The broad problem facing Dr. Nansen was that of placing in productive employment such refugees as were capable of work—a task which involved transferring them from the congested centres, mainly in Eastern Europe, to other countries. Incidentally, this task involved supplying the refugees with a legal status and papers of identity for travelling purposes
Dr. Nansen began by arranging for the I.L.O. to carry out a complete census of the refugees wherever their presence constituted a problem of public importance. Secondly, he asked Governments whether, and on what terms, they would receive any refugees of special categories or professions. Representatives with whom Dr. Nansen could communicate directly were appointed in England,France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland; and the Commissioner's own representatives were appointed in nearly all of the same countries, as also in Turkey and Hungary. Finally, a joint Committee was formed of the main European, American, Russian, Jewish and Armenian charitable organisations. It is impossible to pay too high a tribute to the work of this Committee, without which, as Dr. Nansen was the first to acknowledge, the success which he achieved would have been impossible.
26
The first replies from Governments were almost all unsatisfactory. Only Brazil intimated that work was available on the Sao Paulo coffee plantations. The other Governments pointed out uniformly, and forcibly, that owing to the universal economic depression, they could hold out no hope of finding work for the refugees. Dr. Nansen was therefore condemned from the first to work on a most limited scale. Apart from his work in connection with Constantinople, his chief task lay in negotiating with Governments; in persuading this one to offer facilities; that to abstain from harsh and arbitrary measures; in watching the possibilities of repatriation; and in securing for the refugees the possibility of moving, when the opportunity occurred.
The last-named point involved providing the refugees with legal status and papers of identity, without which they could not travel. Dr. Nansen accordingly devised a model certificate, and this was adopted by sixteen Governments at a Conference held on July 16, 1922, and subsequently by nearly all countries. The certificate, which was issued by the competent authority in each State (in Great Britain by the Aliens Branch of the Home Office), gave particulars of the bearer similar to those entered on an ordinary passport. It also carried a declaration that the bearer was of Russian origin, and had not since acquired another nationality. It could be vised in the same way as an ordinary passport, but did not allow for a return visa, unless special provision was made. In any case, it ceased to be valid if the holder entered Russian territory.
27
A similar 'Nansen certificate' was devised for the Armenians by a second Arrangement dated May 31,1924. An Armenian was defined for the purpose as any 'person of Armenian origin formerly a subject of the Ottoman Empire who does not enjoy or who no longer enjoys the protection of the Government of the Turkish Republic and who has not acquired another nationality.'
The provision of the 'Nansen certificates' was the first step towards restoring the personal situation of the refugees. It enabled them to move from the country in which they had taken refuge to another in which they might hope to find work; it served them in lieu of a passport, and gave them a certain widely-recognised legal status. It was, however, an emergency measure, which for various reasons proved, as time went on, less beneficial than had been hoped. A supplementary Arrangement was therefore adopted at a third inter-Governmental Conference (May 10, 1926). Definitions of the term 'refugee' were adopted for Russians and Armenians respectively. The principle of allowing return visas was approved, and recommendations were made with a view to securing uniformity and completeness in the system of issue. Finally, this Conference introduced the system of' Nansen stamps' described below.
Finally, a fourth Conference (Geneva, June 28-30,1928) drew up yet another Arrangement, authorising the appointment of representatives who could certify the identity, signatures, good conduct, etc., of the refugees, defining their
28
status and allowing them certain rights usually granted to foreigners by treaty, with special privileges where this seemed necessary.
