Documents on the Genocide Convention from the American, British, and Russian Archives: The Ideology of a Humanitarian Treaty, 1949–1988 9781474279956, 9781474279796, 9781474279987, 9781474279970

Citation preview

Documents on the Genocide Convention from the American, British, and Russian Archives

Also available from Bloomsbury The Holocaust in Eastern Europe, by Waitman Wade Beorn Nazi Law, edited by John J. Michalczyk The United States and the Nazi Holocaust, by Barry Trachtenberg

Documents on the Genocide Convention from the American, British, and Russian Archives The Ideology of a Humanitarian Treaty, 1949–1988 Volume II

Edited by Anton Weiss-Wendt

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2019 Copyright © Anton Weiss-Wendt, 2019 Anton Weiss-Wendt has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editor of this work. Cover design by Adriana Brioso Cover image: Bomb-damaged street during the Korean War, South Korea, 1952. (© Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-7995-6 ePDF: 978-1-4742-7997-0 eBook: 978-1-4742-7996-3 Pack: 978-1-4742-7979-6 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents Document List

vii

DOCUMENTS 170–436 VI The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession to the Genocide Convention, 1949–53 (nos. 170–194)

1

VII The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62 (nos. 195–217)

45

VIII The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52 (nos. 218–235)

71

IX

Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59 (nos. 236–279)

101

X The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles, Draft Covenants on Human Rights, and/or the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1949–54 (nos. 280–299)

167

XI

197

The Korean War, 1950–53 (nos. 300–314)

XII  We Charge Genocide: The Campaign to Indict the United States for Racial Discrimination, 1951–52 (nos. 315–352)

215

XIII

263

The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59 (nos. 353–365)

XIV The United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention, 1962–68 (nos. 366–389)

279

vi Contents XV The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, 1970–77 (nos. 390–424)

305

XVI

365

The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85 (nos. 425–429)

XVII A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88 (nos. 430–436) Further Reading List of Persons Index

387 397 399 418

Document List DOCUMENTS 170–436

VI  The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession to the Genocide Convention, 1949–1953 (nos. 170–194) No. 170 The British Commonwealth Relations Office Informs the UK High Commissioners about the Adoption of the Genocide Convention, January 1, 1949 3 No. 171 The Governor of Aden Argues That Making Specific Provisions in the Colonial Laws to Accommodate the Genocide Convention May Be Interpreted Locally as a Pro-Jewish Measure, February 28, 1949 5 No. 172 Professor James L. Brierly Discusses the Genocide Convention on BBC’s Third Program, March 2, 1949 5 No. 173 Attorney General of Kenya Kenneth K. O’Connor Regards the Genocide Convention Loosely Phrased, Open to Interpretations, March 10, 1949 9 No. 174 The Colonial Administration of Kenya Has Difficulties in Accepting the Genocide Convention, Based on an Opinion of Kenya’s Attorney General, March 31, 1949 10 No. 175 The Governor of Malta Sees a Problem Had the “Mental Harm” Provision in Article II of the Genocide Convention Been Extended to Culture, April 10, 1949 11

viii

Document List

No. 176 The Governor of Sierra Leone Thinks Genocide is Not an Issue, Sees No Possibility for Enacting Local Legislation, April 13, 1949 12 No. 177 The Governor of Uganda Regards the Definition of Genocide Problematic, May 11, 1949 12 No. 178 The British Colonial Office Summarizes the Replies from Colonies on whether or Not They See Any Problems with regard to the Genocide Convention, June 15, 1949 13 No. 179 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dislikes the Genocide Convention yet Finds It Harmless Enough for the United Kingdom to Accede, July 15, 1949 15 No. 180 The Australian House of Representatives Debates the Genocide Convention Bill, July 21, 1949 17 No. 181 The Governor of Uganda Sees No Problem in Introducing Appropriate Legislation Locally in the Event of United Kingdom Acceding to the Genocide Convention, August 30, 1949 20 No. 182 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Instructed to Support an Invitation to Become Parties to the Genocide Convention to Those UN Non-Member States That the United Kingdom Had Recognized De Facto, September 7, 1949 21 No. 183 The British Colonial Office Comments on Replies Received from the British Territories whether or Not They Regard the Genocide Convention Acceptable, November 7, 1949 23 No. 184 Summary of Replies Received from the British Colonies whether or Not They Regard the Genocide Convention Acceptable [November 7, 1949] 24



Document List

ix

No. 185 Secretary of State for the Colonies Informs the Home Secretary That the Majority of Colonies Accept the Genocide Convention in the Event of UK Accession, December 13, 1949 26 No. 186 The Majority of British Colonial Administration Accept the Genocide Convention yet Would Not Remonstrate Had the United Kingdom Decided against Accession, March 30, 1950 27 No. 187 British Foreign Office Officials Agree that the United Kingdom Should Put off Accession to the Genocide Convention Despite Criticism, March 30, May 15–July 27, 1950 28 No. 188 The US State Department Reports on the British Parliamentary Debates over Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 7, 1950 31 No. 189 The British Foreign Office Explicates the Difference between Signature and Ratification, as related to the UK Position on the Genocide Convention, October 4, 1950 33 No. 190 The World Jewish Congress Urges UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, May 29, 1952 35 No. 191 The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary Jointly Propose UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, TAQ July 25, 1952 36 No. 192 The British Foreign Office Reports no Change in the UK Position on the Genocide Convention in Reply to the Parliamentary Question by Barnett Janner, July 30, 1952 38 No. 193 David N. Royce of the British Foreign Office Enumerates Reference Points in Reply to Barnett Janner’s Parliamentary Question concerning UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, December 5, 1952 40

x

Document List

No. 194 The Office of the UK High Commissioner in Bonn Comments on the Status of Political Debates in West Germany concerning Potential Accession to the Genocide Convention, November 9, 1953 41

VII  The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–1962 (nos. 195–217) No. 195 US Secretary of State Dean Acheson Inquires with US Embassy in Tel Aviv on Israel’s Prompting Arab States to Comply with the Genocide Convention, April 1, 1949 47 No. 196 The US Embassy in Tel Aviv Comments on a Statement before the Israeli Parliament concerning Genocide, April 7, 1949 47 No. 197 President of the Indiana Council of Church Women Shares with US State Secretary Dean Acheson Her Concerns about Prospective US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 12, 1949 48 No. 198 US President Harry S. Truman Seeks Senate Approval of the Genocide Convention, June 16, 1949 49 No. 199 American Bar Association Opposed to the Genocide Convention, September 15, 1949 50 No. 200 Jewish Labor Committee Communicates to Senator Brien MacMahon Its Support for the Genocide Convention, January 16, 1950 51 No. 201 The Word Genocide Entered in Webster’s Dictionary, February 15, 1950 52 No. 202 American Jewish Congress Sees to It That US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Keeps Receiving Mail in support of the Genocide Convention, May 18, 1951 53



Document List

xi

No. 203 Attorney Stuart Chevalier Inquires with the Office of the US Attorney General about Legal Challenges to the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights, February 21, 1952 53 No. 204 Jewish Labor Committee Capitalizes on the Commemoration of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to Urge US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 25, 1952 54 No. 205 The House of Commons of Canada Approves the Genocide Convention, Chides the Great Powers for not Ratifying the Treaty, May 26, 1952 55 No. 206 The US State Department Favors US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 2, 1953 56 No. 207 John D. Hickerson Prepares a Memorandum for the US Secretary of State Outlining the Current Position of the United States on the Genocide Convention, March 10, 1953 57 No. 208 Jewish Labor Committee Outlines a Program of Action on the Genocide Convention, March 17, 1953 59 No. 209 National Community Relations Advisory Council (NCRAC) Deplores the Announcement by US State Secretary John Foster Dulles That the Administration Will Not Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 3, 1953 60 No. 210 The British Foreign Office Seeks Information on US Government’s Position on the Genocide Convention, June 16, 1953 61 No. 211 The British Embassy in Washington, D.C. Predicts No Further Action on the Genocide Convention by the American Administration or by Congress, June 24, 1953 62

xii

Document List

No. 212 Senator Joseph McCarthy Commended on His Crusade against the US State Department, Allegedly in Conspiracy to Kill the Genocide Convention, July 5, 1953 62 No. 213 West Wuichet of California Chides the US State Department in the face of John Foster Dulles for Its “Double Talk” on US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 22, 1953 64 No. 214 Howard A. Cook of the US State Department Explicates Dulles’s Statement re. the Genocide Convention in Reply to Katharine Engel of the National Council of Jewish Women, December 7, 1953 65 No. 215 Howard A. Cook of the US State Department Explicates the Decision of the US Government Not to Press for Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Reply to Ilmar Heinaru of the Baltic Nations Committee of Detroit, August 3, 1954 66 No. 216 United Warsaw Ghetto Memorial Committee Urges US President John F. Kennedy to Act on Genocide Convention, April 29, 1962 67 No. 217 The US State Department Expresses Exasperation with the Process of Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 4, 1962 68

VIII  The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–1952 (nos. 218–235) No. 218 UN Legal Department Informs That the Soviet Union Has Signed the Genocide Convention with Reservations, December 30, 1949 73 No. 219 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Regards Soviet Signature under the Genocide Convention as Politically Expedient, Objects to Reservations, January 9, 1950 74



Document List

xiii

No. 220 British Foreign Office Officials Discuss How to Proceed with respect to Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention, February 8–May 1, 1950 76 No. 221 Czechoslovak National Assembly Approves the Genocide Convention, March 1, 1950 78 No. 222 David H.T. Hildyard of the British Foreign Office Regards Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention as Complicating UK Accession, March 10, 1950 79 No. 223 The Soviet Union Will Vote against the Proposal of the UN Secretary General Trygve Lie to Outlaw the Practice of Reservations to Multilateral Treaties, September 25, 1950 80 No. 224 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Helps Formulate the UK Request to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion on Reservations to Multilateral Conventions, January 11, 1951 80 No. 225 Soviet Representative on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Evaluates the Opinions regarding Reservations to the Genocide Convention Submitted by the UN Member States, March 16, 1951 82 No. 226 International Court of Justice Announces a Series of Public Hearings on the Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, April 5, 1951 83 No. 227 Gerald G. Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dissatisfied with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, May 30, 1951 85 No. 228 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Decides on a Course of Action when the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion Comes for Discussion in the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), August 14, 1951 89

xiv

Document List

No. 229 The British Foreign Office Suggests Deemphasizing the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, August 30, 1951 90 No. 230 Gerald G. Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dissatisfied with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, Sees No Other Option but to Endorse It in the UN General Assembly, October 12, 1951 91 No. 231 Frank Newsam of the British Home Office Suggests a Way Forward Toward UK Accession to the Genocide Convention by Framing the Right to Grant Asylum as a Reservation, May 24, 1952 93 No. 232 Australia Accepts Reservations of Hungary to the Genocide Conventions in the light of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, TAQ June 4, 1952 94 No. 233 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Comments on Australian Paper regarding Reservations to the Genocide Convention, June 9, 1952 96 No. 234 Cecil C. Parrott of the British Foreign Office Seeks a Compromise Position with the Home Office on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, June 10, 1952 97 No. 235 William Strang of the British Foreign Office Disagrees with Frank Newsam and the Home Office That the United Kingdom Should Accede to the Genocide Convention with a Reservation regarding the Right to Political Asylum, June 11, 1952 98

