Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey
Assistant Secretary of State
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

SECRETARY DEWEY: Good morning everyone. It's good to be with you. I'm here for the annual meeting of the High Commissioner of Refugees, the Executive Committee Meeting. This is an opportunity to try to get a common picture with both the donor states and the recipient states of refugees along with the principal organization mandated to deal with refugees on what the needs are and what the donors can do to meet those needs.

As I said during the statement yesterday at the plenary session, it has been an extraordinary year that we are in the process of finishing. It's not just the year that was, it is a year that will certainly be with us for the rest of our lives. We were reeling in shock a year ago from the impact of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the scourge of terrorism clearly has not gone away around the world. The global war on terrorism continues, but there have been some bright spots. The Taliban in Afghanistan -- and this is the area which is our central focus now -- is gone. Al Qaeda is on the run, and oppression for women in Afghanistan has been lifted. Many lives have been saved as a result of the international effort to provide life-sustaining support to the vulnerable people in Afghanistan. We say that in war, humanity and truth are the first casualties. In the case of the war in Afghanistan and the worldwide war on terrorism humanity has not been the first casualty. It's been right up there with the military action in terms of the priorities in terms of my government and the partnership with the international community.

The return home of 1.7 million Afghans, this is the biggest return in modern history. If you realize the effort, the Herculean task of planning and staffing and budgeting for only 800,000 returns, which seemed like a lot, when it was planned for, and now more than twice that number have come back to Afghanistan. The problem we face is that the money, the special appeal to take care of their needs and to help reintegrate them hasn't been increased. A 271 million dollar special program of the High Commission of Refugees has been held at that level even though the numbers of beneficiaries have doubled. UNHCR just simply must have the resources to do its job. UNHCR has the mandated responsibility for protection of refugees and for solutions to their problems. In the EXCOM and all through the year we stay very much engaged with the UNHCR to hold it to its responsibilities and to provide the means at least from our government to enable them to carry out their responsibilities.

Because the US Government is committed to multilateralism, we give all of our refugee money directly through the UNHCR. And we call on other states to do the same. Some other donor states tend to act unilaterally this is a time when we are criticized in Europe in particular being unilateralists in the US and I have to remind those critics that we don't take the back seat to anyone with respect to multilateralism when it comes to assisting refugees.

But it's not just Afghanistan where the needs are great, although that's our top priority. Africa hosts and produces large numbers of refugees. Taken together the 50-plus countries of the African continent present the full range of refugee challenges and opportunities, but often fail to get the attention they deserve because of priorities elsewhere. But because other donors have not done their full share the United States has had to increase its normal 25 percent share of UNHCR's refugee programs to 30 percent of those programs for Africa. We do welcome in Africa the hopes for peace that should allow hundreds of thousands of refugees there to return to their homes in such places such as Sierra Leone and Angola and Eritrea. But our top priority does remain Afghanistan. I've just come back from Kabul. Secretary Powell has asked me to return to Kabul after this meeting, where I will be staying another two or three weeks to continue our efforts to bring the various pillars of activity together to make sure that they are mutually reinforcing. And Secretary of State Powell has taken a personal interest in this, and it's not just a matter of our staying the course and putting in the resources that are needed, but it's a matter of coordinating this effort, with all the security and the humanitarian and the political aspects of it, to make sure that it does reinforce each other.

The bright spots about Afghanistan are the structures which have been placed by the United Nations but in concert and in harmony with the administration of Afghanistan. Now this is something that the press doesn't get excited about very often, that is something which is orderly and structured and is working. But the program secretariat effort in Afghanistan is one that is unique. It provides an opportunity to hold accountable the UN agencies that haven't always been held accountable in the past, but the real brilliance and genius of the program secretariat model in Afghanistan is, the twinning with counterpart Afghan Ministries who are very eager to take-up the planning and the programming and the budgeting and the policy aspects of what the UN is doing, but they need a lot of capacity building. And this structure is providing that transition capacity to the Afghan authorities. The negative aspects are that the coping mechanisms of the Afghan people have just about run out. The effects of a four year long, the worst in a hundred years, have been enormous, when you understand that the basic occupation of Afghanistan is agriculture, 80 percent of the effort is in agriculture. The impact of this is just enormous, the debt burden for Afghan people -- because they've had to go into debt to survive -- and this is a very shameful practice for an Afghan. And so the emphasis on income generating projects is so important just to give Afghans a chance to get some cash, to start paying off the debt and to try to survive through the winter. And this is one of our biggest challenges; the uncertainty as to whether the donor effort so far is going to be enough to permit the Afghans to stay back in their homes, or if they will be forced to some other alternatives to get through the winter. And these other alternatives are not very happy ones. The first one could be a flocking of the rural returnees -- the refugees who have come back from Pakistan and Iran -- back to the cities where they would hope to find help and may be work and not finding it there because the cities are so impacted that they might go back to Pakistan. This is my nightmare scenario. It is the one that we worry a lot about. The problem really lies with food this winter, and the fact that not enough food has been provided by the donor countries is an enormous concern of us all. The fact that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is now providing over 80 percent of all of these critical food needs for Afghanistan. It is also a very worrying development.