The 'Nansen certificates' were the first step towards relieving the congestion in Eastern Europe. The task of dispersing the refugees demanded a larger organisation, and was in the hands of the various representatives, who kept in touch with Governments, helped many thousands of refugees to find work, procured visas for them, and co-ordinated the work of the charitable societies. In 1921, their cost to the League was nothing at all, the machinery of the Red Cross being used. Afterwards a few paid representatives were appointed, at a total cost to the League for 1922-3 of something under £12,000—20 centimes per refugee, as Dr. Nansen pointed out when a Delegate to the Assembly protested that 'it was not the business of the High Commissariat to feed or finance Russian refugees.' The cost of Dr. Nansen's organisation never exceeded a few thousand pounds per annum; and it would be hard to find, in the balance-sheets of the world, money so wisely or so usefully expended. Attempts made, on the score of economy, to cut down the High Commissioner's offices evoked strong protests from several of the countries in which they were situated.
Direct relief was seldom given, and that on a small scale; thus the survivors of Denikin's force transferred, by arrangement, from Egypt and Cyprus to the colder climate of Yugoslavia were fitted out with winter clothing.
29
In 1930 the situation regarding these Arrangements was as follows: that of July 5,1922, had been applied by 51 States; that of May 31, 1924, by 38; that of May 12, 1926, by 22, not all of which, however, had accepted the principle of the * Nansen Stamp'; that of June 30, 1928, regarding the extension of the term 'refugee' (see below) by 12, and that regarding the extension of the High Commissioner's powers by 9.
It was obvious from the first that there were only two possible solutions of the refugee problem: the one through repatriation, the other through gradual dispersal. The former solution was, of course, considered many times, especially during the early stages of the work. The Czechoslovak Government, in particular, organised its whole relief and particularly its educative work on the assumption that the economic restoration of Russia would eventually call for a large number of workers, both manual and intellectual, and that the 'active forces' for this task would be found among the refugees. Many other Governments, including that of the U.S.A., shared this view—which was expressed more than once at the Assembly—that repatriation constituted the ultimate solution of the refugee problem; and Dr. Nansen was frequently asked to undertake the necessary negotiations.
The problem was, however, exceedingly difficult. On the one hand, there was much opposition in Europe to the idea of repatriation. This was zealously fostered by the counterrevolutionary organisations in Paris and else-
30
where, which were anxious not to let their adherents go over to the Soviet allegiance. But there was a more wide-spread fear that the returning émigrés might find themselves the victims of political persecution. This fear expressed itself in demands, firstly that no refugee should be forced to return against his will, and, secondly, that full guarantees of their good treatment should be given by the Soviet Government.
The Soviets, on the other hand, were equally suspicious that repatriation might be used as a cloak for counter-revolutionary activities within their frontiers. The problem might have proved altogether insoluble, but for one fact: that the person of Dr. Nansen enjoyed the confidence of both parties. He was therefore able to make arrangements satisfactory to all, which resulted in the return to Russia of many thousands of refugees.
The movement for repatriation was, indeed, wholly spontaneous among some of the refugees. Some even of Wrangel's army returned to Russia from Constantinople. In 1922 and 1923 Dr. Nansen conducted important negotiations with the Soviet, from which he obtained the promise of an amnesty and guarantee of good treatment. The matter was placed in the hands of the Russian Red Cross Committees and several thousand refugees returned from Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia. These were settled by the Soviet Government in the Don, Cuban and Terek districts, and a later visit by a representative of the High Commissioner
31
reported that the Soviet undertakings were being faithfully observed. No discrimination was being exercised against the returning refugees, and although their situation—as that of all Russians—was not prosperous, hardly any regretted having returned. Following the rupture of relations between Russia and Bulgaria in August, 1923, the negotiations were broken off. Owing, however, to the tireless efforts of Dr. Nansen, communication was reestablished.
In other countries repatriation was carried through with equal success, although still on a scale incommensurate with the problem. The 22,000 Jewish refugees in Roumania were repatriated, almost without exception, through the agency of the great Jewish associations. A considerable number of Russians in Poland, who had registered with the Soviet Legation in Warsaw, re-crossed the frontier. A large number returned from Germany, and no less than 17,000 during 1923 from the Far East. The reports of their treatment were at first conflicting ; but it was afterwards said to be satisfactory. The High Commissioner also arranged the repatriation of a certain number of Russians from Hungary and other countries.