IX  Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–1959 (nos. 236–279) No. 236 The Soviet Communist Party Propaganda Department Reacts to the US Proposal to Launch an Investigation of Forced Labor in the Soviet Union, March 9, 1949 104



Document List

xv

No. 237 President of the Lithuanian American Council Alerts Dean Acheson to a Soviet Conspiracy to Thwart US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 31, 1950 105 No. 238 The US State Department Sees No Political Benefit in Indicting the Soviet Union for Genocide in the United Nations, November 6, 1950 106 No. 239 British Legation in Bucharest Considers Romania’s Accession to the Genocide Convention a Cynical Gesture, December 5, 1950 107 No. 240 The Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Discusses the Propaganda Benefits of Using the Word Genocide with regard to Soviet Deportations, December 12–18, 1950 108 No. 241 British Foreign Office Officials Discuss whether or Not the Present Persecution of Minorities in Romania Qualifies as Genocide, December 15, 1950–January 12, 1951 112 No. 242 The Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Sees No Evidence of Genocide in Romania, TAQ January 13, 1951 114 No. 243 The Dutch Government Hesitates to Ratify the Genocide Convention due to the Omission of Political Groups, Apprehensive of Propaganda by “Totalitarian States,” July 4, 1951 114 No. 244 Polish American Congress Urges US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 11, 1951 115 No. 245 A Polish American Organization Supports the Claim of Greek Children as Victims of Communist Genocide, July 27, 1951 116

xvi

Document List

No. 246 James Rosenberg of the US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention Discusses with Raphael Lemkin Pros and Cons of Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide before the United Nations, July 30, 1951 117 No. 247 Lithuanian American Council Relies on Raphael Lemkin in Formulating the “Soviet Genocide” Thesis, Defrays His Expenses, October 18 and December 29, 1951; May 16 and June 2, 1952; September 22, 1954 118 No. 248 The Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Aims to Develop “Soviet Genocide” as a Means of Anti-Communist Propaganda, November 24, 1951 120 No. 249 A Hungarian Émigré Organization in the United States Requests UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Invoke Genocide Convention in respect to Deportations in Hungary, November 28, 1951 122 No. 250 Bela Varga of the Hungarian National Council Appeals to the President of Panama to Invoke Genocide Convention with respect to Ongoing Deportations in Hungary, December 5, 1951 123 No. 251 Eleanor Roosevelt Relates to East-European Émigré Organizations That the US Delegation at the UN General Assembly is in No Position to Place a Charge of Genocide against the Soviet Union on the Agenda, December 5, 1951 124 No. 252 Peter Hope of the British Foreign Office on behalf of UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill Proposes a Non-Committal Reply to Bela Varga, December 18, 1951 126 No. 253 Republican Congressmen Urge US Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Launch an Investigation of “Soviet Genocide,” January 13, 1952 126



Document List

xvii

No. 254 The US State Department Considers Counterproductive Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide before the UN General Assembly, January 14, 1952 128 No. 255 Birute Kemezaite of Chicago Urges Eleanor Roosevelt to Apply the Genocide Convention to Soviet Russia, January 15, 1952 130 No. 256 The Lithuanian American Council Urges the United States to Charge the Soviet Union with Genocide before the UN General Assembly, January 15, 1952 131 No. 257 Raphael Lemkin Requests British Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe to Help Ensure UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, Invokes Genocide in Hungary and the Baltic, January 17, 1952 133 No. 258 The State Department Considers whether or Not to File Formal Charges of Genocide against the Soviet Union, January 28, 1952 134 No. 259 The Lithuanian American Council Makes a Connection between the Desired Liberation of Lithuania and US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, February 15, 1952 136 No. 260 The US State Department Responds to Congressman Charles J. Kersten, Outlines the Arguments against Indicting the Soviet Union for Genocide, February 19, 1952 137 No. 261 The Polish American Congress Insists in a Telegram to US President Dwight Eisenhower That the Katyn Massacre Qualifies as Genocide, Urges US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 30, 1952 140 No. 262 US Senator Charles Kersten Urges a UN Investigation of “Soviet Genocide” in a Letter to Dean Acheson, April 11, 1952 141

xviii

Document List

No. 263 Assistant US State Secretary Jack K. McFall Argues in His Reply to Charles Kersten That without Ratifying the Genocide Convention the United States Will Not be Able to Formally Charge the Soviet Union with Genocide, May 19, 1952 143 No. 264 East European Émigré Organizations Replace Jewish Organizations as Raphael Lemkin’s Main Sponsors, 1951–1952 145 No. 265 Raphael Lemkin Makes a Case That the Persecution of Jews in Communist Bloc Countries Constitutes Genocide, TPQ January 28, 1953 145 No. 266 International Press Service of the US State Department Shows Interest in Lemkin’s Efforts to Indict the Soviet Union for Genocide, January 26 and February 9, 1953 148 No. 267 Editorial in the Christian Science Monitor Urges to Invoke the Genocide Convention in the face of Soviet Anti-Semitism, February 10, 1953 148 No. 268 The US State Department Evaluates the Final Report of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor, with reference to the Soviet Union, September 9, 1953 149 No. 269 Bernard H. Trager of NCRAC Conveys to US President Dwight D. Eisenhower That US Non-Ratification Benefits Communist Propaganda, May 6, 1954 152 No. 270 A Soviet Scholar of International Law Reflects on the Genocide Convention following Soviet Ratification of the Treaty in May 1954 153 No. 271 John Frazer of the Free Europe Committee Seeks out Raphael Lemkin’s Expert Opinion on Potential Indictment of the Soviet Union for Genocide, June 18, 1954 157



Document List

xix

No. 272 Raphael Lemkin Claims That the German Law on Ratification of the Genocide Convention, if Passed in the Present Form, Would Fail to Protect Millions of Ethnic German Who Had Been Expelled From Eastern Europe, TAQ July 8, 1954 158 No. 273 Estonian and Lithuanians Émigré Lawyers Insist That the Draft German Ratification Law Does Not Cover Slave Labor Camps and/or Deportations, TAQ July 8, 1954 159 No. 274 US Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Rules out Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide in the UN General Assembly July 19, 1954 159 No. 275 US State Secretary John Foster Dulles Notifies the US Delegation to the United Nations of the Decision Not to Advance Formal Charges of Genocide against the Soviet Union, July 30, 1954 160 No. 276 Raphael Lemkin Hails the Cuban Resolution That Qualified the Soviet Suppression of the Hungarian Revolution as “Genocide,” TPQ November 4, 1956 161 No. 277 Raphael Lemkin Supports the Cuban Resolution Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide in Hungary, December 4, 1956 162 No. 278 The International Commission of Jurists Charges Communist China with Genocide in Tibet, June 1959 163 No. 279 The Dalai Lama Seeks a UN Investigation of Genocide in Tibet, as Ascertained by the International Commission of Jurists, July 6, 1959 165

X  The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles, Draft Covenants on Human Rights, and/or the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1949–1954 (nos. 280–299)

xx

Document List

No. 280 The Soviet Foreign Ministry Dismissive of the Recently Adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention (excerpt), February 2, 1949 169 No. 281 Raphael Lemkin Contrasts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention in a Letter to Drew Pearson, June 15, 1949 170 No. 282 Egon Schwelb of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division Skeptical about the Utility of the Genocide Convention, September 6, 1949 173 No. 283 Egon Schwelb of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division Does Not Want to Jeopradise Efforts on behalf of the Covenant on Human Rights by Launching a Camapign in Support of the Genocide Convention, January 6, 1950 174 No. 284 John Humphrey, Director of the UN Human Rights Division, Shares the View That Launching a Campaign in support of the Genocide Convention May Prejudice Similar Efforts on behalf of the Covenant on Human Rights, January 9, 1950 176 No. 285 The UN Department of Public Information Looks into Raphael Lemkin’s Comments on a Pamphlet on Genocide Prepared by the United Nations, March 15, 1950 177 No. 286 The UN Legal Department Rejects Raphael Lemkin’s Criticism of a Pamphlet on Genocide Prepared by the United Nations, March 22, 1950 178 No. 287 [Raphael Lemkin] Urges the US Government to Segregate between the Draft Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention [between July 31 and November 7, 1950] 179



Document List

xxi

No. 288 Raphael Lemkin Alleges a Soviet Conspiracy to Subvert the Genocide Convention by means of a Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, TPQ April 12, 1951 181 No. 289 Raphael Lemkin Circulates a Memorandum Critical of the UK Position on the Genocide Convention, the Draft Covenant on Human Rights, and the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, April 25, 1951 183 No. 290 Eva Reading of the World Jewish Congress Conveys to the Archbishop of Canterbury Lemkin’s Perception of Threat to the Genocide Convention, May 11, 1951 186 No. 291 The Ukrainian Anti-Soviet Mass Rally at Cleveland Denounces the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind as a Soviet Conspiracy, November 25, 1951 186 No. 292 The US State Department Adopts Delaying Tactics with regard to the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, December 6, 1951 188 No. 293 Raphael Lemkin and Congressman Daniel J. Flood Articulate the Differences between the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant in a Conversation with US State Department Officials, January 29, 1952 189 No. 294 Assistant US Attorney General Joseph C. Duggan Replies to a Letter Invoking Legal Challenges to Potential US Ratification of the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights, March 6, 1952 190 No. 295 The US State Department Rebuts Lemkin’s Suggestion to Curtail the Draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, June 23, 1952 191

xxii

Document List

No. 296 Polish American Congress Conveys to US State Secretary John Foster Dulles Its Concern over the Alleged Conspiracy to Make Genocide a Part of the UN Human Rights Project, October 31, 1952 193 No. 297 Raphael Lemkin Argues that Conflating the Nuremberg Principles with the Genocide Convention Would Alienate West Germany, September 4, 1953 194 No. 298 Harold Epstein Tries to Convince Raphael Lemkin There is no Danger of Conflating the Nuremberg Principles with the Genocide Convention in respect to West Germany, September 8, 1953 195 No. 299 The Soviet Union Argues against the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), November 24, 1954 195

XI  The Korean War, 1950–1953 (nos. 300–314) No. 300 Korean Ambassador John M. Chang Refers to the Danger of Genocide in Korea, Seeks an Early Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 31, 1950 198 No. 301 US President Harry S. Truman Seeks Senate Approval of the Genocide Convention, Refers to the Letter of the Korean Ambassador John M. Chang to the US Permanent Representative in the United Nations, August 26, 1950 200 No. 302 Non-Committal Reply of the UK Representative to the United Nations to the Korean Ambassador, August 31, 1950 201 No. 303 David F. Duncan of the British Foreign Office Thinks the UK Delegation Should Give a More Sympathetic Reply to the Korean Ambassador, September 12, 1950 201 No. 304 The British Foreign Office Instructs the UK Delegation to the United Nations to Give the Korean Ambassador a More Extensive Reply Stating the Reasons for UK Non-Accession to the Genocide Convention, September 13, 1950 202



