811.711/1608
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State (Berle)
| Participants: | Soviet Ambassador; |
| Counselor of Embassy, Mr. Gromyko; | |
| Mr. Fletcher Warren;17 | |
| Mr. A. A. Berle, Jr. |
The Soviet Ambassador came in to see me at his request. I had previously had before me a copy of the note sent by the Ambassador protesting against the seizure and destruction of certain Russian publications as unmailable by the Post Office Department and had discussed this with Mr. Acheson18 and Mr. Henderson, and we had agreed that it was undesirable to let the Ambassador take the lead in the conversation.
Accordingly, I said the Ambassador probably wished to discuss the subject of his note. The Ambassador said this was so. I then said I wished to make a preliminary statement. The United States was now engaged in a program of national defense on a large scale and at a time of increasing tension. In this regard it did not differ from the Soviet Government which likewise was increasing its defense efforts. Propaganda of any kind which might interfere with the national defense undoubtedly would come under increasing control. As an old and experienced hand and a realist, the Ambassador would be the first to recognize that this necessarily would be the case. He further would recall that no government had been more strenuous [Page 720] than his own in suppressing propaganda not considered in their national interest. We, like every other sovereign government, insisted on the right in case of necessity to impose such controls.
I then handed him a copy of the opinion of the Attorney General19 of last December20 relating to the provisions of the Registration of Foreign Agents Act, and coming to the conclusion that propaganda mailed from overseas for distribution in this country was nevertheless violative of Section 600 of the Postal Regulations since it was mailed in violation of the Federal statute. I invited the Ambassador to examine this opinion which would, I thought, sufficiently apprize him of our laws.
I then talked up in some detail the various questions which were raised by his note. After explaining briefly the theory of the Act, I then said that we did not construe this Act as giving the United States authorities the right to interfere with any matter mailed to the Soviet Embassy or its Consulates. Where any such matter had been interrupted I regretted the fact very much; and orders had been given to assure its prompt delivery.
As to the problem of transit mails, I stated that the Post Office authorities had categorically assured us that no examination or seizure of any material designed for transit had been made. Indeed this material passed through the United States in sealed containers which were not opened.
I then referred to the complaint contained in his note relating to the Four Continents Book Corporation. This concern is registered as a foreign agent and therefore can within the limits of its registration statement disseminate material. But this would not confer on anyone in Russia the right to disseminate material and we had therefore not felt that the material shipped among other things to the Four Continents Book Corporation would be construed as within the law.
Finally, I said that I had taken note of the complaint made to the effect that a great deal of the literature seized could not be regarded as “propaganda” in any sense. Adverting to the provisions of the Registration Act which I said plainly contemplated the use of material designed to effect political or other similar action in the United States, I added that he [we?] would not construe this as including the circulation of material of merely cultural quality or merely descriptive of normal function of life in Russia, or the like. We had, therefore, endeavored to examine the literature actually declared nonmailable with a view to assuring that normal publications would flow freely since we do not construe these to be within the purview of the Act.
The Soviet Ambassador thereupon made the speech he had obviously prepared although I gathered that it had been shifted somewhat in the [Page 721] process. He said he regretted to find that what he had hoped to be a minor administrative matter had turned into a question of policy. He said the effect of this was to cut off cultural relations with that country. He said he was glad to note that the material addressed to the Embassy and Consulates would flow freely, though he picked up a statement of mine stating that this would not apply to dissemination by the Consulates. He said that in that case, when Harvard asked for copies of Russian law he would decline to give them and cite me as authority. I said it was his privilege to be absurd if he pleased because the rule as to dissemination by an embassy or consulate was established not by the statute (which specifically exempted such consulates) but by good diplomatic practices, with which the Ambassador was thoroughly familiar. The Ambassador said he considered the rule discriminatory. It was noted that it had not been the Russian propaganda which had brought the question up. The Ambassador said he realized that a lot of countries had disseminated propaganda; he had no interest in that; but if it was not applied to all countries and was applied to his own, he would consider it was discriminatory. I said it applied to all countries. The Ambassador continued to use the word “discriminatory” throughout the conversation. He produced publications which looked harmless enough. One of them was a copy of the newspaper Pravda; another was an English publication Soviet Land, and still another was a book of pictures of an agricultural aspect, and so forth. He asked how these could be classified as nonmailable under regulation 600 since they were not obscene, criminal or the like. I repeated briefly the explanation of the law. He then said that he considered we had virtually cut off all cultural intercourse between the countries. I said no one wished to do that and, precisely to insure that this effect was not produced, we had promptly endeavored to examine the type of literature withheld. The Ambassador observed that a few of the copies of the Soviet laws had been withheld and asked whether we were preventing the distribution of Hansard’s Debates. He likewise asked whether we seriously thought the Soviet Government agencies would fail to register as agents of a foreign principal. I said we did not. I saw no reason likewise why the official documents, the regular newspapers and literature which was not designed to influence American political or economic action came within the purview of the Act. The Ambassador said that when it came to judging propaganda the Post Office officials could not, he thought, be very good judges; that they were actually holding up everything and would probably go on doing so and we could not leave cultural relations at the mercy of this kind of thing. I said the difficulties and absurdities of any postal examination had been the subject of many jests for many generations and I presume the incidents might have occurred but that we would endeavor to correct these as rapidly as possible.
[Page 722]The Ambassador concluded by repeating his preliminary statement, namely, that we were dealing with a discriminatory exercise of censorship against his country and that he regretted very much that in these troublous times we were now creating a major political issue with which his Government might deal. I said his Government had the privilege of making issue out of the situation if it so desired, being a sovereign government; but that it struck me as a little absurd. The main issue, which was the combing out of unregistered propaganda desired [designed?] to influence the opinion of the United States, was one on which the Ambassador apparently agreed. The arrangement that there should be a free flowing of material not of a propaganda nature, always within the purview of the Registration Act as explained by the opinion of the Attorney General, was correct and one which we had already attended to.
I begged likewise to refer to my own opening statement, namely, that defense considerations were now paramount. The Ambassador said he did not see that interruption of cultural relations between our country was a necessary result of that and supposed I did not either.
Finally, the Ambassador inquired whether the restrictions would apply to the 140-odd Russian nationals who were here by official permission. I said that I did not understand that they had diplomatic immunity and that I assumed they would have the same status of American nationals, but that this was a snap opinion and I asked leave to study their exact status before giving him a concrete answer. The Ambassador concluded by asking an answer in writing to his note which I said I would be glad to have for him. The tone of the conversation was polite throughout and at the end I gathered the distinct impression that the Ambassador was considerably less anxious to force the issue than his earlier remarks indicated.