740.00116 EW/5–547
The Acting Chief of the Division of Southern European Affairs (Barbour) to the Second Secretary of the British Embassy (Solly-Flood)1
My Dear Peter: I have your letter of May 5, 1947 with general reference to various aspects of the problems involved in connection [Page 801] with the surrender to the Yugoslav authorities of individuals alleged to be “collaborators and war criminals”.
I have noted with interest the views of the British Foreign Office and the British Ambassador in Belgrade concerning Yugoslav justice. I regret that, based on the experience of this Government, I cannot agree with those opinions. It seems to us that the weight of evidence clearly indicates a general finding that the Yugoslav Government is meting out unduly harsh treatment to opponents of the present Yugoslav regime and that it is using charges of collaboration, which the individual is not permitted to refute in open court, as a weapon in an increasingly severe campaign of repression against opposing elements. Individual cases can no doubt be cited, such as those mentioned by the British Ambassador, wherein sentences were comparatively light-However, I cannot help feeling that such instances are notably few, exceptional to the general practice, and usually the result of ulterior circumstances.
As regards the Foreign Office’s view that it is committed to the Yugoslavs to surrender traitors and collaborators upon the establishment by the Yugoslavs of prima facie cases of guilt and to the surrender of proved members of the Ustashi, the United States Government did in fact concur in various British communications to the Yugoslavs to that effect. But in the light of subsequent developments, we frankly do not feel that such communications are now necessarily applicable. We have consequently, as I previously informed you orally, withdrawn our concurrence in the surrender of Ustashi as a group. It is our belief that, in a matter involving so basic a humanitarian principle as the protection of persons under our jurisdiction from victimization through the perversion of justice, we cannot, in the light of our subsequent experience, be bound by earlier expressions of intention.
You note an apparent divergence in attitude between our two Governments in considering individual cases and inquire concerning the status of our joint responsibility in this connection. I believe there [Page 802] may be a misunderstanding of the United States position in this matter and the background underlying the present coordination of action between the Foreign Office and the Department. It has been our view, with which I believe you will agree, that the ultimate responsibility for the surrender of individuals lies in each case with the Government in whose custody the individual is held. Thus the British are responsible for persons in exclusively British jurisdiction, as we are for those in United States jurisdiction, and we have joint responsibility in areas under combined authority. This has been the position of the United States right along and explains our action in the case of General Damjanovic. However, I recall that when, a year or so ago, we were minded to take that attitude with regard to all persons who might be found in British custody Mr. Pares, while recognizing the soundness of our position, specifically asked that, in the interests of maintaining coordinated policy towards Yugoslavia in this problem, we continue to express our opinions as to the surrender of such individuals. We were pleased to comply with his request at that time and I feel that that coordination has been useful. However, if the Foreign Office now believes that further continuance of the arrangement will prove embarrassing, we obviously cannot have any objection to your Government adopting such measures as you may deem necessary in the cases of persons who are your responsibility. As for those remaining areas in which we still have joint authority, we cannot agree to individuals being surrendered to the Yugoslavs without our specific approval in each case. On the other hand, if, in any instance, your Government feels that our refusal of such approval is embarrassing to you, we would likewise have no objection to the Yugoslavs being informed in the circumstances.
Your letter under acknowledgment specifically asks that we reconsider our position in regard to Kuvezdić, Dujšin and Grdjić. I understand that, while those three persons are in British custody there is some question whether their arrest was carried out under combined authority, and consequently I must ask that they not be turned over without our specific approval which, as previously indicated in my letter of April 30 and May 5, we are not in a position to give on the basis of the information at present in our possession.
I hope that the foregoing may serve to clarify certain aspects of our attitude in this matter. Any comments you may have will be most welcome.
Sincerely yours,
- In a reply dated June 14, Ref: 527/474/47, not printed, Solly-Flood stated that the British Foreign Office was prepared in general to accept the views presented by Barbour. The British Foreign Office proposed that an American officer be appointed to serve as a United States legal adviser in Italy who would join with a British legal adviser in reviewing all outstanding cases of alleged quislings in custody who were a joint United States-British responsibility. The British Foreign Office further proposed that those persons in custody whose cases were still under review when the Treaty of Peace with Italy came into force be removed to the British zone of occupation of Germany on the clear understanding that their disposal remained a joint responsibility. In a letter to Solly-Flood dated July 2, not printed, Barbour stated that the United States agreed in principle with the proposal for the appointment of a United States legal adviser and had no objection to the proposed removal to the British zone of Germany of those persons whose cases were still under review. Ben A. Smith was subsequently designated as the United States legal adviser. Suggestions and background information for the legal adviser were furnished in instruction 7030, October 30, to Berlin, not printed (740.00116 EW/6–1447, 9–3047).↩