Document List

xxiii

No. 305 UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations Takes Note of the Plight of the Christians in Korea, Refers to Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention as the Reason for UK Non-Accession, September 25, 1950 203 No. 306 Raphael Lemkin Warns of Genocide in Korea, Thanks Supporters of the Genocide Convention and Attacks Alleged Opponents, January 18, 1951 203 No. 307 The UN Legal Department Discusses How to Proceed with regard to a Formal Request by the Republic of Korea to Place on the ECOSOC’s Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed against the Korean People, May 10, 1951 205 No. 308 ECOSOC Notified of a Formal Request by the Republic of Korea to Place on Its Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed against the Korean People, May 10, 1951 207 No. 309 The Republic of Korea Withdraws Its Request to Place on the ECOSOC’s Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed against the Korean People, May 14, 1951 208 No. 310 US Military Authorities in Germany Allege Communist Genocide in Korea and East Germany, May 29, 1951 208 No. 311 International Association of Democratic Lawyers Investigates the Allegations of Bacteriological Warfare by the American Forces in Korea, Claims Genocide, March 24, 1952 209 No. 312 William Patterson Draws a Parallel between Purported Genocide against the Korean and African American Populations, May 5, 1952 212 No. 313 Women’s International Democratic Federation Presses the Charge of “Germ Warfare” in Korea, Speaks of the War of Extermination by the Americans, September 15, 1952 213

xxiv

Document List

No. 314 Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky Denies Legitimacy of a Kuomintang Representative at the United Nations to Propose an Amendment to the Chinese Text of the Genocide Convention, June 30, 1953 214

XII  We Charge Genocide: The Campaign to Indict the United States for Racial Discrimination, 1951–1952 (nos. 315–352) No. 315 William Patterson Urges the Editor of Afro-American to Promote We Charge Genocide, August 10, 1951 217 No. 316 William Patterson Urges Inclusion of We Charge Genocide on the Agenda of the Forthcoming Congress of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, August 28, 1951 219 No. 317 Civil Rights Congress (CRC) Believes That the Publication of We Charge Genocide Will Create a “Real Sensation,” August 28, 1951 220 No. 318 President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers Dennis Pritt Broaches with William Patterson the Possibility of Establishing a US Chapter, Mentions in passim We Charge Genocide [September 5–8, 1951] 221 No. 319 William Patterson Believes That Documentation Presented in We Charge Genocide May Help the Cause of the Convicted Communist Leaders, October 5, 1951 222 No. 320 William Patterson Praises the Ideological and Organizational Value of We Charge Genocide in a Letter to William Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, November 16, 1951 223 No. 321 William Patterson Urges a Trade Union Leader Arthur Osman to Promote We Charge Genocide, November 19, 1951 225



Document List

xxv

No. 322 William Patterson Sends We Charge Genocide and Other Relevant Materials to Cominform in Bucharest, Romania, November 20, 1951 226 No. 323 William Patterson Proposes a Round-Table Discussion on the Issue of Genocide, November 20, 1951 227 No. 324 Chairman of the Communist Party USA William Foster Praises We Charge Genocide in a Letter to Patterson, November 23, 1951 228 No. 325 William Patterson Sends US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas a Copy of We Charge Genocide, November 26, 1951 229 No. 326 William Patterson Urges Communist Party USA to Use We Charge Genocide as a Manual, November 26, 1951 230 No. 327 William Patterson Criticizes an Article in the New York Times That Supports the East European Émigrés’ Claim That the Soviet Union Had Committed Genocide, November 26, 1951 230 No. 328 W. E. B. Du Bois Tells William Patterson He is Willing in Principle to Present the CRC’s Petition before the UN General Assembly in Paris, November 27, 1951 233 No. 329 William Patterson Tries to Convince W. E. B. Du Bois to Come in support of We Charge Genocide, November 28, 1951 234 No. 330 The Office of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas Acknowledges Receiving a Copy of We Charge Genocide, November 28, 1951 234 No. 331 William Patterson Admits We Charge Genocide is a Work of Propaganda in a Letter to John Raeburn Green, November 28, 1951 235

xxvi

Document List

No. 332 The US State Department Approaches Walter White of NAACP to Help Counter the CRC’s “We Charge Genocide” Petition, November 29, 1951 237 No. 333 Civil Rights Congress Announces That W. E. B. Du Bois Will Present “We Charge Genocide” Petition at the UN General Assembly in Paris, November 29, 1951 238 No. 334 William Patterson Tries to Convince W. E. B. Du Bois to Change His Mind and Come in support of We Charge Genocide, November 29, 1951 239 No. 335 W. E. B. Du Bois Changes His Mind on Heading a Delegation to Paris, November 30, 1951 240 No. 336 Walter White of the NAACP Instructs US Diplomats How to Counter the CRC Campaign, December 19, 1951 240 No. 337 Editorial in Chicago Daily Tribune Denounces the Genocide Convention and the CRC’s Petition as Beneficial to Communist Propaganda, December 22, 1951 241 No. 338 Eleanor Roosevelt Dismisses CRC’s Petition as a “Communist-Inspired Document,” Says Proof is Hard to Get to Countercharge the Soviet Union with Genocide, December 30, 1951 243 No. 339 Lester Davis of the CRC Attacks the Editorial in Chicago Daily Tribune Critical of We Charge Genocide, December 31, 1951 244 No. 340 Civil Rights Congress Requests Black Dispatch in Oklahoma City to Print Materials Favorable to William Patterson and We Charge Genocide, January 14, 1952 246



Document List

xxvii

No. 341 Civil Rights Congress Outlines a Program of Action in support of We Charge Genocide, Admits the Failure to Make the United Nations Act on the Petition, January 14, 1952 247 No. 342 Civil Rights Attorney Aubrey Grossman Thanks Private Citizen Alex Deutsch for His Contribution to the We Charge Genocide Campaign, January 18, 1952 248 No. 343 William Patterson Congratulated by a Fellow Communist on Creating “Scare and Consternation in the Oppressor Camp” by means of We Charge Genocide, January 28, 1952 248 No. 344 US State Secretary Dean Acheson Considers We Charge Genocide Communist Propaganda, January 31, 1952 250 No. 345 Paul Robeson Stresses the Significance of the CRC’s Petition, Compares the Treatment of Black Americans in the United States to That of Jews in Nazi Germany, February 1952 252 No. 346 William Patterson Seeks Advice of Roscoe Dunjee of Black Dispatch on Potential Publication of We Charge Genocide as a Textbook for Traditionally Black Schools, March 4, 1952 256 No. 347 US Consulate in Martinique Reports on Local Reactions to the Publication of We Charge Genocide, March 5, 1952 257 No. 348 William Patterson Urges President of Dillard University Albert W. Dent to Use We Charge Genocide as a Textbook in Social Science Classes, March 6, 1952 258 No. 349 William Patterson Counters Eleanor Roosevelt’s Criticism of We Charge Genocide in a Letter to Robert E. Cushman, Cornell Law Professor, April 23, 1952 259

xxviii

Document List

No. 350 William Patterson Writes to W. E. B. Du Bois to Express His Regret That a Petition in support of the Colonial Peoples Does Not Mention We Charge Genocide, May 2, 1952 260 No. 351 Alec Deutsch of the Deutsch Company States in a Letter to Aubrey Grossman That He Regards We Charge Genocide Propaganda, July 31, 1952 261 No. 352 The American Textbook Publishers Institute Turns down the CRC’s Request to Print We Charge Genocide as a Textbook, April 6, 1954 262

XIII  The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–1959 (nos. 353–365) No. 353 Raphael Lemkin Defines the Nazi Mass Murder of Roma as Genocide in a Letter to the Gypsy Lore Society, Seeks UK Ratification of the Convention, August 11, 1949 264 No. 354 Raphael Lemkin Informs Irving Dillard of St. Louis Post Dispatch about the Forthcoming US Senate Hearings on the Genocide Convention, January 2, 1950 266 No. 355 Raphael Lemkin Seeks Eleanor Roosevelt’s Support for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, February 1, 1950 267 No. 356 Raphael Lemkin Urges Charles Rozmarek, President of the Polish American Congress, to Make His Constituency Write Letters to Individual US Senators in support of Ratification of the Genocide Convention, TPQ May 26, 1950 268 No. 357 Raphael Lemkin Informs Gertrude Samuels of the New York Times of Recent US Senate Hearings on the Genocide Convention, June 6, 1950 269 No. 358 Raphael Lemkin’s Statement on the Genocide Convention Coming into Force, January 12, 1951 270



Document List

xxix

No. 359 David F. Duncan of the British Foreign Office Dismisses Raphael Lemkin as a “Crank” yet Suggests Clarifying the UK Government’s Position on the Genocide Convention, July 5, 1951 273 No. 360 UK Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe Gives a Noncommittal Reply to Raphael Lemkin concerning Prospective UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 18, 1952 273 No. 361 Raphael Lemkin Rallies Observant American Jews in Support of the Genocide Convention, May 1, 1953 274 No. 362 The John Day Publishers Turn down Raphael Lemkin’s Manuscript on the History of Genocide, February 16, 1955 274 No. 363 Duell, Sloan & Pearce Publishers Regard Raphael Lemkin’s Book Manuscript on the History of Genocide as Not Commercially Viable, August 15, 1958 275 No. 364 Peer Reviewers for Simon & Shuster Publishers Like Storytelling and Praise Raphael Lemkin as an Individual, yet Believe His Autobiography is a Commercial Risk, October 7, 1958 276 No. 365 Naomi Burton of Curtis Brown Literary Agency Inquires about Raphael Lemkin’s Health, August 14, 1959 277

XIV  The United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention, 1962–1968 (nos. 366–389) No. 366 Hiag Akmakjian Requests the UK Mission to the United Nations to Provide Him with Relevant Information on Genocide and the Reasons for UK NonAccession to the Convention, January 8, 1962 281

xxx

Document List

No. 367 The UK Mission to the United Nations is Ambivalent about Hiag Akmakjian’s Request for Information, January 12, 1962 282 No. 368 Joint Memorandum Outlines the Arguments of the Foreign Office and the Home Office Pro and Counter UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, TPQ January 18, 1962 282 No. 369 A Longstanding Disagreement between the Home Office and the Foreign Office Should Not Impede a Final Decision on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, January 18–23, 1962 285 No. 370 The British Foreign Office Refuses to Assist Hiag Akmakjian in His Request, February 8, 1962 287 No. 371 Barnett Janner Should Be Informed about the Consistent Position of the British Home Office against UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, April 27, 1962 287 No. 372 The British Foreign Office Decides to Inform Barnett Janner of the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 2, 1962 288 No. 373 Edward R.G. Heath of the British Foreign Office Informs Barnett Janner of the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 4, 1962 289 No. 374 Barnett Janner Replies to Edward R. H. Heath of the British Foreign Office, Expresses Disappointment about the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 10, 1962 290 No. 375 The British Embassy in Burundi Inquires with the Foreign Office whether or Not the Present Outburst of Violence in Rwanda Could Be Qualified as Genocide, February 21, 1964 290



