I referred earlier, that I have travelled twice to India and to Pakistan in the last six months, my latter journey just being completed last week. In India, I had an opportunity of seeing for myself refugee camps in northern West Bengal and in the State of Meghalaya. In the latter, I particularly saw the way in which refugees are methodically registered and issued ration cards and I witnessed the distribution of rations. I then proceeded to Delhi for useful and productive talks with the Foreign Minister and his colleagues. I also held detailed technical discussions with senior officials of the Government in regard to the assistance programme. I wish to thank the Indian authorities for the full co-operation they have extended to my representatives in India and to me personally. In Pakistan, I called on the President and met once again with the senior officials concerned. As you know, the Government extended full co-operation in the stationing of my representative in Dacca. He is now working there with a small team of field assistants. During my latest visit, I was informed by my representative that returnees who are seen coming back are sent to forward reception centres some miles inland where they are registered and innoculated. After a day or two, they are given a bus ticket to their village, clothing if need be, food for fifteen days and five rupees each. I was also informed that they are given a note for the village authorities, asking that every help be given to them for their rehabilitation. The Government of Pakistan has informed us that so far 200,000 refugees, of whom 30 per cent belong to the minority community, have returned to East Pakistan, some 64,000 through the reception centres and the rest on their own. When considering my annual report, this committee reacted once again yesterday with understanding of and support for the functions of my office. It was with good reason indeed that the General Assembly, in drafting the statute of my office, called upon the work of the High Commissioner to be purely humanitarian. I must respect this obligation as you would wish me to. Till such time as the refugees return, and they will only repatriate in significant number when here, as elsewhere in the world, they are convinced that real peace and security prevail, I would appeal to Governments and the people of the world to assist them generously. Away from their homes, living in an accumulation of despair that can destroy the fibre of the strongest, these people have suffered many times more than is inherent in normal human fate. Words without generosity and generosity without a permanent solution that would apply to all of them will make a mockery of their hopes. Need I add that the challenge is immense, and that we must pursue every worthwhile lead to meet it. I wish I could say today that a solution to this vexed problem is imminent and that we are moving with certainty in the right direction. But I cannot say so as yet. This does not mean that there shall be no change. Peace and the suffering of millions demand it. " For peace ", as Auden has written in his hymn to the United Nations, " means to, change at the right time ". I would hope that this change comes soon, for it certainly would be calamitous if it came too late.

 

 

 

Source: Bangladesh Documents, vol – II, p. 97 - 102