576.G1/2

The Consul at Geneva ( Gilbert ) to the Secretary of State

No. 839 Political

Sir: I have the honor to refer to despatch No. 3242 of February 10, 1934 from the American Legation at Berne5 and the circular letter enclosed therewith from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations [Page 786] (C.L.17.1934.XII), addressed to the United States Government on February 9, 1934, with the request that it submit observations on a preliminary draft International Agreement for the use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace.

With a view to making available for the Department’s consideration certain further information and comment concerning the proposed plan of regulation of broadcasting, I am enclosing: (1) a copy of a note by the Secretary-General addressed to the Council of the League of Nations on January 4, 19346 quoting a resolution on the subject by the Assembly of the League on October 9, 1934 [1933] (C. 12.1934.XII;7 (2) a copy of the report of the Council’s rapporteur for the same question,8 containing the text of the Council’s subsequent resolution of January 15, 1934, and proposing that a preliminary draft agreement9 recommended by the Executive Committee of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation on December 30, 1933 be submitted to the governments for their observations (C.13.1934.XII); (3) a copy of a publication of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation entitled Broadcasting and Peace, Studies and Projects in the Matter of International Agreements,10 containing the recommendations of a committee of European radio specialists which met in Paris in February 1933 at the request of the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. Incidentally, it may be remarked that this latter publication was not transmitted with the Secretary-General’s above-mentioned communication of February 9, 1934, in spite of the inference that such was the case in the printed explanatory note annexed to the Secretary-General’s letter. The omission of this document was brought to the attention of a member of the Secretariat who furnished the Consulate with the enclosed two copies thereof for transmission to the Government of the United States.

I. Scope of Proposed Agreement

The general purpose of the agreement is set forth in the following terms in the preamble of the preliminary draft:

“The High Contracting Parties,

Having recognised the need for preventing, by means of rules established by common agreement, broadcasting from being used in a manner prejudicial to good international understanding;

[Page 787]

Prompted, moreover, by the desire to utilise, by the application of these rules, the possibilities offered by this medium of intercommunication for promoting better mutual understanding between people,

Have agreed to the following provisions: etc.”

Specifically, the draft provides that the contracting parties shall “undertake to prohibit, and, if occasion arises, to stop immediately, the broadcasting within their respective territories of any message intended for the population of another State and constituting a menace to the internal peace or security of that State” (Article 1); “undertake to arrange that transmissions within their respective territories shall contain no incitement to war or any systematic provocation likely to lead to war” (Article 2); “undertake to prohibit, within their respective territories, the broadcasting of messages likely to prejudice good international understanding by statements the accuracy of which is, or ought to be, known to the service responsible for the transmission” (Article 3). Article 4 provides for an undertaking “to ensure, especially in time of crisis, the accuracy of the information concerning international relations”.

Positive action by the Governments, as opposed to preventive or restrictive measures, is contemplated in Article 5 requiring the contracting parties to “ensure that in the programs broadcast within their respective territories shall be included items calculated to promote better knowledge of the civilization and the conditions of life of other peoples, as well as of the essential features of the development of their mutual relations and of the organization of peace.” To enforce the stipulations of Articles 1 to 5, Article 6 specifies that the contracting parties will “undertake to issue, for the guidance of governmental broadcasting services, appropriate instructions and regulations and to secure their application by these services”, and in the case of any autonomous broadcasting organizations, will include “either in the constitutive charter of a national institution or in the conditions imposed on a concessionary company”, appropriate clauses empowering the Government to ensure observance of the rules in question, in the event of such rules being “intentionally and systematically violated”.

The final articles of the draft deal with the settlement of disputed interpretation or application of the agreement (Article 7), its signature and ratification (Articles 8–11) and denunciation (Article 12).

II. History of Proposal to Regulate Broadcasting in Interest of Peace

The Department is reminded that the question of the use of broadcasting as an agency for the preservation of peace, first came before [Page 788] the League in 1931, when the XIIth Assembly adopted a resolution worded, in part, as follows:11

“Asks the States Members of the League to encourage the use of broadcasting to create better mutual understanding, to secure a more thorough comprehension of the international character of a large number of urgent problems, to permit of a more complete appreciation of the task of the League of Nations and of the aims which it has before it, and requests the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation to get into touch for that purpose with the principal national and international broadcasting organizations.”