Document List

xxxi

No. 376 The British Foreign Office Dismisses the Latest Argument of Barnett Janner That Public Veneration of Hitler Warrants UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 28, 1964 291 No. 377 The Position of the British Home Office on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention Remains Unchanged, November 25, 1964 292 No. 378 The Foreign Office Inquires if the Home Office Has Changed Its Position on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 19, 1965 293 No. 379 The British Home Office Considers Inadvisable Raising False Hopes on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 24, 1965 293 No. 380 The Foreign Office Urges the Home Office to Support UK Accession to the Genocide Convention in view of Prime Minister’s Affirmative Statements, TPQ March 10, 1965 294 No. 381 The British Foreign Office Dwells on the Issue of Extradition of Political Offenders in the effort to Overcome Apprehension of the Home Office to Accede to the Genocide Convention, August 20, 1965 295 No. 382 The British Foreign Office Summarizes the Positions of the Commonwealth Countries and the United States on the Genocide Convention, September 21, 1965 296 No. 383 Patrick Armstrong of the Parliamentary Group for World Government Inquires if Prospective UK Accession to the Genocide Convention Has Bearing on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, November 18, 1965 297 No. 384 Minister of State George Thomson Explains to Patrick Armstrong That Setting an International Criminal Court Has Stalled over the Problem of

xxxii

Document List

Defining the Crime of Aggression and Drafting a Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, December 8, 1965 298 No. 385 Patrick Armstrong Disavows the Link Drawn by George Thomson, Suggests an International Criminal Court May Initially Deal Only with the Crime of Genocide, December 10, 1965 299 No. 386 Arthur J. Coles of the British Foreign Office Suggests Keeping an Open Mind on the Issue of an International Criminal Court when Filing a Formal Reply to Patrick Armstrong, December 17, 1965 299 No. 387 George Thomson Sees Practical Difficulties in Implementing Patrick Armstrong’s Suggestion with regard to an International Criminal Court, January 3, 1966 300 No. 388 Kenneth R. C. Pridham of the British Foreign Office Enumerates Factors against UK Support for an International Criminal Court, February 23, 1966 301 No. 389 Gordon Rudd of the British Home Office Concludes That No Extradition Case in the Past Twenty Years Would Have Been Affected through UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, May 15, 1968 303

XV  The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, 1970–1977 (nos. 390–424) No. 390 Alfred J. Schweppe Informs US President Richard Nixon of the American Bar Association’s Continuous Opposition to US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 13, 1970 308 No. 391 The US State Department Prepares a Summary of Arguments Pro US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 26, 1970 309



Document List

xxxiii

No. 392 Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs Opposes US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 31, 1970 312 No. 393 John R. Stevenson, Legal Adviser of the US State Department, Replies to Alfred J. Schweppe on behalf of President Nixon, April 3, 1970 313 No. 394 San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs Opposes President Nixon’s Request for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 13, 1970 315 No. 395 US State Department Acknowledges Receipt of the Letter from the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs, Outlines the Rationale for a Renewed Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 14, 1970 316 No. 396 John R. Stevenson, Legal Adviser of the US State Department, Counters the Arguments against US Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Reply to the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs, May 25, 1970 317 No. 397 Senator John W. Bricker Expresses His Concerns about the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant in a Letter to Bryce N. Harlow of the US State Department, June 26, 1970 319 No. 398 US National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger Informed about Draft Reply to Senator John Bricker, July 13, 1970 320 No. 399 US State Department’s Draft Reply to Senator John Bricker Explains President’s Decision to Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 13, 1970 321

xxxiv

Document List

No. 400 Bryce N. Harlow, Counsellor to US President Nixon, Alleviates Bricker’s Fears concerning the Genocide Convention, July 14, 1970 323 No. 401 John W. Bricker Restates a Problem with the Genocide Convention in a Letter to US President Nixon, July 17, 1970 325 No. 402 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee Seeks Anti-Defamation League’s Expertise on the Extremist Groups in the United States Opposed to Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 8, 1970 326 No. 403 Liberty Line Houston, a Far Right Automatic Recorded Message Service, Warns against US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, November 15, 1970 327 No. 404 Liberty Line Houston, a Far Right Automatic Recorded Message Service, Emphasizes the Dangers of US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, December 1, 1970 328 No. 405 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Comments on the “We Charge Genocide” Petition Re-Submitted to the United Nations, Slams US “Policy of Genocide against Ethnic Minorities,” December 3, 1970 329 No. 406 The Truth Seeker, a California-Based Anti-Semitic Publication, Claims the Genocide Convention is Detrimental to Free Speech, December 1970 330 No. 407 Liberty Lobby, a Far Right Interest Group, Denounces the Genocide Convention, 1970 331 No. 408 Cinema Educational Guild, a Professed Anti-Communist Tabloid, Blasts the “Genocide Plot,” 1970 333



Document List

xxxv

No. 409 US State Department Sums up Senate Hearings on Genocide Convention, with reference to the American Bar Association, March 10, 1971 336 No. 410 Liberty Letter, Monthly Publication of the Liberty Lobby, Condemns the Genocide Convention as “Communist Hoax,” April 23, 1971 338 No. 411 Carl M. King of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Minneapolis Criticizes US President Nixon for His Support of US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 27, 1971 341 No. 412 The Anti-Defamation League Surveys the Right Wing Groups in the United States Opposed to Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April [29], 1971 342 No. 413 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee Reports on the Challenges Facing the ProRatification Campaign in the United States, June 17, 1971 350 No. 414 Cora V. Palmer of Iowa Expresses Her Opposition to US Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Letter to Senator Harold E. Hughes, June 20, 1972 352 No. 415 Marshall Wright of the US State Department Comments on Cora Palmer’s Letter to Senator Harold Hughes, July 7, 1972 353 No. 416 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reports on the Senate’s Failure to Move forward with the Ratification Process, October 10, 1972 354 No. 417 Adde H. Joerndt of Bel Air, Maryland Urges US Vice President Spiro T. Agnew to Denounce the Genocide Convention, April 29, 1973 355

xxxvi

Document List

No. 418 Senator William Proxmire Inquires with Marshall Wright of the State Department if US Ratification of the Genocide Convention Might Have Had an Effect on the Situation in Burundi, June 29, 1973 356 No. 419 Pastor N. Burnett Magruder Inquires with Senator William Proxmire if the Mental Harm Clause in the Genocide Convention Applies to the Soviet Union, July 11, 1973 357 No. 420 Marshall Wright of the US State Department Replies to Senator William Proxmire on Potential Applicability of the Genocide Convention to the Situation in Burundi, July 16, 1973 358 No. 421 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reports on the Senate’s Failure to Break a Filibuster against the Genocide Convention, February 11, 1974 359 No. 422 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Informs That the American Bar Association Has Voted to End Its Longstanding Opposition to Ratification of the Genocide Convention by the United States, March 10, 1976 360 No. 423 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Predicts Prompt Senate Action on the Genocide Convention, June 20, 1977 361 No. 424 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reacts to the Senate’s Failure to Approve the Genocide Convention, August 8, 1977 363

XVI  The “Armenian Question,” 1964–1985 (nos. 425–429) No. 425 Chairman of the Communist Party of Armenian SSR Yakov Zarobian Requests the CPSU Central Committee to Approve a Series of



Document List

xxxvii

Commemorative Events in connection with the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Mass Destruction of Armenians in 1915, November 13, 1964 367 No. 426 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Identifies the Armenian Genocide as an Imperialist Crime, April 24, 1965 370 No. 427 The Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C. Deplores a Reference to Armenians in connection with the Congressional Debate on US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 18, 1970 374 No. 428 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Identifies Imperialism as a Root Cause of Genocide, Talks of Regeneration of the Armenian Nation within the Soviet Union, April 24, 1975 375 No. 429 The Soviet Politburo Discusses Commemorative Events in connection with the Seventieth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, February 21, 1985 379

XVII  A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–1988 (nos. 430–436) No. 430 Office of the US Attorney General Considers whether or Not the United States Should Ratify the Genocide Convention, December 19, 1983 388 No. 431 Office of the US Attorney General Recommends Ratification of the Genocide Convention, December 22, 1983 389 No. 432 Wallace D. Riley of the American Bar Association Argues for Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Letter to US Attorney General William French Smith, June 4, 1984 390 No. 433 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Condemns the US Government for Dragging Its Feet on Genocide Convention, Quotes Senator William Proxmire, September 16, 1984 392

xxxviii

Document List

No. 434 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Izvestia Indicts Imperialism for Genocide, December 9, 1987 393 No. 435 National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC) Urges the United States to Enact Legislation on the Genocide Convention, February 22, 1988 395 No. 436 B’nai B’rith International Commends US President Ronald Reagan on Signing the Genocide Convention into Law, November 7, 1988 396

VI

The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession to the Genocide Convention, 1949–53 (nos. 170–194)

As the UN debates on the draft Genocide Convention in 1947 and 1948 had showed, the UK government was particularly concerned about so-called colonial application clause. This issue was front and central when it came to a decision as to whether or not the United Kingdom should accede to the convention. UK High Commissioners in India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were the first to be informed, on January 1, 1949, about the newly signed treaty (doc. 170). An outline of British position on genocide included—for the first time ever—a specific charge levelled against the Soviet Union. As the Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO) formulated it: “In fact, Russian treatment of their own minority races has in certain cases, e.g., that of the mass deportation of the Crimean Tartars and other groups, come very near to genocide.” The policy of oppression in Communist bloc countries came up also in the debates on the Genocide Convention in the Australian House of Representatives in July of 1949 (doc. 180). Herbert Evatt, Minister of Foreign Affairs and former president of the UN General Assembly, regarded the Genocide Convention a momentous achievement. Yet the opposition slammed the treaty as “pious humbug,” “window dressing,” and “unworthy the paper on which it was printed.” Passing enabling legislation appeared a major inhibition of the British colonial administration with regard to the Genocide Convention (docs. 171, 174, 176). Some governors also took an issue with the broad definition of genocide, in particular the clauses concerning killing and/or causing mental harm to members of the group (docs. 173, 175, 177). Whatever a stated problem, the Colonial Office believed all the dependent territories would eventually fall in line (doc. 178). As of November 1949, the Colonial Office had the following tally: thirty-one colonies considered the convention acceptable; five were unwilling, for political or other reasons, to amend legislation; and two were still undecided (docs. 183–84). The Secretary of State for the Colonies volunteered an opinion that, on the whole, the dependent territories had displayed little interest in the convention’s provisions and the question of accession or non-accession (doc. 185). To put it differently, the majority of colonial governments was prepared to accept the Genocide Convention, yet would not miss it had the United

