840.48 Refugees/4060: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:11 p.m.]
4810. Refugee problem. Lord Winterton and Sir Herbert Emerson called on me by appointment today, accompanied by Mr. A. W. G. Randall, Counsellor of the Foreign Office, and discussed a possible preliminary understanding between the American and British representatives before the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees which it is hoped will take place in London on August 4. Winterton laid emphasis upon his desire to proceed on July 29 with the inviting of representatives of other countries, and the Department’s response to the proposals below is therefore urgently requested at as early a date as possible. These proposals are aimed at incorporating to date all requirements in the matter, including suggestions heretofore offered by the Department. Winterton, Emerson, and Randall brought with them a draft of suggestions for a preliminary understanding. This we jointly discussed and modified to read as follows:
“It is suggested that before the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Intergovernmental Committee, which it is hoped will take place in London on August 4, there should be a preliminary understanding between the British and American representatives, to be followed if [Page 193] possible by a similar understanding with the other members of the Committee, regarding the following main questions:
(1) France. The French Government was a member of the original Executive, and in view of the importance of French colonial territory in connection with refugees it seems very desirable that a place should be found on the Executive for a French representative. It is suggested that while the status of the French National Committee of Liberation is being fixed by the British and American Governments a French representative should be invited to take part in the deliberations of the Committee.
(2) Procedure. When the Executive Committee meets under Lord Winterton’s chairmanship, with the director present, it will have an agenda based on this present memorandum and one of its decisions should be to charge the director with notification of the meeting of the Committee to all the original members. This notification would describe the changes in the constitution, membership and scope of the Committee which the Executive propose to effect, and ask for approval. It is agreed that there need be no meeting of the whole Committee. A notification would also be made of the Executive Committee’s decision to invite non-members to join the Committee, and this would only be sent when the necessary approaches had been made as described in paragraph 4 below.
(3) Present membership. This is as follows: Australia, Argentine Republic, Belgium, Bolivia, United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, United States of America, France, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, New Zealand, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela. Guatemala and Panama both withdrew in 1940, but it is suggested that they should be invited to resume membership.
(4) New members. South Africa, Poland, Roumania, Greece, and Costa Rica sent observers to the foundation meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee at Evian in 1938, but did not become members. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, and Czechoslovakia had no concern with the Committee. It seems desirable that all except of course Roumania should be invited to join the Committee, and, if this is agreed by the Executive, it is suggested that before the director issues a formal invitation the British and American Governments should make a diplomatic approach to the potential new members and ascertain whether they would welcome the invitation, should it be sent.
(5) Scope or [of?] Committee’s action. The following recommendation was made by the British and American delegations at Bermuda:
‘The Committee should be invited to revise its mandate. In order to effect this purpose it is suggested that the mandate should read as follows: “The Executive Committee of the Intergovernmental Committee is hereby empowered by the member states to undertake negotiations with neutral or Allied states or organizations and to take such steps as may be necessary to preserve, maintain and transport those persons displaced from their homes by their efforts to escape from areas where their lives and liberty are in danger on account of their race, religion or their political beliefs. The operation of the Committee shall extend to all countries from which refugees come as a result of the war in Europe or in which they may find refuge. The Executive Committee shall be empowered [Page 194] to receive and disburse, for the purposes enumerated above, funds both public and private.” ’
This formula was adopted in order to bring under the Committee refugees other than Jews, such as the Poles who are in or are being transferred from Persia and the Greek and other Allied refugees in Egypt and elsewhere. It seems desirable, however, to find wording which would give discretion to the Committee, guided by the Executive (which is not necessarily bound by the recommendations of the Bermuda Conference), to include or not various groups of refugees according to what may be found practicable. Accordingly the following alternative is suggested:
‘The Committee shall extend its mandate so as to include, as may be found necessary and practicable, in addition to those already within the mandate, those persons wherever they may be who as a result of events in Europe have had to leave or may have to leave their countries of residence because of the danger to their lives or liberties on account of their race, religion or political beliefs.
With regard to persons coming within the mandate as extended the Executive Committee of the Intergovernmental Committee would be empowered by the member states to undertake negotiations with neutral or Allied states or organizations and to take such steps as may be necessary to preserve, maintain and transport them. The Executive Committee shall be empowered to receive and disburse, for the purposes enumerated above, funds both public and private.’
(6) Finance. The Executive should be informed of the decision by the American and British Governments jointly to underwrite the expenses of the Committee, but should also be told that when a clearer idea has been obtained of the money required for the efficient conduct of the Committee’s work under its new commitments an invitation will be addressed to all the member governments, inviting them to contribute to the running expenses of the Committee and to the transport and maintenance of the refugees, in accordance with their abilities and interest in the humanitarian work which the Committee will undertake.
(7) Staff. It is proposed that the Executive Committee should empower the director to submit an estimate of the staff required, but forthwith to make arrangements for appointing, subject to the Committee’s approval, a salaried full-time vice-director and a salaried full-time secretary, with the necessary clerical staff.
(8) Maintenance of refugees. The American and British Governments have agreed, and presumably will find no difficulty in securing, the agreement of the other members of the Committee, that after the refugees arrive at places of temporary refuge which the Committee has succeeded in obtaining for them they shall be maintained by the United Nations Relief Administration if it is able to carry on activities in the countries in question. If, as seems probable in neutral countries, the United Nations Relief Administration is unable to function, it will then be for the Intergovernmental Committee itself to assume responsibility for maintenance after negotiation with the governments concerned. In general it should be agreed that normally maintenance responsibilities should not be retroactive and that member governments or voluntary organizations who have assumed financial commitments in respect of refugees will wish to continue. Cases of hardships can be considered on their merits. The question whether new groups of refugees should be maintained by the Intergovernmental [Page 195] Committee or by their Governments would be for consideration equally on the individual merits of each group. Foreign Office, 22nd July, 1943.”
With regard to the above the Embassy’s comments, offered for your consideration, are contained in Embassy’s 4811, July 23, 10 p.m.61
- Infra. ↩