740.00115 Pacific War/422
The Acting Secretary of State to the British Ambassador ( Halifax )
My Dear Mr. Ambassador: I have received your letter of March 30, 1942 regarding various matters concerning prisoners of war and civilian internees with special reference to the problem of relief for persons held by the Japanese.
I share your views as to the advisability of a full exchange of information with regard to the welfare of prisoners of war and interned civilians in Japan and Japanese-controlled territories and take note of your statement that the Netherlands Government is of the same opinion. In view, however, of the great number of governments of the United Nations now concerned or which may become concerned in this matter, it appears advisable that we should take great care that any cooperation for the exchange of information should not involve joint action which might lead to the creation of group responsibility and group reciprocity in the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees between the United Nations on the one hand and Germany, Italy and Japan on the other hand. I have in mind in this connection among other things the refusal of the Soviet Government to adhere to or to apply the provisions of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. Since each of the United Nations has rights in regard to prisoners of war and civilian internees founded separately in treaty and agreement which are several not joint, it seems especially advisable that relations between the several belligerents in each group of allies be kept scrupulously on a bilateral basis.
It is my feeling that the bilateral nature of the relations between individual belligerents should be preserved also with regard to measures of publicity and each of the United Nations should continue to direct its own publicity. In this connection I have in mind that factors affecting the nationals of one country in the hands of a particular enemy do not necessarily, and in fact probably would not usually, apply exactly to the nationals of the several other United Nations in the hands of the same enemy power. It also appears advisable that in its publicity with regard to the treatment of its nationals in the [Page 809] hands of a particular enemy country each of the United Nations should make clear that it speaks for itself and its own nationals only and should take care not to imply that the factors and conditions reported regarding them necessarily apply in the case of nationals of other of the United Nations in the hands of the enemy.
Furthermore in publicity, as well as in the actual conduct through the protecting Power of discussions and negotiations, I believe that special care should be taken to insure clarity regarding the separate categories of nationals in enemy hands, i. e., prisoners of war, civilian internees and persons at large under parole or otherwise, with regard to whom the provisions of treaties and agreements are not identical.
With regard to your remarks concerning the method of exchange of information among the various governments concerned, there has been established in the Special Division of the Department of State an Internees Section which deals with problems relating to American prisoners of war and civilian internees in enemy hands and enemy prisoners of war and civilian internees in American hands. This Section has already established liaison with your Embassy, which is carried on at present through Mr. Etherington-Smith. It is also in liaison with the Canadian Legation, the International Red Cross Delegate in the United States, the representatives in the United States of the protecting Powers and the various American agencies and government departments concerned with prisoners of war and civilian internees. This Section will be glad to make available to representatives of your Embassy informally and currently the fullest information possible regarding prisoner of war and internee matters and to assist your Embassy in arranging contacts with the American Red Cross and other agencies concerned in these matters.
With regard to cooperation for relief of nationals of the United Nations in Japanese hands, it is as you know the policy of this Government to leave to the American Red Cross the actual organization and carrying out of relief and to assist only when governmental support of Red Cross projects appears necessary or advisable. I understand that a delegation representing the Canadian Red Cross has visited Washington, where it was in contact with the appropriate officials of the American Red Cross, and that the organization of measures of relief for persons in the Far East by the two Red Cross societies was the subject of conferences which were attended by representatives of your Embassy, the Canadian Legation, the Australian Legation, the Netherlands Legation and the Department of State acting as observers.
I have been informed that it was decided at these conferences that the Pacific area should be divided for relief purposes into two sectors and that the Australian Red Cross, possibly joined by the Netherlands Indies Red Cross, would for the time being take responsibility for supplying [Page 810] relief to allied prisoners of war in Singapore and other points in the South Pacific. The supplying of relief to allied prisoners of war in Japan, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Manila and territory adjacent thereto was to be, it was decided, the joint responsibility of the American, Canadian and British Red Cross Societies. I understand that a standing committee composed of representatives of the American and Canadian Red Cross Societies was constituted to deal with measures of relief in this sector of the Far East and that it was agreed, with the concurrence of your Embassy’s representative, that the representative of the Canadian Red Cross would represent on the committee the interests of the British Red Cross. I also understand that the committee will take into account the interests of the Netherlands in arrangements made by it for relief.
In case it should develop in the future that the exchange of information would be further facilitated by the appointment of a committee to act in Washington, I would then be glad to consider the setting up of a committee and the naming of a representative.
Sincerely yours,