2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Kingdom chosen not to accede (doc. 186). One way or another, any further action on the part of individual colonies would depend on the general position vis-à-vis the Genocide Convention to be adopted by the UK government (doc. 181). Perhaps the most frank assessment of the British attitude toward the Genocide Convention up to date was provided by James Brierly, UK representative on the International Law Commission (ILC) (doc. 172). Appearing on BBC in March 1949, former Oxford law professor toned down the significance of the new concept of genocide. Loosely painted after the Nazi precedent, the Genocide Convention failed to cover most other heinous crimes in history for the difficulty of establishing intent. The intent could be ascertained at the level of a state, and the state would not surrender itself for trial before an international court. When it comes to the British perspective on genocide, what was sometimes described by critics as “defeatism” actually represented a healthy dose of skepticism rooted in the common law tradition. According to Brierly, both the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) were hollow manifestos, “a sort of compensation for all that is so terribly discouraging in the international outlook of today.” The Foreign Office had a dilemma on its hands. FO officials’ dislike for the Genocide Convention—which they regarded as “perfectly futile” and potently incapable of preventing genocide—remained as strong as ever. From a political standpoint, however, staying on the sidelines became increasingly difficult to justify. Unless the Home Office came up with serious enough objections, the reasons for UK inaction could popularly be interpreted as unwillingness (doc. 179). On the other hand, the United Kingdom was capable of weathering criticism, likely to die out soon. Besides, as of mid-1950 it was not even sure the twenty ratifications necessary for the convention to come into force would be forthcoming. Hence was the advice to merely replace condescension with political correctness in the communication between the Foreign Office and the Home Office (doc. 187). The issue of UN non-members states becoming parties to the Genocide Convention came up in between. The decision as to what particular state to invite was linked to that of membership in the United Nations, hotly contested by Cold War rivals. (doc. 182). One of those countries was West Germany. As the Foreign Office observed in November 1953, the West German position on the Genocide Convention was similar to their own, except that the Germans promised to enact enabling legislation shortly (doc. 194). In the summer of 1950 the US State Department reported on parliamentary debates on UK accession to the Genocide Convention. Labour MP Barnett Janner had emerged as a champion of the genocide treaty in Britain. As reported in parliamentary proceedings, in his reply a government representative emphasized the need for further study before accession (doc. 188). Remarkably, both sides erroneously referred to ratification rather than accession in the case of the United Kingdom (doc. 189). This confusion made it even more difficult for the general public to comprehend the British Government’s reluctance to act on the Genocide Convention, as was expressed in a May 1952 letter from the World Jewish Congress (doc. 190). Considerable support for the convention at home and abroad fed into hostile communist propaganda. As a joint memorandum by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary from July 1952 put it: “A Failure to accede might be exploited by the ill-disposed, and might confuse



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

3

the ill-informed, with regard to the Government’s attitude to the crime of genocide” (doc. 191). Consequently, they recommended accession, with a precondition that the Cabinet draft a bill outlining enabling legislation that needed to be introduced first. Until then, the position of the Foreign Office on the Genocide Convention remained unchanged, as communicated in response to Janner’s recurrent question from December 1952 (docs. 192–93).

No. 170 The British Commonwealth Relations Office Informs the UK High Commissioners about the Adoption of the Genocide Convention, January 1, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/4 January 1, 1949 OUTWARD SAVING TELEGRAM FROM COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (BY AIR MAIL) FOREIGN AFFAIRS & U.N. DEPT U. 2380/15 TO: U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN CANADA ACTING U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN NEW ZEALAND ACTING U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN INDIA U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN PAKISTAN U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER IN CEYLON Y. No. 1 SECRET SAVING GENOCIDE Following for information On 9th December the General Assembly unanimously approved a Convention on Genocide. The Convention defines genocide as various acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such, and declares it to be a crime under international law. Under the convention genocide, and acts such as conspiracy, incitement, complicity and attempt to commit genocide, are made punishable whether they are committed by rulers, public officials, or private individuals. Persons charged with any of these acts are to be brought to trial before the competent courts of the state in the territory of which the act was committed or before an international criminal court if and when one is set up and provided its jurisdiction

4

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

has been accepted by the country concerned. In a separate resolution, the Assembly request the International Law Commission to consider the possibility of establishing such a court or a criminal chamber of the International Court of Justice. The convention does not include political groups in the definition of genocide, nor any reference, such as was made in previous drafts, to “cultural genocide,” i.e., destruction of the culture of a group as opposed to the individuals in it. On the other hand a Colonial Application Clause has now been included against the usual opposition of the anti-colonial powers including Pakistan; India abstained in this case. 2.  Although the convention as adopted is an improvement on the draft submitted to the Assembly by the Economic and Social Council, it leaves a great deal to be desired. It deals almost entirely with genocide committed by individuals and hardly at all with the real issue, namely, the responsibility of states for acts of genocide committed or tolerated by them. Some of its provisions furthermore might involve the United Kingdom in particular in a considerable amount of new legislation which would hardly appear justified in the circumstances. 3.  The United Kingdom, therefore, abstained on the vote in the Sixth Committee; but since abstention was likely to be misinterpreted, and we were likely to be in a minority of one, we voted in favour in the Assembly explaining that our vote did not commit His Majesty’s Government to any detailed amendment of their law, was in no way prejudicial to the established traditional and inalienable right of granting the right of asylum. 4.  The Soviet bloc’s main object was to relate the convention to “nazism, fascism and other race theories,” and to ban if possible all Herrenvolk propaganda. This is in line with the basic Soviet propaganda aim of representing themselves as in the van of the Democratic struggle against Fascism, and so diverting attention from their own totalitarian and repressive practices. In fact, Russian treatment of their own minority races has in certain cases, e.g. that of the mass deportation of the Crimean Tartars and other groups, come very near to genocide. The Russians abstained in Committee but eventually voted for the Convention in the Assembly with a reservation about the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, to which disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention are to be submitted. In this way they show once again their opposition to anything in the nature of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. 5. For the most part Commonwealth Delegations support the Convention in the form in which it was eventually passed, the Australian Delegation in particular representing it as an important achievement. The Pakistani however expressed regret at the deletion of the clause on “cultural genocide” (the long-standing Pakistani complaint of genocide by the Indians against Moslems in India will be recalled in this connection). The South African did not participate in the debate in plenary and was absent when the vote was taken. Copy to: Foreign Office Mr. D. H. T. Hildyard Colonial Office Mr. J. O. Moreton Home Office Mr. T. Hutson



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

5

No. 171 The Governor of Aden Argues That Making Specific Provisions in the Colonial Laws to Accommodate the Genocide Convention May Be Interpreted Locally as a Pro-Jewish Measure, February 28, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 C.O. File No.C/32/49 February 28, 1949 From: The Governor, Aden1 To: The Secretary of State for the Colonies2 No. 150 Saving RESTRICTED. United Nations Convention on Genocide With reference to your circular despatch No. 25102/26/49 restricted dated 7th February, I consider that it would be undesirable to make specific provision in the Colony Laws to make genocide a crime.3 As your despatch under reply points out, it is essentially a political or an international crime, and is not a suitable crime for the purpose of trial by our local courts. I am, of course, prepared to bring in the necessary legislation if pressed to do so; but it is at present unnecessary, and the value of such legislation, from both a legal and a practical point of view, is extremely doubtful. It might well be interpreted here as a pro-Jewish measure in this predominantly Moslem population.

No. 172 Professor James L. Brierly Discusses the Genocide Convention on BBC’s Third Program, March 2, 1949 NA, H.O. 45/25308/950025/20 THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION by J.L. Brierly Wednesday, March 2nd, 1949: 6.15-6.35 p.m. THIRD PROGRAMME. When the Convention on Genocide was accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations last December the President of the Assembly, Dr. Evatt of Australia, described it in a broadcast as an “epoch-making event.” That was a big claim to make, and in this talk I want to consider whether it was justified. Reginald Stuart Champion (1895–1992), governor of Aden from 1945 to 1950. Arthur Creech Jones (1891–1964), Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1946 to 1950. 3 See doc. no. 113. 1 2

6

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

First, however, what is genocide? The word is obviously a rather unfortunate mixture of Greek and Latin, and I don’t think it has yet been admitted into the dictionaries. But they will certainly have to take note of it, for it has gained an international currency with great rapidity, and that suggests that it has supplied a need, that it stands for something for which a name was wanting. You might translate it literally as “race-murder”, it is race-murder of a rather special kind. The Convention says that it must be an act which is committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, “as such”, and those words “as such” are obviously meant to be important. I think they have a limiting effect; they exclude from this new concept of genocide many, probably most, of the famous massacres and persecutions of history. For instance, putting a whole enemy population, men, women, and children, to the sword would be a war crime today under modern international law and under the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, but I don’t think it would necessarily be genocide, though it might be. It would have to be shown that there was this intention to destroy the group of people concerned as such, that is to say, not just because they were enemies in war or rebels against a government, but because they were Jews or Slavs, or members of some particular group of human beings whose elimination had been resolved on. I think in fact that the idea of genocide suggests the idea of a Herrenvolk, of a people that regards itself as a master race and sets out deliberately to wipe out the members of some ‘lesser breed without the law’. Of course the whole idea has been suggested by what the Nazis did before and during the war to the races they regarded as inferior, but in their case the motive was particularly clear, and indeed it was frankly admitted. Generally however in the famous massacres and persecutions of history the facts have been more obscure and the motives more mixed, and it is not easy, at any rate for one who is not a historical expert, to say whether any particular instance could be classified as a case of genocide or not. But I should say that the Israelites were probably guilty of genocide against the Canaanites, the Romans against the Carthaginians, the Roman Emperors against the early Christians; and in more recent times there have been massacres and pogroms of Jews, Armenians, and other races which clearly fall under the term. These instances are enough to indicate the kind of events with which this Convention seeks to deal. Its operative clauses are quite short. It enumerates five acts the commission of which is to constitute genocide, always provided they are committed with the intent of destroying a group as such. These acts are, firstly, killing members of the group; secondly, causing them serious bodily or mental harm; thirdly, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction; fourthly, taking measures to prevent births within the group; and fifthly, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. You can see how throughout this list it is always from the atrocities committed by the Nazis before and during the last war that the inspiration is drawn. Then the Convention goes on to say that persons who commit any of these acts of genocide are to be punished, not only if they are public officials or private individuals, but even if they are the rulers of states; that they are to be tried either by some competent tribunal of the territory in which the act is committed, or alternatively by an international penal tribunal. It says that genocide is not to be treated as a ‘political’ crime. The reason for this is that persons accused of political crimes are not, according to usual practice, extradited by one state for trial in another, and it is intended here that



