REFUGEE AID N.Z. ‘Entirely Withdraws’ Financial Support

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31754, 10 August 1968, Page 1

REFUGEE AID N.Z. ‘Entirely Withdraws’ Financial Support

New Zealand has entirely withdrawn its financial support of the main refugee operations of the United Nations, according to the Rev. R. M. O’Grady, assistant general secretary of the National Council of Churches andits refugee resettlement officer.

“This amazing and regrettable fact emerges from a study of the Government departmental estimates for 196768,” he said yesterday in an interview.

The decision had not been officially announced. and it was the more incredible

when it was realised that this was Human Rights Year, Mr O’Grady said. He understood that the Government had stopped its financial support because of the country’s economic situation.

In each of the last two years, New Zealand had given $28,000 to the budget of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refu gees, one of the most significant, non-operational activities of the United Nations. This year, in spite of vastly increased refugee needs, New Zealand would not give a cent. The Government had also decided not to give anything to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, working among refugees in the Middle East. 61 Donors “Altogether 61 nations are donors, including Monaco and Vietnam,” Mr O’Grady said. “In 1966, New Zealand gave $140,000: in 1967, $86,000. For 1968, despite the vastly increased need, New Zealand will give nothing.” Mr O’Grady said that New Zealand’s decision to withdraw its support of these United Nations refugee operations came within 18 months of the State visit to New Zealand of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan.

“At that time our country made all the appropriate speeches of support and encouragement for his important task. Now we are to refuse any financial support at all.”' The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees always received a unanimous vote of approval at Assembly meetings, and its action in the relief of suffering for the world’s 14|m refugees was widely acclaimed. Mr O’Grady added.

“Support of its programme is, however, completely voluntary, and nothing can be achieved without governments playing their part.” Forty-six countries had made pledges for 1968 amounting to s3m. New Zealand was the only Western country to refuse any contribution, he said. Gifts had come from such unlikely countries as Botswana, Colombia, Dahomey, Gabon, India, Iran, Nepal and Jugoslavia. The only other large United Nations nations which had so far not pledged

aid were the Communist countries.

Mr O’Grady said he had written to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva saying that many would feel a deep sense of shame that the New Zealand Government had withdrawn financial support. “Even more puzzling is the second decision of the Government not to continue its support of the United Nations operation in the Middle East,” Mr O’Grady said. “The explosive Arab-Israel situation can b? controlled only if the countries of the world help to rehabilitate the refugees of that conflict “The United States has pledged sl2m, Britain s4jm, Sweden $2 J in, and Germany and Canada Slim each.

“The decision is the more incredible when it is realised that this is Human Rights Year,” he said. "Of all people, thi refugee is the most outstanding example of the fundamental denial of human rights. He deserves better treatment than this.” Mr O’Grady said that when opening the International Year of Human Rights last January, the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) had offered challenging words. “I hope that the year will stimulate interest in the promotion of human rights,” Mr Holyoake had said. “New Zealanders are fortunate in enjoying the basic rights of individuals, but we must continually and critically examine our record in this subject” “Mockery” The decision to withdraw support of two vital refugee operations made a mockery of such words, Mr O’Grady said. “New Zealand’s international reputation is severely in jeopardy by such actions,” he added. “If we mean the words we use when he speak of supporting the United Nations, then our fine resolutions must be matched by responsible actions, or we will destroy whatever international prestige we have.”