Failing—or pending—a general solution through repatriation, Dr. Nansen's organisation devoted itself to the task of dispersing the refugees from the congested centres to places where work awaited them. At fitst this was possible only on a small scale; but the parties, often only of a dozen or twenty men, which were
32
constantly being transferred mounted up to a large total. The High Commissioner did not only find them work; he secured them visas, arranged for cheap transport, and cared for their reception on arrival One or two examples out of many may be taken; between September 1, 1923, and May 1, 1924, 4,025 Russians were evacuated from Constantinople, of whom 2,760 went to France, 665 to America, 156 to Canada, 36 to Palestine, 17 to Belgium, 57 back to Soviet Russia. One report from the Greek Office showed that visas had been obtained for 100 persons, in 69 of the cases at a reduced rate. In 78 cases a rebate, varying from 20 per cent, to 58 per cent., was obtained on the price of the tickets for the journey. In Poland, an order was issued decreeing the expulsion of 3,600 Jewish refugees not prevented by political reasons from returning to Russia. Dr. Nansen secured a stay of execution; the expulsions were avoided, and 3,589 out of the 3,600 enabled to emigrate to Austria. Negotiations with the French Ministry of Labour resulted in a first contingent of 1,500 Russians and Ukrainians in Poland being accepted for work in France. Transit visas were given free of charge, and a reduction of 50 per cent, arranged in the transport rates through Czechoslovakia, Austria, Switzerland and France, the rest being advanced by the High Commissioner and recovered from the employers by deductions from the wages of the employees.
Finally, a beginning was at last made on a serious scale with overseas settlement. Several
33
thousand refugee families were sent in 1924 from Germany to Brazil.
In 1924 Dr. Nansen's task was greatly facilitated by an offer from France to give work to 'all Russians who were fit and anxious to work, either as industrial or agricultural labourers, or as day labourers.' By 1925 France had received over 400,000 refugees, and the congestion further east was materially relieved. The general problem was not, however, solved, and in some countries was more acute than ever before. Germany, for example, still harboured between 500,000 and 600,000 refugees, even though many had left for France. But with the stabilisation of the mark, unemployment had set in, and the first to suffer were naturally the Russians. Poverty among the refugees had greatly increased. The unemployed were drifting towards the towns, where they formed a dangerous and even criminal element. Of the institutions which provided work for a proportion, some were satisfactory, but in others the conditions were 'not far removed from those of hard labour.' For people unable to work, conditions were increasingly difficult, and many invalids, aged people, etc., who had formerly been sufficiently well cared for by the Red Cross and Zemstvos were now not receiving even sufficient food.
Mention may be made here of one aspect of the refugee problem of less immediate urgency, but hardly less ultimate importance than the relief of distress or the provision of work: the problem of keeping alive culture and education
34
among the refugees. Many of them had belonged to the intellectual classes; and one of the most tragic features of the situation was the way in which men of high scholastic attainments were forced, to earn their bread, to undertake menial and brutalising labour, while students and school-children had to abandon all hope of finishing their education. To take one example: it was reported in 1924 that there were 2,200 students in Bulgaria, but 'almost all of them are engaged in manual work and are therefore unable to pursue their studies.' And yet Bulgaria was one of the countries which had admitted Russian teachers most generously to its universities and schools. .
