Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1940, General and Europe, Volume II

840.48 Refugees/2082

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs (Pell)

[Washington,] February 29, 1940.

The Intergovernmental Committee, which began as a consultation of thirty-three Governments at Evian⁴⁹ in order to determine what, if anything, might be done to solve the problem of political refugees, was given a more permanent form for one primary reason, that was the desirability of marshalling governmental opinion behind negotiations for the purpose of persuading the German Government to relax the pressure on its minorities. When the war broke the principal justification for the continued existence of this consultative body ceased. The negotiation with Germany ended abruptly. The contact with the German authorities was finally halted. From that moment the English and French Governments looked upon the Committee as a platform from which to denounce Germany and involve this Government in that denunciation. In other words, they looked upon the Committee as a political instrument rather than an organization to help in the solution of the refugee problem.

The British and the French made their position very clear at the meeting of the officers of the Committee in October. They took the ground that the Allies were fighting, among other things, to oblige the Germans to take back the refugees and that the immediate role of the Committee should be to support the British and French in bringing about a condition where the refugees might return to their original homes. They showed scant sympathy toward our viewpoint (which was supported by other neutral representatives) that no matter how the war resulted there would be a vast refugee problem, perhaps involving many millions of people, and that in any event there was the immediate problem to solve of resettling the large numbers of refugees who had left Germany but were waiting to emigrate from countries of temporary refuge.

This fundamental cleavage was smoothed over on that occasion by the use of broad and rather meaningless language but there is every reason to believe that the cleavage remains and that the British and French wish to develop at the proposed meeting at Paris their thesis that they are fighting the war for the refugees and that pending the outcome of the armed struggle nothing further need be done.

Our delegation, in short, would be placed in a position where it would have either to subscribe to or oppose the Anglo-French position; that is, it would have to take a political position in a time of great uncertainty and there does not seem to be any good reason why an issue with such serious implications should be raised in connection with the problem of refugees.

The question, in brief, is whether this Government is genuinely interested in the solution of the refugee problem or whether it, like the British and French, wishes to use the refugee problem for the development of policies hostile to Germany. Assuming that this Government is genuinely concerned with ways and means of contributing to the alleviation of the political refugee situation, it must be said with all frankness that the practical approach is not through a meeting of a number of Ambassadors and Ministers under the aegis of Lord Winterton at Paris or some other point. These gentlemen, as in the past, will make pretty speeches, or in most cases will not speak at all. Mr. Taylor will offer a large banquet. A few of the representatives will make reports to their Governments, but most frankly admit that they do not even do that. The hopes of the unfortunate refugees will be raised by the announcement that a meeting is to be held and, as on previous occasions when the Committee has assembled, will be dashed to even lower depths after the session.

It would seem that the moment for oratory and exchange of compliments in relation to the refugee problem has passed. The problem at the present moment is specific. The approximately 140,000 German refugees in countries of refuge have to be resettled. The Spanish refugees still in France have to be found new homes. Lithuania, Roumania and Hungary which are feeling the brunt of the Polish migration must be relieved. The solution must be found partly in the stimulation of infiltration and in part in settlement projects such as Mr. Rosenberg’s Dominican project, Mr. Hochschild’s Bolivian project and Mr. Liebman’s Philippine project. The work has to be done primarily by private persons who have the enterprise and money to undertake projects of this kind. The Government can assist in a multitude of small ways and at least can support and encourage the men who are really contributing to the solution of the refugee problem in a concrete manner. To participate in elaborate (and incidentally expensive) diplomatic meetings is not only a sheer waste of time but is a source of disillusionment to those who are working on the refugee problem and to the refugees themselves.

Should it, however, be decided that this Government will participate in a further meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee it should be very carefully considered whether it would be advisable to agree to Paris as the place. Paris is the capital of a belligerent nation and the atmosphere is obviously not conducive to objective discussion of a scientific problem. It should be recalled that a majority of the Governments represented in the Committee, including all the Governments of the Americas, are neutral and most certainly will not wish to be drawn into a situation where they will join with England and France in attacking Germany from the Quai d’Orsay in Paris. If we are to participate in the meeting we might propose a neutral capital in Europe (although it is highly doubtful if any of the smaller European neutrals will agree to this in view of the hostility of Germany to the Committee) or, stretching a point, Mr. Taylor’s proposal of Monte Carlo might be considered, although in that event most of the Governments members of the Intergovernmental Committee would be represented by Consuls or possibly not at all.

Since the question of governmental participation in the solution of the refugee problem has been raised by these telegrams, serious consideration might be given to the possibility of transferring this activity from the Committee (which was set up primarily for the purpose which no longer is extant of negotiating with the German Government) to the Permanent International Committee on Migration for Settlement which Governor Winant⁵⁰ is setting up under the International Labor Office and which is to hold a meeting in the spring. There are distinct advantages in removing the problem from the realm of politics to the realm of objective scientific organization and there is every advantage in avoiding a duplication of effort. Might it not be a solution to designate Mr. Taylor, if he wishes it, as the American representative on the Permanent Committee and put the Intergovernmental Committee quietly to sleep.

To sum up:

1) The Intergovernmental Committee, a consultative body of governments, was given a permanent form at Evian for the primary purpose of supporting an approach to Germany in the matter of refugees;

2) Under the Committee’s terms of reference it deals exclusively with involuntary emigrants from Greater Germany (efforts to broaden the scope have failed due to consistent opposition by Great Britain and France);

3) With the outbreak of war in Europe, the conversations with the German Government, which had made progress, were interrupted;

4) From this time the Allies have taken the ground that they were fighting the war in order to enable the refugees to return to their homes in Germany and have sought to enlist our support of this contention;

5) The Allies are categorically opposed to our thesis that there will have to be transfers of population on a major scale at the close of the war and have made it clear that they will not even discuss this possibility during the war period;

6) A meeting of the Committee runs the risk of open cleavage between our position and the position of the Allies which will benefit no one except the Germans.

7) The possibilities might be considered of transferring this activity from the Intergovernmental Committee, which is a political body, to the Labor Office’s Permanent International Committee on Migration for Settlement, which is a scientific body.

49. See Foreign Relations, 1938, vol. i, pp. 740 ff.
50. John Gilbert Winant, former Governor of New Hampshire; Director of the International Labor Office, Geneva.