We welcome the recent European Union announcement of food purchases in Kazakhstan of 44,000 tons which will arrive on time for the Afghan winter. But food is the factor that will get Afghanistan through the winter and lack of food will be the factor which could cause a reversal, repatriation, this major repatriation in modern history. This what needs to be avoided. I think that our founding which we provide through UNHCR, does recognize the indivisibility of the High Commissioner for Refugees' role of protection and assistance. You cannot divide those roles. It 's not the same if you give all your money directly to NGOs, as oppose to giving all of your money to UNHCR and insisting that UNHCR implement its programs through NGOs.

Finally, I would like to say that, as Ginna Lewis knows, I had several years, several decades I guess, in this business, and in all that time, I have never seen a staff for UNHCR or any UN agency as competent and as effective as the staff that the High Commissioner pulled together here in Geneva and in Kabul in Afghanistan for this effort. It's extraordinary. So I make a special tribute to them today and assure all of you that donor states are well placed in putting their money with this organization. Thank you very much and I welcome your questions.

QUESTION: Could you give us a global figure as to how much money the United States gives to UNHCR and also give us figures for Afghanistan and Africa. With this lack of funding provided by the donors as well as security problems in Afghanistan, It just seems that Afghanistan is in a very difficult situation right now and it could potentially fall through the cracks.

DEWEY: The United States is a reliable contributor to UNHCR for approximately 25 percent of the regular budget of UNHCR. That regular budget is in the region of eight hundred million dollars a year. So the two hundred million is our approximate reliable contribution to the general programs. Now a program such as Afghanistan is a special appeal kind of program. Now it's for 271 million dollars. We have contributed between 55 and 60 million dollars to that.

For Africa the proportion is higher than 25 percent. We have to give about 30 percent of UNHCR 's programs for Africa, because other donors tend not to be as generous for programs in Africa. The needs are so great that we are compelled to do it for reasons of bringing these standards up just to survival levels for refugees in Africa. Secondly you have heard of the sexual exportation scandal in West Africa, the need to get more protection staff for UNHCR involved. That's expensive but it's an investment that has to be made, to enable UNHCR to carry out its sacred mandate for refugee protection.

As for the money for Africa I may have to turn to Paula Lynch to give me the exact amount for Africa. Paula was with us in Washington. Now she is with us in Geneva and she carries all these figures around in her head and she might just have the Africa figure.

LYNCH: The total that the US provided to UNHCR for Africa Programs is 102 million dollars for fiscal 2002 which ended yesterday. That was 92 million to the regular annual programs and 10 million toward various emergency and special appeals that were issued.

QUESTION: What about the security and donor issue in Afghanistan…

DEWEY: Security is paramount. You've heard the news reports of the attacks in Kabul, the attempt on the President 's life. It's a very narrow margin for security. Human rights is a major problem. That's why there is this tremendous emphasis on getting an Afghan national army, getting a professional police force operating. And I hope, as well, human rights programs to disseminate international human rights law around the country in a way that the International Committee of the Red Cross is disseminating even to the warlords international humanitarian law. These things are possible in Afghanistan, they are not moving fast enough now. Part of our concern in the United States is to try to facilitate and be a catalyst for quicker movement on the extension of security outside of the capital. The security in the capital itself is problematical and we know the difficulty of getting a country or countries to form a coalition of the willing to expand the international security assistance for us outside of Kabul. And so we have to look at other alternatives that could provide the security which is so vital to both continuing the humanitarian effort and to assuring the sustainability of the return of refugees.

QUESTION: On the Afghanistan situation, what actually is the shortfall to make sure that these refugees don't flee, how long have you got to get it in place? Is the U.S. prepared to step in if that's the only solution?

DEWEY: The shortfall getting through the winter will be in the region of 70 to 80 thousand tons. The pipeline after January has nothing in it now. And this is critical because even after getting through the winter you still have the hunger season which is the spring until the first harvest which will occur later in the summer, to get through. And so the needs are going to be very critical even during the spring.

