501.AC/9–346
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Controls (Lyon) to Joseph A. Panuch, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Administration (Russell)
[Subject:] Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations with Particular Reference to Issuance of “Laissez-Passer”—Let Pass
With reference to our conversation this morning, I submit the following as the reactions of PD, VD, and CON to the proposed letters drafted by OA and addressed to Senator McKellar and Representative Rayburn.
I refer to the attached memoranda of Mr. Hiss (SPA) dated September 3–9, 1946 and that of Mrs. Shipley (PD) dated September 10 and other communications.51
I agree heartily with the opinion expressed by Mrs. Shipley in her memorandum relative to the issuance of a laissez-passer by UN. Also, I wonder whether the proposed authority would not create an undesirable precedent. In these days of international organization isn’t it quite possible that we may find ourselves faced with other international organizations desiring to have the same authority; i.e., International Monetary Funds and Bank; the International Labor Office; and possibly the World Federation of Trade Unions? This authority granted by the proposed Convention might well become a rallying point for other international groups to obtain the same privileges.
My ignorance of the operations of the defunct League of Nations doesn’t permit me to state categorically that their experience didn’t lend itself to requesting its member nations to seek such authority. If such a laissez-passer were unnecessary for the officers of that organization, I cannot perceive of the necessity existing today with UN.
With specific reference to the last paragraph of Mr. Hiss’s memorandum of September 3, I admit readily that I lack the imagination to perceive in what manner a reservation concerning the proposed use of authority by the Secretary-General of UN to issue a laissez-passer would defeat the purpose of the provision which is to enable UN officials to travel where, because of “special circumstances” and “unusual situations”, they are not able to obtain passports. “Special circumstances” [Page 101] and “unusual situations” are apt to be misleading or, at least, difficult to interpret. To the best of my knowledge all member nations have passport issuing authorities, and I don’t understand the necessity for the proposed laissez-passer. At least until such a time as the UN is a going concern in a practical sense I see no reason why we should abrogate any of our laws or regulations, particularly when by so doing no real advantage is gained and abuses may arise. I see no reason for superimposing a new travel document issuing authority on the already established and accepted international procedure. Perhaps if PD, VD, and CON were aware of the problem that this proposal is supposed to solve, and understood the “special circumstances” which prove the inadequacy of the existing procedure, we might have no logical reason to advance in opposition to this proposed concession. We do not feel, however, that merely because no reservations were made formally at the time of its original consideration by UN that the proposed convention should be labeled fait accompli.
We believe that the least the Department can do in submitting the proposed Convention, through the Bureau of the Budget to the Senate and the House, would be to call specific attention to the ramifications arising from the proposals.
- The PD memorandum is not found in the files. Mr. Lyon had before him an internal memorandum of the Office of Controls dated September 12 which called attention to the fact that no reservations had been made at London by the United States Delegation with respect to the issuance of laissez-passer by the United Nations, and which urged that “The least the Department can do in submitting the proposed Convention through the Bureau of the Budget to the Senate would be to call specific attention to the ramifications arising from the proposals” (501.AC/9–1246).↩