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

7

this immunity should not extend to persons accused of genocide. Then it says that each interacting state shall enact domestic legislation to give effect to the Convention and lastly, that any party may call on the United Nations to take appropriate action against genocide under the Charter. At present there is no international tribunal with a penal jurisdiction in existence – the Nuremberg Tribunal of course was only temporary – but the Assembly has asked the new International Law Commission of the United Nations, which is to hold its first meeting in April next, to consider whether it would be desirable and possible to establish one. That is a brief summary of the provisions of this Convention, and the question that one naturally asks is, what does it all amount to? During the debates the United Kingdom was represented by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General, and it is clear that he was only a lukewarm supporter. He voted in favour of the Convention in its final stage in the Assembly, but in the earlier debates in committee he abstained from voting. He made a number of criticisms which were very much to the point. For instance, he pointed out that if a private individual commits one of these acts which are to constitute genocide, his act is already punishable under another name, under the head of murder, for instance, by the criminal law of every civilized state. On the other hand if the criminal or intending criminal should be a state, Sir Hartley did not believe that the Convention would hold it back from committing the crime, or cause it to surrender itself for trial before an international tribunal. Noone could suppose, he said, that the Convention would have deterred the Nazis from committing the atrocious crimes of which they were found guilty at Nuremberg. Genocide in fact was mainly a crime committed by totalitarian states, and a Convention like this would not make them change their methods. He did not believe either that the adoption of the Convention would give people a greater sense of security, or that it would diminish the present dangers of persecution on racial, religious or national grounds; and finally he thought that the Assembly should beware of deluding people into thinking that a great step forward had been taken whereas, in reality, nothing would have been changed. On the other hand it was argued that at least the Convention would help to keep fresh in the minds of men the horrors of the acts of genocide that were committed in the last war, and one of the representatives described Sir Hartley’s attitude as a kind of ‘defeatism’, and thought it would lead to scepticism as to the value of international agreements. Now this last argument is an interesting one, because it calls attention to a difference of approach between different minds to a problem like this of genocide which goes very deep. We British, and especially perhaps British lawyers, approach a document like this Convention in a manner which men who have been trained in the Continental tradition find it difficult to understand. We do not regard it as a reproach, but almost as a compliment, when we are accused of being sceptical as to the value of international agreements as such. We think it is only sensible to look at such agreements with a very critical eye, to ask ourselves how they are going to be worked out, and what exactly is the difference that they are going to make. Our approach is instinctively cautious and empirical. In our constitutional history we have not been in the habit of setting out the manner in which we intend to act in bills of rights or general manifestoes of principles of action, and we do not feel that our security would be increased by doing so. But

8

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

in international discussions this cautious attitude which comes so naturally to us sometimes makes us seem lacking in sympathy with the objects that our friends have in view, makes it seem, as we are accused of being on this occasion, ‘defeatist’. In fact we do have these objects as much at heart as anyone else, and it is only about the means proposed for realizing them that we are sceptical. For the constitutional history of most continental nations has made them much readier than we are to regard a formal declaration of principles as important in its own right, and in this the Americans, who have their own Bill of Rights in their Constitution, are nearer to the continental manner of approach than they are to ours. In this genocide debate, for instance, the American representative did not agree that the fact of genocide being already illegal made a convention unnecessary; he thought it as good thing to define it precisely, and to provide that it should be outlawed. I think we ought to have this difference of mental attitude in mind when we enter into international discussions, and when no question of outstanding importance is in issue, I think it is often right to do as we did in this case, that is to say, having expressed our doubts, to accept the view of the majority. All the same I think our doubts about the value of this Convention are justified. The real objection to it is not that it contains anything of which one can disapprove; clearly every decent person would like to see it succeed in its object, as the preamble states it, of liberating mankind from an odious scourge. The danger is if we allow it to go out to the world, as has been done with this Convention, that an important advance has been made when in fact nothing important has happened at all. By doing this we shall only be adding to those feelings of disillusion and cynicism about the possibilities of progress through international cooperation for which the history of the United Nations up to the present supplies only too much justification. I do not think the credit of the United Nations stands high enough to make this a negligible risk. I think that sensible people who are watching its proceedings are prepared to make allowances for frustrations and for a disappointing rate of progress because the difficulties are well known. But I think too that they are watching its proceedings with a critical eye, and I do not think their support can be won or maintained by claims to success which have no solid backing in the facts. Unfortunately this Genocide Convention was not the only instance at this General Assembly of a tendency to act as though deeply rooted social evils can be exorcised by issuing a manifesto against them. Another example was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Assembly also adopted, though in this case no formal convention was concluded. This Declaration was debated daily in the Third Committee of the Assembly for more than two months, and at the end of the debate the Chairman claimed – and he was probably right – that more thought and care had gone into it than into any other international document in recent years. It has been hailed as ‘a historic document’. But what has the United Nations to show as the result of all this zeal and enthusiasm? The Declaration states in resounding terms all these rights and freedoms, political, economic, social, which all of us, at any rate all of us in the western nations, would like to see men and women everywhere enjoying. But it does this without, apparently, the slightest regard to the question whether it is possible for everyone to enjoy them, and even a cursory reading of it shows that such a consummation is wildly impossible. For instance, the Declaration lays it down that everyone has a right to take part in the government of his country



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

9

through free elections; that everyone has a right to the health of himself and his family, and to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability and old age. How one wishes that that were true! But is it quite honest to say that men and women have a ‘right’ to benefits when we know that for far the most of them it is utterly impossible to make that right good. It is true that the Declaration is not intended to oblige any of the states that have accepted it to do anything about these rights and is not intended to be anything more. But surely a Declaration like this does imply that, any state that has accepted it will do its best to realise the ideals to which it has given its support. Yet the British Prime Minister has already made it clear that we at least recognize no such moral obligation as following from our signature. One of the articles of the Declaration says that ‘everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work’, but when the Prime Minster was asked recently in the House of Commons what we intended to do in order to make that right good in this country, he replied that we were not bound to do anything about it. Formally he was entirely justified; the Declaration is not binding on us or on anyone else. But whatever one’s views may be on the question of equal pay, it is surely not very creditable that we should place ourselves on record with the United Nations as being in favour of the principle, and then, almost before the ink is dry on our signature, announce that we do not intend to give effect to it. The objection to the Genocide Convention is not quite the same as this, for we can give effect to it without taking any special action for that purpose. But the Convention and the Declaration are both examples of a tendency which, it seems to me, holds a real danger to the prestige of the United Nations, a tendency to seek a sort of compensation for all that is so terribly discouraging in the international outlook of today by dissipating energies to achieve results which prove on examination to mark no real advance.1

No. 173 Attorney General of Kenya Kenneth K. O’Connor Regards the Genocide Convention Loosely Phrased, Open to Interpretations, March 10, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 March 10, 1949 My comments on Annex I and II to the Secretary of State’s despatch dated 7th February, 1949 are as follows:2 GENERAL. The documents seem to be so loosely drawn and phrased as to be incapable of strict interpretation or of enactment in their present form. ANNEX I, Paragraph 1: “Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings”. A handwritten note at the end of the document, “a standard of living and to social services adequate to,” apparently relates to that part of Brierly’s radio address that deals with UDHR. 2 See doc. no. 113. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

10

I presume that these are not intended as anything but the vaguest and loosest definitions of genocide and homicide. “Genocide” and “homicide” are far more than a mere “denial” of the right of existence of a group, or the right to live of an individual. They also involve action (and successful action) taken for the purpose of denying these rights. ANNEX II Articles I and II: Under Article II, genocide includes “any of the following acts committed in time…of war with intent to destroy…in part…a national group…as such: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or…harm to members of the group” This is far too wide. Construed literally, it would turn many acts of war into crimes, e.g. it would make members of the Air Force who dropped bombs with the intention of destroying part of the German national group, guilty of the crime of genocide. I do not know whether measures intended to encourage birth control within a racial group would come within Article II(c). Article IV: Rulers other than “constitutionally responsible” rulers do not seem to be included. Articles V and VI: We should not, I suggest, undertake to enact legislation to give effect to this Convention until it is re-drawn in reasonably precise language. Moreover, we cannot, constitutionally, subject our Ruler to legal penalties. This difficulty is presumably to be met by the institution of the international penal tribunal referred to. Article VIII: is necessary, but seems to me capable of abuse. There can be no penalty or compensation for frivolous charges, such as would be available under municipal law. K.K. O’Connor ATTORNEY GENERAL

No. 174 The Colonial Administration of Kenya Has Difficulties in Accepting the Genocide Convention, Based on an Opinion of Kenya’s Attorney General, March 31, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 March 31, 1949 SAVING From the Officer Administering the Government of Kenya To the Secretary of State for the Colonies 473 Saving RESTRICTED Your Circular Despatch No. 25102/26/49 of 7th February, restricted.1 United Nations Convention on Genocide See doc. no. 113.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

11

2.  I have referred the matter to my Attorney General and I attach a copy of his report.1 3. The loose drafting of the Convention would make it very difficult to enact legislation to bring it into effect, and this Government therefore sees great difficulty in accepting the Convention in its present form.

No. 175 The Governor of Malta Sees a Problem Had the “Mental Harm” Provision in Article II of the Genocide Convention Been Extended to Culture, April 10, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 MIG 255/49 Your Ref. No. 25102/26/49 April 10, 1949 MALTA THE PALACE-VALLETTA No. 67 Sir [A. Creech Jones], I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your circular despatch of the 7th February, 1949, regarding the United Nations Convention on Genocide, and to inform you that I have referred your despatch to the Prime Minister, who has represented that the only doubt that arises concerns the reference to “mental harm” in (b) of draft Article II.2 He has pointed out that if by “mental harm” is meant physical influence on the brain as for instance by the administration of drugs, and the wording in the context (“causing serious bodily or mental harm”) may be so construed, the draft seems to be unobjectionable. On the other hand, that phrase might be construed as including the repression by law of an alleged “culture” or of the use for administrative purposes of a foreign language; in that case, the matter could be very detrimental to these Islands. The Prime Minister considers that provided the first interpretation is concurred in there would be no insurmountable difficulty in the acceptance, on behalf of Malta, of the proposed Convention. I do not consider that the second interpretation of Article II (b) is correct. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient, humble servant, F. C.R. Douglas GOVERNOR3 See doc. no. 173. See doc. no. 113. 3 Francis C. R. Douglas (1889–1980), governor of Malta from 1946 to 1949. 1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

12

No. 176 The Governor of Sierra Leone Thinks Genocide is Not an Issue, Sees No Possibility for Enacting Local Legislation, April 13, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 25102/26/49 S.L. M.P. 12271 April 13, 1949 Saving From THE GOVERNOR, SIERRA LEONE1 To THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES No. 303 saving Your circular despatch of 7th February, 1949 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE Genocide in Sierra Leone is not a live issue; conspiracies, incitements, and attempts to commit genocide by private individuals would almost certainly involve the breach of some other law designed to protect the life and property of the individual, and therefore punishable under that law. Further, any special legislation for the prevention and punishment of the crime would have to be both extensive and complicated if it was not to have undesirable results, and since its introduction would inevitably postpone other legislation of immediate importance, consideration of local legislation at this stage would not be possible. GOVERNOR’S DEPUTY2

No. 177 The Governor of Uganda Regards the Definition of Genocide Problematic, May 11, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 C.O. REF: 25102/26/49 UGANDA REF: D. 25/91/2 May 11, 1949

George Beresford-Stooke (1897–1973), governor of Sierra Leone from 1947 to 1952. Philip L. Birkinshaw (1922–2014), deputy governor of Sierra Leone from 1949 to 1952.

