REFUGEE PROBLEMS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24801, 15 February 1946, Page 5

REFUGEE PROBLEMS

UNO Assembly Rejects Soviet Proposals

(Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 13. . Three Russian amendments to the proposals for dealing with the problems of refugees ’ and displaced persons were -rejected by the General Assembly of UNO. The voting on the first Soviet amendment, namely, that propaganda against 4he United Nations and its members or against the return of refugees to their country of origin should not be permitted, was 31 against and 10 for, with two abstentions. -

The second Soviet amendment, namely, that personnel controlling refugee displaced persons’ camps should first of all be composed of persons of the nationality of the refugees, was defeated by 29 votes to 8, with eight abstentions. . The third Soviet amendment, namely, that Quislings, traitors, and war criminals should not be regarded as refugees and should be immediately returned to the country of their crimes, was also lost by ’26 votes to 10, with six abstentions.

An eloquent speech on the freedom and rights of refugees was made by Mr Fraser (New Zealand) to the General Assembly of the United Nations during the debate in which the Russian amendments were defeated. Mr Fraser agreed with Mr Vyshinsky that there was no such thing as' complete freedom. Freedom to commit crime, ignore sanitation, or things that would impinge on the freedom of neighbours was “not even worth talking about,” but it was a different thing to give every citizen the maximum freedom consistent .with the freedom of all other citizens. That was a very precious possession, and it had to be safeguarded. Mr Fraser said they would have to guard against the raising up of a system that would inevitably prove tyrannical to the masses of the people of the world. They had to watch lest by building up protection against the shadow of fear and threats they were losing the substance of the freedom that the world had fought for and millions died for.

It was recommended that a special committee of the Social and Economic Council should be established to deal with the problems of refugees. This international body would have full power to deal with circumstances -in any place, in any country, at any time. Referring to the first Russian amendment, designed to ensure that refugee camps should not be transformed into centres of propaganda hostile to States that were members of the United Nations, Mr Fraser said that everybodv agreed that the American 3rd Army did a good job when it stopped those who were conspiring against Poland in Jugoslavia recently. Polish Forces in Italy

In some countries, even among the United Nations, nationals who had escaped were now carrying on propaganda for what was considered to be a tyrannical regime. Asking where propaganda became a danger and a menace to countries, Mr Fraser instanced the Poles, who had fought in Italy. Many had been killed and others were still there. “Surely their use as a military force must end,” he said. “They cannot go on. They cannot be under officers that may be perpetually hostile to Poland,” said Mr Fraser. “That must be a problem engaging the attention of the Allies. But when they were disbanded and they went into camp alter fighting for freedom, was it going to be said that their freedom of opinion and thought must now be forsaken and forbidden? The thing was unthinkable and untenable.” The Assembly had laid down wide principles. It was not for the Assembly to operate them. But if it found that any refugee camp was a nest of intrigue and conspiracy against another country, then it would be its plain duty to stop them, but not for expressing their opinion that the Government of their country was the wrong Government. , , . ~ Some New Zealanders thought the Dominion’s Government was the wrong Government, but thinking and voting for themselves was their inherent right. “We cannot possibly have that superseded because we are to hand out a crust of bread to unfortunate people who have lost their country,” he said. “That had been the privilege of refugees throughout centuries. . “No that has gloried in the liberty of free countries.” said Mr Fraser, “can possibly be a party to agreeing to anything that will prevent the exercise by every human being, as an essential part of the dignity of the person, his claim to human rights. Nobody can be a party to preventing jum from enjoying the four freedoms. “Almost Appalling” The second Russian amendment, proposing that refugees’ and displaced persons’ camps should be staffed by representatives of the States to which they belonged. Mr Fraser declared “almost appalling.” He added: ‘The conception that refugees who ate opposed to the Government of their country should be put under subjection to those whom they oppose does not bear a moment’s examination. No man who believes in freedom could possibly agree to that.” Mr Fraser agreed that tne Government to which the refugees belonged should have a to enter camps and tell the people where they were wrong: and that they would be safe, happy, and successful in their own countries. Asking what would have happened in world history without tolerance. M’* Fraser said it was not tolerance that had brought war. but intolerance tyranny, deification of the State and of the State personified in one man. “The doctrine of Mussolini was that

he was going to preside at the burial of the corpse of liberty,” said Mr Fraser. “It was his own corpse that was buried, but not soon enough. That is my honest sentiment-about him.” Mr Fraser said he had no word for war criminals, and added that he would not even have given a trial to some of those on trial at Nuremberg to-day; but the point was that honesty of thought should not be stifled, even in dispossessed persons or in people who had left their country and dared to think against the Government in that country and say it was not a good Government, and that it ought to be displaced, and expressed the opinion that they could have a better Government.

The way to correct wrong propaganda was by giving the facts. The whole conception of care for refugees was that they should have as. good conditions as possible to live in for as short a time as possible. When it came to setting their opponents over them and placing them at the mercy of those who were opposed to them, the United Nations surely could not stand for that. Mr Fraser submitted "hat the Russian third amendment that Quislings and war criminals should not be regarded as refugees was unnecessary. The policy of the United Nations on this matter has already been decided. He believed that the international body to be established would do the job efficiently and, in addition to safeguarding the United Nations, would also see that human rights were not infringed, that the dignity of refugees would be observed, “and that the Four Freedoms our peoples fought for are not submerged and trampled underfoot.”

Mr Hector McNeil (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs), expressing Britain’s opposition to the amendments, said that "propaganda” was a subtle and elusive term, of which no delegate had offered a definition. Britain had rejected the amendments on the principle that one person could not be the accuser and judge of another. He asked what was the purpose of asking that the supervisor should be of the same nationality as the supervised. Mr McNeil added: “I am proud of the many refugees to whom Britain has given asylum. There is none of whom I am prouder than Karl Marx.”