Dr. Nansen laid great stress on this aspect of the problem, and it is satisfactory to say that many Governments responded very generously to his appeals. In Czechoslovakia every Russian child requiring instruction was enabled to attend a Russian school. For higher education, two Russian grammar schools were maintained at Government expense. The 3,200 Russian students were given clothes, lodging and a small allowance, and none were absolutely destitute. There was also, for a time, a Russian university. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia spent large sums on maintaining schools in their respective countries; in Latvia and the remaining Baltic States the Russian children were able to attend the minority schools. In Western Europe little could be done; but in France assistance was given to students and professors by the Government and the Institute of
35
Slavonic Studies. In Germany students' homes were established for Russians, in 1922, at the universities by the High Commissioner's delegate, assisted by the German Red Cross, Students' Relief Federation and the Y.M.C.A. Facilities and reductions of fees (or their abolition) were obtained from the universities. At the end of 1922, after many teachers and other intellectuals had been expelled from Russia for their political views, Dr. Nansen's delegate visited the United States and obtained from the Joint Distribution Committee a large grant of money with which a High School, known as the Russian Scientific Institute, was founded in Berlin. This Institute rapidly became a most important intellectual centre. The High Commissioner obtained permission for students from other parts of Europe to attend it; and the Institute, besides its direct task of giving higher instruction, undertook the control of the Russian Lycee in Berlin, and of Russian primary education throughout the country.
Interesting work was also done, in some countries, in the field of professional education. Here again Czechoslovakia was the leader. Some thousands of Cossacks were given special agricultural training, and the best of them educated in a co-operative institute to become future 'rural instructors.' Many hundreds of students of Yugoslavia were passed through courses in electricity, engineering and mining, and many of them placed in various ministries, and in the post and telegraph offices. A
36
polytechnical school was founded by the Y.M.C.A. near Berlin, where students were trained to become engineers, or—in the case of the less gifted—blacksmiths, carpenters, miners, fitters or chauffeurs.
By 1924 the main political difficulties appeared to have been solved, and the problem thus to have been reduced simply to that of finding work and bringing the refugees to it. This work was therefore taken over on January 1, 1925, by the International Labour Office; Dr. Nansen remaining, of course, associated with it.
The I.L.O. continued to enjoy the support of the Advisory Committee. It had at its disposal a grant of 203,000 francs, with which it kept up a skeleton organisation of representatives, and even sent a special delegate to China, where the situation had recently become particularly acute. It also received from Dr. Nansen a small private fund, with the help of which a plan was worked out for establishing a 'revolving fund' out of which the transport expenses of the refugees could be advanced against gradual reimbursement from their subsequent wages. Thanks to the loyal cooperation of interested immigration bodies, employers and refugees, this plan proved very successful.
Special hopes were based at this time on the overseas countries. Col. Procter visited South America and reported a substantial demand for colonists, and in some cases for agricultural labour; but costs of transport and settlement
37
would be high, requiring a revolving fund of some £100,000 and agencies in South America. At the I.L.O.'s request, the Sixth Assembly granted 303,000 francs, including 100,000 for the South American service, and the Inter-Governmental Conference of May, 1926, referred to above, adopted a system by which each nation issuing or renewing a permis de sijour affixed to it a 'Nansen Stamp' for 5 gold francs, paid by the refugee obtaining the permit. The money was paid into the * revolving fund,' which was thus placed on a firm basis, and vested in three trustees; one nominated by the Council, one by the I.L.O., while Dr. Nansen was the third. Unluckily, countries were slow to put the Arrangement into force. Nevertheless, nearly 18,000 refugees were transferred to employment in 1925 and over 15,000 in 1926. Large numbers were placed in Belgium and France, and an important scheme worked out for establishing refugee families in France as 'métayers.' Experimental groups were placed in the Argentine, Brazil, Paraguay and Canada. An urgent appeal by the Assembly brought several more ratifications of the 1926 Arrangement, and made rather more funds available; and a special Conference in June, 1927, of Governments which felt themselves unable, for technical reasons, to ratify the Arrangement brought in some special subscriptions, notably 100,000 marks from Germany. Some thousands of refugees were now transferred to South America, and other overseas countries were tried with considerable
38
success. The I.L.O. was also able to cope very successfully with the problem of the remaining refugees in Constantinople, and to do something in Shanghai, where some 10,000 Russians were congregated who had lost their employment owing to the closing down of foreign enterprises. Many of these were moved to Australia and Canada.