1 2



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

13

SAVING From THE GOVERNOR OF UGANDA1 To THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES No. 288 Saving. Restricted Your Restricted Circular Despatch of 7th February, 1949 United Nations Convention on Genocide The main difficulty from the legal point of view in the way of accepting the draft Convention appears to lie in the lack of precision in defining the crime of genocide. 2.  As you point out genocide is essentially a crime committed by Governments and not by individuals. Further, it is a not unlikely condition of the crime that the majority of the members of a state in which is occurs condone it. Simply to state therefore that complicity in genocide (Article III (e)) is a crime is merely to beg the question, “How is complicity to be defined?” 3.  Article II (b). It is desirable that the words “mental harm” be further defined. It may be that what is signified is “permanent deterioration of the mental faculties to some degree short of insanity”, but this is not necessarily implied by the words used in the draft Convention, and without further definition the words are so vague as to be incapable of signifying an offence specific enough to be incorporated in penal legislation. If insanity is meant, it should be mentioned. 4.  Article VI. It is not clear whether the International penal tribunal referred to is intended to be a court of appeal or a court of the first instance. If the latter is the case it is desirable that some indication be given as to where the decision lies whether the case will be tried by the local court or by the tribunal. It is considered that the whole question of judicial procedure might with advantage be clarified. 5.  Provided that unequivocal definition on these points shall be incorporated in the Convention, or alternatively that you are in a position to give detailed guidance on the issues raised, no legal difficulty is seen to introducing the necessary legislation here. GOVERNOR

No. 178 The British Colonial Office Summarizes the Replies from Colonies on whether or Not They See Any Problems with regard to the Genocide Convention, June 15, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 Economic and Social Council Convention on the Crime of Genocide: Replies to Circular Despatch of 7.2.49 John Hathorn Hall (1894–1979), governor of Uganda from 1945 to 1952.

1

14

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2 Minutes

Summary of Replies so far Received June 15, 1949 1.  I have placed opposite a summary of the 27 replies to the Circular Despatch at (1) on the Genocide Convention that have so far been received. 2.  On the surface and apart from the general vagueness of some replies, we have a fairly straight-forward situation. In the case of 17 Colonies no legal or other difficulties are anticipated as regards accepting the convention. Two further Colonies (para. 2) are likely to agree subject to clarification of points they have raised. The Colonies under para. 3 of the summary will fall into line. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Bermuda, always a rather wayward child, I think a little pressure will bring the Colonies enumerated in para. 4 into the fold. 3.  Unfortunately the situation is complicated by the fact that we cannot be certain of the accuracy of these replies since so much depends on individual interpretations of Genocide and since the position of the United Kingdom (with laws very similar to the majority of Colonial laws) is still obscure. If it is eventually decided that the U.K. law as it exists covers Genocide in all its forms, it is very likely that several colonies that have indicated that new legislation will be required but which have laws similar to those of the U.K., will not in fact require new legislation. On the other hand if it is decided that the U.K. laws do not cover Genocide in all its forms then it may well be that Colonies anticipating no difficulty will be required to introduce new or amending legislation (with particular reference to the question of extradition – see Mr. McNulty’s minute of the 9.6.49). I think that this is quite clearly a case in which no further action can be taken until we know what line the U.K. will adopt. If the U.K. decides to accede (it is unlikely that the U.K. will accede if the question of extradition forces genocide on to the Statute Book) and no amendments to U.K. law is required, then we shall be in a position to go back to the Colonies concerned with legal guidance (on the lines of the D.P.P.’s Note – see I.O.C. (48) 228 Addenda 2 of the 4th Oct. 1948) setting out the U.K. law in relation to the genocide crimes and asking them to consider whether, in the light of further information on the position of the U.K. laws in relation to the convention, new legislation is after all necessary. On the other hand if the U.K. accedes but amends its laws then we shall have to make sure as to where we stand with regard to those colonies that see no legal difficulty in the way of accepting the convention. In the meantime and until we have a final statement of H.O. views on the convention I suggest no further action except for a reply to Uganda’s queries at (28) (draft attached). I pass through Mr. McNulty for comment. In Mr. Denton-Thompson’s absence I have signed the minute. [Signed] N. B. J. H. [Nicolas B. J. Huijsman] * * * June 15, 1949 I notice that no reply has yet been drafted to Nigeria’s query at (10). The Governor’s query as to complicity can presumably be answered in the same vein as Uganda’s similar question.



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

15

? Perhaps you could advise on the Governor’s point ref.? Article II (c) and (d). (c) strikes me as hopelessly inadequate and imprecise – one could , I suspect, even hold that slums constitute an act of genocide under Article II (c). As for (d), I suppose it could be regarded as being covered by anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion, and anti-sterilization legislation. Only, I am, not quite sure as to the extent that these modern, legislative refinements [?] are present in Colonial legislation! [Signed] N. B. J. H. [Nicolas B. J. Huijsman]

No. 179 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dislikes the Genocide Convention yet Finds It Harmless Enough for the United Kingdom to Accede, July 15, 1949 NA, F.O. 371/78849/UN1324 (Minutes) July 15, 1949 I am sorry I did not see UN 1080 and our letter to the Home Office as there are one or two points which I should have liked to make.1 Perhaps it is not too late to do so now. The first is a point of comparative detail. I am not quite clear why Mr. Parrott in his minute on UN 1080 said that the Convention must be acceded to by December 31st next and, similarly in our letter to the Home Office (although we there correctly said that the final date for signature is December 31st next) the implication was that if we did not become parties by then we should be too late to do so at all. I do not have a copy of the Convention by me, but my recollection is that on this matter it is drafted in the form which has become habitual with United Nations Conventions and that it provides three methods by which a country can become a party. These are first, signature without any reservation as to final acceptance, in which case the country concerned becomes bound straight away by the signature. Secondly, signature accompanied by reservation as to acceptance, which means that until the signature is followed up by a final acceptance, equivalent to ratification, the country is not bound and thirdly, simple acceptance not preceded by signature, which is the equivalent of accession. As far as I know, it is only countries who wish to adopt one of the first two methods of participating who must sign before December 31st next, but any country which has not signed by that date can still become a party to the Convention subsequently by simply notifying the Secretary-General that it accepts the Convention. Perhaps my impression could be confirmed, as we do not want to be thinking that December 31st next is a final deadline if this is not, in fact, the case?

Letter from July 1, 1949 discussed the Home Office views on the ratification of the Genocide Convention.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

16

My second point concerns our general attitude to this Convention. It may perhaps have been politic, given Home Office susceptibilities, but I feel our letter to them went a little far in suggesting that it was entirely for the Home Office to decide whether we should become parties or not, that the Foreign Office did not much care one way or the other, and that it was merely a case of being armed with suitable reasons in the event of it being decided that we should not participate. Now nobody dislikes this Convention more than I do, and nobody would be more pleased, on legal and general grounds, to see us refusing to participate in it, but from the policy angle I feel convinced that we shall eventually be forced to do so or find ourselves in a position of isolation which it will not be easy to give adequate reasons for. I could conceive, for instance, that if it is a question of signing by next December we could easily avoid that by saying that changes in our law are involved and we shall have to go to Parliament first, which will take time, but sooner or later we are likely to be faced with the position that there is really no reason for non-participation except unwillingness. Now although this Convention is perfectly futile, particularly as far as we are concerned, it is nevertheless relatively harmless. It will not, of course, do one thing to prevent genocide in any serious form, but, on the other hand, it does not contain anything which matters very much. The sole objection of real substance to it is that it has rather an awkward point about extradition in connexion with political offences and that it may entail some rather troublesome alternations in our Criminal Law. It is not certain that it will. The Attorney-General certainly took the view last December, when the matter was voted upon the Assembly, that it will probably not require any changes in our law. The Attorney-General I know also takes the view, while disliking this Convention just as much as the rest of us, that we shall find ourselves eventually in a position in which we shall really have no adequate reasons for staying out. I am not suggesting that we should say all this to the Home Office, but I do not feel that we ought to let them get away with anything short of really serious and weighty objections to our participation if they can produce them, and I feel that at some appropriate moment we ought to make it clear to them that our previous letter took perhaps somewhat too aloof a line and that while the Foreign Office has no love for this Convention, it is their view that it will eventually be very difficult to stand out unless reasons of a very substantial character can be found for doing so. (G. G. Fitzmaurice) July 20, 1949 The signature-accession question was discussed, and what Mr. Fitzmaurice says is true. We can accede any time after1.1.50 and it therefore does not matter much if we do not sign. The Home Office know the position. I think Mr. Fitzmaurice’s view of the position we wish be probably correct and should be borne in mind when [?] the H. O. reply. But what we need first is a detailed legal analysis. [Signed] D. Hildyard July 21, 1949 I agree. Let us await Home Office reply.

[Signed] B. U. [?]



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

17

No. 180 The Australian House of Representatives Debates the Genocide Convention Bill, July 21, 1949 NA, F.O. 371/78849/UN1585 July 21, 1949 OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM, CANBERRA TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PHILIP NOEL-BAKER, M.P., SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS Sir, I have the honour to transmit a report, prepared by Mr. Hunter, an Assistant Secretary in this Office, of the debate in the House of Representatives during the recent sitting of Parliament, on the Genocide Convention Bill. The Minister for External Affairs, Dr. Evatt, has in various public assessments of the work of the General Assembly of the United Nations under his chairmanship, rated as one of its most important achievements the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. He has thus identified himself with an agreement which to many of his political opponents typifies what they consider the impractical approach of the United Nations to the problems of the day. The Genocide Convention Bill, designed to approve Australian ratification of the Convention, came before the House on the 30th June while an opportunity to debate Dr. Evatt’s general statement on Foreign Affairs was still denied, and it was therefore not entirely surprising that the Opposition took their chance of attacking it, and Dr. Evatt as the responsible Minister.1 The subject and the occasion were therefore such as to throw into unusually sharp relief for so short a debate, the international outlook of the members concerned. The Opposition, who contributed as is usual in debates on International Affairs the larger number of speakers, revealed an irresponsibility in marked contrast to the restraint of their leader, Mr. Menzies. Their inability or unwillingness to grasp the point at issue that the Convention claimed only to establish a principle and not to enforce it, was made more conspicuous by an event unusual in Australian Parliaments, a handsome acknowledgment by Mr. Menzies when that very point was made with clarity and force by a Government supporter, Mr. Beazley. And finally Dr. Evatt himself, in assessing the value of the Convention, delivered obiter a characteristically favourable opinion on the effect of United Nations intervention on the various trails of religious leaders which have recently taken place in the Russian satellite states: but for that intervention, he thought, they might have been sentenced to death instead of to prolonged imprisonment. To complete the story it should be mentioned that on the The Liberal Party of Australia was established in December 1944 as a coalition of the fourteen opposition parties.