The United States is doing more than 80 percent now. Psychologically it would be bad for the U.S. to step up and do anymore because unfortunately the psychology is that other donors tend to sit back and say let the U.S. do it. The burden sharing has got to work better and in everything that I do I try to stress the need for burden sharing. And to stress the importance of food in Afghanistan, because so much of the future of that country does hinge on getting through this winter. But probably through next winter as well, if the drought and insecurity persist in that country.

QUESTION: It's a great pleasure to see you again Mr. Dewey. I was late getting here because I was in an interview with a financial person who was talking about the present situation in American finances. This comes around the funding of this program and many other programs. The outlook according to him was so bleak with today's figure and the rest coming in that there was all kind of talk about the 55 or 60 more big companies going under. Now I am not smart enough to know where all that tax money that would be there, goes, but it all comes down, it was a little bit frightening. It comes down to the fact, what do you do when you are in the business of saving souls and helping people, and the work that you have done all your life, and you are dependent upon people who are (inaudible) to programs such as yours and others when that literally disappears. If that was the case, or down to practically zero, is there some pretty money or what's going to happen? And where are the refugees, are they going to be just as many inside the U.S. if some of these predictions were even half way true, what's going to happen?

DEWEY: Thank you for that. The U.S. is going to stay the course on the humanitarian side. Never in recent history has the humanitarian dimension been as prominent or as in synch with the military dimension as we have seen in the war on terrorism. Remember from the very first, while the US was bombing the oppressors we were feeding the oppressed. And the US is going to keep that humanitarian dimension in the forefront. In addition to the humanitarian dimension for a crisis such as Afghanistan, the reconstruction dimension is also at the front of the agenda. Who is going to build the first stretch of road. this would be the road from Kabul to Kandahar to Iraq? It will be USAID. Japan is also going to be cooperating with us. The Asian Development Bank is looking at a road from the Pakistan border up to Kandahar. So it is a matter of the U.S. taking the lead, the U.S. committing its resources through the Congress and getting other donors such as Japan to stick with us, and the international financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank to stick with us.

So our job is not just taking leadership and getting our money out there first, and getting the Congress to keep that level up, but it's getting burden-sharing. I think most of my work is getting burden sharing. It's not a popular role to play, it is not a fun role to play, because there are lots of emergencies in the world today and we know that there are a lots of competitors, but there is no more important country than Afghanistan. So we have to sense that priority, and we have to place our priority there. We have to show that it can work there. Everyday there are just a lot of pieces that have to be pulled together. U.S. leadership is important in doing that. This is why Secretary Powell is so concerned that we do our best to pull these pieces together, the burden-sharing pieces together, the security, the humanitarian, and the reconstruction pieces together, so that they are mutually reinforcing and not working in competition with each other.

QUESTION: Are you making plans for Iraq and if so do you have any notion of how many people you might have to deal with and so on and how many people is the United States prepared to put into dealing with the refugee problem and so on if there is an attack on Iraq?

DEWEY: I will play a Donald Rumsfeld on that and say that you know there is no way that I could answer a question like that. But to say that when I was here at UNHCR it was very difficult to get any contingency planning for even the most obvious emergencies that we could see materializing. That attitude has changed. With Afghanistan it has changed. There is now a predisposition to get a grip on the obvious and to do planning throughout the humanitarian community. The problem of resources remains. How much stockpiling can you do without the resources. And the problem of getting other donor states involved in contingency planning. It is very difficult, not just for the security aspects of it, but also the fact that if it is not a clear and present danger that is knocking at your door right now it is very hard to encourage UNHCR's efforts in stockpiling things for contingency. So I think that you appreciate that I can't be more specific than that.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you could give your assessment if you are satisfied with the management of UNHCR under Mr. Lubbers.

DEWEY: You are asking someone who has watched several High Commissioners and I am satisfied with the leadership that he has provided. He has been tested in a very critical area, Afghanistan. I have mentioned how he has pulled together an extraordinary team to cope with that enormous responsibility which has more than doubled since they started the effort. He communicates well with us in Washington. We sometimes worry him to death with our questions and our oversight of UNHCR's programs, but that is the way we operate with UNHCR. we have a very intensive engagement with UNHCR and we found that Ruud Lubbers has been not only a good interlocutor but has been someone that we can recommend to other donors to support and to support in the way we do. He has this concept of the indivisibility of protection and assistance and he is carrying out that responsibility and accountability in a way that we favor.

(End Text)