In this way the transference proceeded at the rate of some thousands of refugees a year; but it was uphill work. At the end of 1926 France closed her frontiers to foreign labour, and no other country, except Luxemburg (on a very reduced scale), could take her place. With great difficulty, a new arrangement was made; refugees were placed as metayers; the funds, amounting to £8 a head, being advanced out of the revolving fund, while the French Ministry of Labour established an agricultural college and training centre. In 1928, too, the demand from French industry revived, on a reduced scale; but at the same time the flow to South America, where many difficulties had arisen, practically stopped.
It had been many times suggested that the scope of the refugee work should be widened; it was even proposed that Dr. Nansen should take over the whole problem of world unemployment. In 1927 the Assembly agreed to extend the service to cover persons in circumstances more or less similar to the Russians and Armenians. The following groups were eventually adopted as fulfilling the required conditions:
39
150 Assyrians who, forced in 1922 to abandon their homes near Mount Ararat, had moved successively to Novorossisk, Constantinople, Smyrna, and Marseilles, and were now stranded near the last named town.
15,000 Assyro-Chaldeans in the Caucasus, and 600 in Greece, who had fled from their homes South of Lake Van, but found it impossible to establish themselves elsewhere; also 12,000 Assyrians in Iraq and 1,500 in Syria, mostly agricultural workers, who declined to accept the nationalities of their new homes and asked to be settled as Assyrians in colonies in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt under the direct protection of the Mandatory Powers; or failing this, to be settled as colonists in Syria or overseas.
150 Turks, described as 'Friends of the Allies,' proscribed by the Turkish Government for political reasons, and now resident with their families mainly in Greece, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
The definitions adopted were:
Assyrian, Assyro-Chaldean and assimilated refugee. 'Any person of Assyrian or Assyro-Chaldean origin, and also by assimilation any person of Syrian or Kurdish origin, who does not enjoy or who no longer enjoys the protection of the State to which he previously belonged, and who has not acquired or does not possess any other nationality.'Turkish refugee. ' Any person of Turkish origin, previously a subject of the Ottoman Empire, who, under the terms of the Protocol
40
of Lausanne, of July 24, 1923, does not enjoy or no longer enjoys the protection of the Turkish Republic and who has not acquired another nationality.'
The claims of the numerous 'stateless persons' of Central Europe,
and in particular of 16,000 Jews of Roumania; of the Ruthene refugees from
East Galicia; of 60,000 Syrians who disliked French rule; and of the adherents
of the deposed dynasty of Montenegro were, however, rejected, in the last
case after some hesitation.
Meanwhile, the results of the Inter-Governmental Conference of June, 1928, and of other arrangements, had been to confer considerable political duties on the High Commissioner. It was therefore decided at the IXth Assembly to re-transfer the work from the I.L.O. to the High Commissioner, whose authority was to be strengthened by a Governmental Advisory Commission. In taking this decision the Assembly, many of whose members had wanted the whole work to be wound up as soon as possible, yet recognised that 'in present circumstances international action is still neces sary for some time to come,' and earnestly requested Governments to give their refugees all facilities for nationalisation. Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Ger many, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Poland, Roumania, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia were invited to delegate representatives to this Commission, and all except Japan and Switzerland accepted. Great Britain, which had originally asked that
41
no invitation should be sent to her, reversed this decision in August, 1929.
The Commission, which met at Geneva in May, 1929, agreed that the High Commissioner should continue his work, and recommended that his powers should be maintained, but that the Central Service should be incorporated with the League Secretariat. It proposed that the work should be wound up in ten years. The Tenth Assembly adopted these recommendations, as an experiment, for one year.
In the course of that year, however, the whole aspect of the situation was changed and the whole world saddened by the death of Dr. Nansen. No other man had enjoyed the universal respect and confidence which Dr. Nansen had commanded, and the previous arrangements had been made rather with a view to allowing his unique personality and experience all possible scope. Yet, even with Dr. Nansen dead, his work had to go on; and the Xlth Assembly undertook another and probably final reorganisation.
