840.48 Refugees/4782: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 19—12:10 p.m.]
8079. A matter has been raised with the Director of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees which may make desirable a decision to whether the organization’s affairs are to be subject to determination by majority vote, require unanimity, or are to be regulated in accordance with some basic document on procedure still to be adopted stipulating unanimous vote for some questions and majority vote for others. Department’s instructions not later than November 24, when the subject is to be discussed further, are urgently requested.
The immediate problem is brought up by part of a letter dated November 14 from the Brazilian Ambassador to the Director as follows: [Page 221]
“With reference to the subject matter discussed by the sub-committee regarding the administrative expenses of the Intergovernmental Committee, I have received instructions from my Government requesting me to inform them of the point-of-view of the other members of the Executive Committee, namely, France, Argentine and the Netherlands, as to whether they consider that the expenses referred to above should include those of the Committee’s representatives abroad.
Would it therefore be possible to submit to these members the divergent points-of-view of Great Britain and the United States on the one hand and that of Brazil on the other, and the question decided by a majority vote?”
In this connection various alternative possibilities occur to the Embassy:
- 1.
- The sub-committee was presumably set up to make a recommendation to the Executive Committee and save it effort, and the Brazilian Government should hardly expect to discharge the responsibility by throwing the decision back upon the Executive Committee. Department may wish to consider instructing Ambassador Caffery93 to endeavor to have the Brazilian Government retract the instruction. Neither the Director nor Chairman feel that further approach by them to the Brazilian Ambassador here would be effective.
- 2.
- To avoid for the present the problem of admitting vote by majority the Department may wish to consider withdrawing our suggestion on administrative expenses and accepting the Brazilian plan. Randall of the Foreign Office is slightly inclined to this course but states that he does not speak for the Foreign Office which seems ready in this matter to follow whatever lead the Department may wish to give. He is putting the question to the British Treasury for its advice.
- 3.
- In any event the Director’s in effect canvassing the vote of the Executive Committee for the benefit of the Brazilian member of the sub-committee is too cumbrous a procedure, but the Department may wish to consider having the question referred back to the Executive Committee for decision by majority vote. Winterton inclines to the view that majority voting procedure is desirable in the IGC to increase sense of participation by other Governments and to avoid the limitations always obstructing unanimous procedure organizations. It is not impossible that a vote in the Executive Committee would support the British-American position on administrative expenses, and even if not the cost might be worth the gain. The Executive Committee now numbers six but will be a more workable body for voting purposes when increased as now hoped by some such addition as the Soviet Union, Poland and Mexico. Protection for the United States and Great Britain against cost of projects favored only by other countries is already covered by the requirement of our consent, and the danger of our being blocked by a negative majority vote on projects [Page 222] which we favor does not appear insurmountable when humanitarian considerations are so heavily involved. This is perhaps an opportunity to allow a question to be submitted without comment to majority decision by the Executive Committee, thus permitting the organization to develop in that direction without the necessity of a definitive regulation of procedure in that regard although it must be realized this would establish a precedent difficult to avoid in the future.
- Jefferson Caffery, Ambassador in Brazil.↩