In the same resolution the Assembly requested that the inquiry undertaken by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation on the educational aspects of broadcasting should cover “all the international questions raised by the use of broadcasting in regard to good international relations.”

In accordance with the Assembly’s above-mentioned resolution, the Intellectual Cooperation Institute approached a number of the outstanding officials of broadcasting organizations in Europe, and asked them to indicate the points which in their opinion deserved special study and to submit their suggestions. With these suggestions at hand the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, at a meeting at Geneva in July 1932, authorized the Institute to call together a committee of experts with the view to studying the conditions that should govern the framing of international agreements relative to the use of broadcasting in the interests of peace.

This Committee, the proceedings of which are described in the publication Broadcasting and Peace, Studies and Draft Agreements annexed hereto, met in Paris at the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation on Febrary 23, 1933 under the chairmanship of Dr. Arnold Raestad, former Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was assisted by M. Henri Bonnet, Director of the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, and by M. de Montenaoh, Secretary of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. The following experts attended:

Major C. F. Atkinson, Foreign and Overseas Director of the British Broadcasting Corporation,

Mr. A. R. Burrows, Secretary General of the International Broadcasting Union,

Mr. H. Giesecke, Ministerial Counsellor, Director of the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft,

Commander C. Montefinale, Chief of the Radio Division at the Italian Ministry of Communications, Rome,

[Page 789]

Mr. Mario Roques, Professor at the Sorbonne, Vice-President of the Conseil d’Administration de l’Association Générate des Auditeursde T.S.F.,

Mr. L. Sourek, President of the Board of Directors of the Czechoslovakian Broadcasting Organization.

The Institute also had the collaboration of:

Mr. R. Homburg, Barrister at the Paris Courts, Founder and Secretary General of the International Broadcasting Committee,

Doctor Joseph Raeber, Director of the International Bureau of the Telegraphic and Radio-Telegraphic Union,

Mr. Jaime Torres Bodet, representing Mexico.

As a result of the views expressed at this meeting, the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation requested the Institute to prepare a draft agreement in proper legal form for communication to the governments. This decision of the Committee was endorsed by the Assembly of the League in September [October] 1933.12

It appears that the next step was taken when a drafting committee presided by Dr. Raestad was convened by the Institute in Paris in November 1933. The text framed by this committee is that which has now been communicated to the American and other Governments by the Secretary-General of the League in accordance with a Council resolution of January 15, 1934.13

III. Action of Disarmament Conference in Connection With Control of Broadcasting in the Interest of Peace

Parallel consideration has been given this question by the Committee for Moral Disarmament of the Disarmament Conference which was first led to consider the problem of broadcasting from the point of view of “moral disarmament” as a result of a memorandum on the subject submitted to the Conference by the Polish Government in September 1931.

The Department will recall in this connection that the Committee for Moral Disarmament’s first draft of a Convention concerning Education, Cooperation of the Intellectual World, Broadcasting and Cinematography, contained an article (No. 18), providing that:

“Each Government shall take steps, by special regulations, to prevent the broadcasting of tendencious news or utterances capable of embittering international relations or affronting the legitimate sentiments [Page 790] of other peoples”. (League Document—Conf. D/C. D. M./25, May 22, 1933).

The deletion of this clause was proposed by the American Delegation with the support of the United Kingdom Delegation. An amended draft of the article relating to use of broadcasting was subsequently adopted by the Committee on November 20, 1933, reading as follows:

“Article 3.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to encourage, in accordance with the special system in force in their respective countries, the use of the cinematograph and broadcasting with a view to increasing the spirit of goodwill between nations. With this end in view, they will also support any action taken by the Intellectual Co-operation Organisation, as well as by organisations having the same object.

In accordance with the special system in force in their respective countries, they will use their influence to avoid the showing of films, the broadcasting of programmes and the organisation of performances obviously calculated to wound the legitimate sentiments of other nations.” (Conf. D./C. D. M./36).