The political and legal side of the work was entrusted to the Secretariat of the League. In countries where this work constituted a problem, national correspondents were appointed. These were for the most part national officials of the countries concerned, and were thus able to keep in close touch with the national administrative authorities. The humanitarian duties previously carried out by the High Commissioner were separated off and assigned
42
to a new 'International Refugees Office,' which was constituted as an 'International Bureau' and placed under the direction of the League, in accordance with Article 24 of the Covenant. Although autonomous, it was required to report annually to the League.
The Governments, the Secretariat of the League, the I.L.O., and the
charitable organisations were represented on this body, which had to co-ordinate
the work of all the authorities interested. Mr. Max Huber, President of
the International Red Cross Committee, was elected as its chairman. It
took over all the funds available, including Dr. Nansen's private fund,
the proceeds of the sale of Nansen Stamps, the donations from private sources,
etc. In addition, it was granted a subsidy, for 1931, of 333,800 gold francs.
The general refugee settlement cannot vie in romantic interest with the settlement schemes in Greece, Bulgaria or Syria. Here are no malarial marshes drained, no deserts irrigated, no homes standing, no gardens blooming in what had been desolation and despair. The general settlement work to which Dr. Nansen and his helpers gave so many years of their lives has been obscure, painstaking and strictly practical. It has been a matter of fitting tens of thousands of individuals, with infinite trouble
43
and caution, into the great, relentless, impersonal machine which controls the civilised world of to-day. It is hard to breathe life into the details of such a story.
Moreover, the work is still far from completion. Dr. Nansen, in 1929, did not think it impossible that the problem might be reduced to insignificant proportions within the prescribed ten years. His calculations were, however, in part founded on the assumption (which proved ill-founded) that the Assembly would sanction the scheme for settling Armenians in Erivan. Even after nearly ten years of repatriation and gradual assimilation, it was calculated, in 1929, that there remained nearly 1,000,000 Russian refugees, including 400,000 in France, 120,000 in China, 100,000 each in Germany and Poland, 70,000 in Roumania, and about 25,000 each in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria; about 160,000 Armenians, and over 20,000 Assyrians and Assyro-Chaldeans. Many of these, perhaps the majority, had, of course, ceased to constitute a problem. The settlers in the overseas countries, in France and in Syria could be regarded as definitely established, and the same might be said of a great number of non-agricultural workers. Nevertheless, the situation even of those who had found employment often remained precarious. At any time of depression, the first to suffer were, naturally, the refugees. Even in 1929, unemployment among the refugees in Greece, Poland, Germany and elsewhere was serious ; one must fear that in 1930 it became far more serious still,
44
Moreover, there were in 1929 about 70,000 persons—war invalids, aged persons and young children—unable to work and wholly dependent on Government or private assistance. For them the future must be sad indeed.
Thus Mr. Huber's new organisation, if it is to carry on to successful completion the heroic work which Dr. Nansen began, has before it many years of toil. For years to come its annual report will have to tell its tale of painful and unromantic endeavour. And yet—is it really so unromantic as it may seem to the eye which sees only a list of administrative regulations, of figures of 'persons transferred' or 'persons now unemployed'? This silent dispersal throughout the world of a million and a-half of human beings, citizens of two great Empires which will have none of them, is one of the great adventures of the modern world. It is easy enough to destroy; to save is far more difficult. Where the toiling peasant hoes his row in burning Syria or green France; where the reapers gather at evening on the plains of Canada, and the balalaika twangs out the old, mournful songs of the Ukraine; where, in the great cities of Europe, women sell the gay embroideries or painted birchwood wares of a lost home; where, in class-room and library, teachers hand on to the Western world the contribution which the soul of Russia has to make to our common civilisation; in all these places the name of Dr. Nansen is blessed.