It is my understanding that the Committee meeting at which the amended draft text was adopted for reference to the Bureau of the Conference was attended by delegates of the following countries: China, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom. The American Delegation was not represented.

IV. Sponsorship of Proposed Convention

I have had an opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement with a number of members of the League Secretariat in Geneva who have informed me that the initiative responsible for its consideration comes entirely from the Intellectual Cooperation Organization in Paris. One of the officials consulted—the technical expert in charge of wireless questions in the Communications and Transit Section—expressed his personal opinion that political conditions in Europe with their implications relative to radio-broadcasting were such as to render impossible at present any such degree of control as contemplated by the draft agreement.

Having noted that five of the eight experts consulted by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation in 1933, prior to the drafting of the proposed agreement, were members of the Council of the International Radio Union, I have made inquiry to learn whether the International Radio Union, (the membership of which includes many of the national and private broadcasting organizations in Europe) intended to take a position with regard to its adoption. [Page 791] Mr. A. R. Burrows, Secretary General of the Union, has informed the Consulate that the officials of the Union who participated in the above-mentioned meeting of radio experts did so in their private capacities and in no way bound his organization to press for the adoption of the agreement. He added that this question was not taken up during the recent meetings in Geneva (February 16–March 3) of the Technical Committee, Legal Committee, and Cooperation Committee of the Council of the Union, contrary to the statement appearing in the Geneva press of February 27, 1934 that such was the case.

Mr. Burrows has given the Consulate the impression that he feels that the problem of broadcasting offensive material can be adequately handled without recourse to an international convention or agreement on the subject. He believes that there is an emphatic need,—in the interests of national culture, national breadth of outlook and the spread of truth—that broadcasting should be permitted to develop its technique as unfettered as possible by sweeping or rigid instructions. Contemplating, nevertheless, difficulties which may result from broadcasting of material likely to irritate minorities or embitter international relations or affront what are termed the legitimate sentiments of other peoples, he suggested that these difficulties might be covered if the Governments were to introduce into their national regulations regarding broadcasting, and into the terms of broadcasting concessions, clauses which will aid the broadcasting organizations to eliminate from their transmissions material calculated to hinder the development of good feeling.

He stressed the useful rôle of the International Broadcasting Union in regulating broadcasting in Europe and declared that there was small chance of material offensive to other nations being broadcast from a studio over which a European member of the International Broadcasting Union has control. The various members of the Union have pledged themselves by a form of “Gentlemen’s Agreement” to do all within their power to avoid the use of microphones under their control for purposes likely to offend peoples of other nations, and according to Mr. Burrows the agreement has been well kept. (For a description of the organization and functions of the International Broadcasting Union, see Consulate’s report No. 832 Political of March 3, 1934, entitled “The International Broadcasting Union.”)14

Attention is finally drawn in this connection to the interesting reference to the code of ethics of the American National Association of Broadcasters, made by Mr. Burrows on page 119 of Broadcasting and Peace, Studies and Draft Agreements, which he cites as offering—coupled with the control exercised by the Federal Radio Commission—not [Page 792] only a check against objectionable matter but also as a professional means of dealing with alleged breaches.

Pointing out that membership of the International Broadcasting Union carries with it certain privileges of real importance to European broadcasters and that expulsion would be more than an indignity, he suggests the possibility of introducing a clause in the Statutes of the International Broadcasting Union and other regional Unions proclaiming that the deliberate or careless use of broadcasting for purposes harmful to good international relations shall be considered as an offence rendering the guilty organization liable to expulsion from the Union.

Respectfully yours,

Prentiss B. Gilbert
  1. Not printed.
  2. League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1934, p. 167.
  3. For text of this resolution (No. 9), see League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 115, p. 81.
  4. League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1934, pp. 109–110.
  5. Ibid., p. 170.
  6. Not reprinted.
  7. League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 93, p. 114.
  8. See League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 115, pp. 80, 83.
  9. For text of the draft resolution, see League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1934, p. 109.
  10. Not printed.