1

18

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

6th July the Senate passed the bill through all its stages without debate except, with great brevity, on the second reading. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, G. Kimber, For HIGH COMMISSIONER THE DEBATE ON THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION BILL The second reading of the Bill was moved on the 19th May by the Prime Minister with a description in the briefest terms of the Bill’s purpose and the provisions for its entry into force, and the debate was then adjourned in accordance with custom.1 The resumed debate on the second reading occupies little more than two columns of “Hansard”, in the first of which Mr. Menzies is recorded as making three points: that the crime of genocide is abhorrent to every member; that he doubted the efficacy of such a convention; but that he did not want to speak or vote in a way that might be interpreted as raising any doubt that Australia abominated the crime.2 Dr. Evatt, in reply, compared genocide with other crimes against humanity, such as the slave trade, which though widely abhorred, had been outlawed only by the adoption of convention, and said that Australia should take its place with others in placing its abhorrence on record. So ended the second reading, and it might have been expected that the Committee stage which followed would have been devoted in the usual manner to considerations of detail rather than principle. But this was not to be. The next speaker, Mr. Gullett (Henty-Liberal Party) at once made it clear that he regarded the bill as “pious humbug”. He suggested that the United Nations would do better to condemn crimes of oppression, which he described as genocide, in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, a suggestion betraying a certain ignorance of the Assembly’s actions in connection with the trials of Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary and the Protestant pastors in Bulgaria.3 He put forward a more considerable argument, however, when he echoed the disquiet which is felt in some quarters, not only in Australia, over the prospect which the Convention opened, of military commanders being prosecuted for things which they had done in obedience to military orders. The objections of Mr. Abbott (New England-Country Party), who followed, were expressed with less relevance and moderation. To him the nation really guilty of genocide was Russia, and the bill was not only “pious humbug”, but “eyewash”, “windowdressing”, “utterly idle and useless”, and “not worth the paper on which it was printed”. Having twice been brought to order, Mr. Abbott a second time adjured the Minister for External Affairs to stop bringing back such worthless documents for ratification from his world-wide perambulations, and stay at home to look after Australia’s own affairs. Mr. Beazley (Labour-Fremantle) appeared to have had the benefit of advice from the Department of External Affairs on this occasion, as, it is said, on others. He followed Ben Chifley (1885–1951), Prime Minister of Australia from 1945 to 1949. Hansard is the official transcripts of parliamentary debates in Britain and many Commonwealth countries, including Australia. 3 Cardinal József Mindszenty was Roman Catholic primate of Hungary who opposed the imposition of Communism. His arrest and subsequent trial, in February 1949, on bogus charges of treason and espionage made Mindszenty a cause célèbre for the anticommunist movement. 1 2



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

19

very much the line which Dr. Evatt might have taken if he had gone into greater detail, taking further his analogy with the slave trade: like the international anti-slavery conventions, this one could not, it was true, be enforced against great powers which chose to disregard it, but it would have some effect; in particular it would create a recognized crime and future offenders would be punished for that crime and not as a by-product of having lost a war.1 For making this point he was later thanked by Mr. Menzies. He ended by correcting Mr. Gullett’s misapprehension over Cardinal Mindszenty but showed a certain sympathy with his misgivings over the position of the German generals.2 Mr. Calwell, Minister for Immigration and Information, then took the opportunity of pouring oil on the troubled waters which it is rumoured separate him from the Minister for External Affairs. Australia should be, and indeed was he claimed very proud of Dr. Evatt, of his services to humanity and of the honour bestowed upon him and Australia by his election as President of the General Assembly. After dealing with Mr. Abbott by condescension and Mr. Gullett with an accusation of anti-Semitism, he concluded with the interesting remark that he saw in the ratification of the Convention a condemnation of the Potsdam Agreement and the miseries it had inflicted on the Volke Deutsche.3 Mr. Archie Cameron (Liberal; Barker-South Australia: Minister for Commerce and the Navy in the Menzies Government) performed a useful service in revealing by implication the inability of the Opposition to distinguish between the principles which the Bill and the Convention declared, and the means by which they might be put into effect. This he did in an attempt to demonstrate that the abolition of the slave trade had not been due in any degree to international conventions but to the British Government and to Abraham Lincoln in the 19th Century, and to Mussolini as the conqueror of Haile Selassie in the 20th. Compared with measures which they had taken, the Convention would have no practical effect.4 Two speeches followed which deserve mention mainly for their eccentricity. Dame Enid Lyons (Liberal-Darwin, Tasmania) was ruled out of order when attempting to discuss the O’Keefe case and the Declaration of Human Rights and Mr. Blair (IndependentNorthern Territories) saw in the request that “an Anglo-Saxon Parliament” should ratify the convention the insulting implication that Anglo-Saxons could be guilty of the crimes it out-lawed.5 A more ingenious, if even less helpful suggestion was made The Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery was signed on September 25, 1926 in Geneva. 2 The 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared the inapplicability of superior order defense. 3 The term Volksdeutsche refers to ethnic Germans residing before and during the Second World War in Eastern Europe. Signed by the Allies on August 1, 1945, the Potsdam Agreement provided for the “orderly transfer” of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. In effect, the agreement lent international legitimacy to mass expulsion, which led to the death of over 1.4 million ethnic Germans in the course of three years. 4 US President Abraham Lincoln is credited with bringing an end to slavery in America. Fascist Italy under Prime Minister Benito Mussolini in October 1935 invaded Abyssinia (nowadays Ethiopia), forcing Emperor Haile Selassie to flee the country. 5 The repatriation case of Annie O’Keefe, originally from Indonesia, stirred a major controversy in the election year 1949, marking the beginning of the end of the White Australia Policy. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

20

by Mr. Anthony (Richmond, N.S.W.-Country Party) who attempted to demonstrate that the activities of the Communist Party of Australia might be actionable under the Convention as evincing at least a future intention to commit genocide. These considerations were ignored by Dr. Evatt in winding up. He completed his earlier analogy between the Convention and the anti-slavery conventions by rehearsing the history of the gradual elimination of slavery; he admitted the part played by individuals and by the various forms of force which they had exercised, but reminded the House of the great part played by international public opinion, which was eventually embodied in a convention. His most notable statement was when he adduced, as evidence of the present weight of international public opinion, his belief that in the cases of Cardinal Mindszenty, Bishop Ordas and the Protestant pastors, but for the action of the United Nations, the sentence might have been death instead of imprisonment.1 In the Senate a Second Reading was given to the bill with speed equal to that of the House of Representatives, and there was no debate on the subsequent stages.

No. 181 The Governor of Uganda Sees No Problem in Introducing Appropriate Legislation Locally in the Event of United Kingdom Acceding to the Genocide Convention, August 30, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 Ref. 25102/26(A)/49 Uganda Ref. D. 25/91/2 August 30, 1949 SAVING. From THE GOVERNOR OF UGANDA2 To THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES3 No. 518 Saving Your Telegram Saving No. 392 (32) of the 23rd June 1949 United Nations Convention on Genocide It is assumed that should it be decided that His Majesty’s Government can accede to the United Nations Convention on Genocide, appropriate legislation will in due course Lutheran Bishop Lajos Ordas publicly denounced the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Hungary in 1946. In October 1948 a court in Budapest sentenced Ordas to two years; Bishop Ordas was imprisoned in the same facility as Cardinal Mindszenty. 2 John Hathorn Hall (1894–1979), governor of Uganda from 1945 to 1952. 3 Arthur Creech Jones (1891–1964), Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1946 to 1950. 1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

21

be enacted in the United Kingdom. Such legislation could be adopted or adapted for enactment in Uganda, and I foresee no legal difficulty in introducing such legislation if you consider that any useful purpose is likely to be served thereby. GOVERNOR

No. 182 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Instructed to Support an Invitation to Become Parties to the Genocide Convention to Those UN Non-Member States That the United Kingdom Had Recognized De Facto, September 7, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/4 September 7, 1949 (THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT) CONFIDENTIAL I.O.C. (49) 205 CABINET STEERING COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS Brief for the United Kingdom Delegation to the Second Part of the Fourth Session of the General Assembly Item 58 of the provisional agenda. Invitation to be addressed to non-member States to permit them to become parties to the convention on Genocide There is circulated herewith for consideration of the Committee a draft brief prepared by the Foreign Office for the United Kingdom Delegation to the second part of the Fourth Session of the General Assembly. Background The General Assembly at its third session unanimously adopted a convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (U.N. document A/760). Article II of this convention states that it will be open until the 31st December 1949 for signature on behalf of any member of the United Nations and of any non member State to which an invitation to sign has been addressed by the General Assembly. After the 1st January 1950 the convention may be acceded to on behalf of any member of the United Nations, and of any non-member State which has received an invitation. The Secretary-General has now put this question on the agenda of the Fourth Session and pointed out in his report (A/942) that it rests with the General Assembly to designate the non-member States which it wishes to invite to become parties to the convention. The issue of an invitation by the General Assembly implies that the recipient is regarded as a state. Acrimonious discussion is therefore probable with regard to the independence and sovereignty of various countries.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

22

Recommendation The United Kingdom Delegation should support an invitation being sent to any state which the United Kingdom has recognized de facto, but should oppose the sending of an invitation to states such as Outer Mongolia which are not considered sovereign and independent and therefore capable of giving effect to the terms of the Convention. The Delegation should not initiate any discussion of genocide itself but should counter attack strongly if attacked by the U.S.S.R. Possible Development In the past U.S.S.R. has opposed the applications of Ceylon, Jordan, Nepal and Korea for membership of the United Nations on the grounds that they are not independent and sovereign. It is possible that the Soviet will return to this line rather than admit, even by implication, that they are in fact independent and sovereign states. In this case all that seems necessary is to point out that the Security Council has voted in favour of each being admitted to the United Nations by a nine to two majority, and that this is sufficient proof that they are considered independent and sovereign. (The Security Council has not yet voted on Nepal’s application but is expected to have done so by the time the Assembly opens.) Recently, however, the Soviet have justified their veto on new admissions on the grounds that it is unfair that the Western candidates should be admitted and that the Eastern candidates excluded, abandoning arguments about independence. It is probable that in the Assembly where a veto does not operate the Soviet will not think it worth arguing the case at length and will merely confine themselves to a statement of position. It is unlikely that any discussion will develop on genocide itself, but the Delegation will be provided with material to answer any Soviet attacks. A list of states recognised by the United Kingdom is at Annex. ANNEX States recognised as Independent and Sovereign and not Members of the United Nations Albania Bulgaria Ceylon Eire Finland Hungary Italy Liechtenstein Monaco Nepal Portugal Roumania Republic of Korea San Marino Spain



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

23

Switzerland Transjordan, now Jordan Vatican. Countries not recognised as Independent and Sovereign Andorra Baltic States His Majesty’s Government does not recognise de jure their incorporation in the U.S.S.R. Tibet, under Chinese suzerainty His Majesty’s Government has had no relations with it except in the past through the Government of India. Kashmir Hyderabad Persian Gulf States His Majesty’s Government conducts the Foreign Relations of the Persian Gulf States. Indonesia, still under Dutch sovereignty All Soviet Republics, except the Ukraine and Byelo Russia which are members of the United Nations.

No. 183 The British Colonial Office Comments on Replies Received from the British Territories whether or Not They Regard the Genocide Convention Acceptable, November 7, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/5 25102/26/49. UN3459/48/78 November 7, 1949 [To David Hildyard, Foreign Office] Would you please refer to your letter of the 3rd January on the subject of the United Nations Convention on Genocide? All territories have now replied to the Secretary of State’s Circular despatch in the convention and I enclose a note which summarises the replies. You will observe that 31 territories have indicated that the convention is acceptable and of these seven (Barbados, Federation of Malaya, Uganda, Leeward Islands, Jamaica, North Borneo and Somaliland Protectorate) have said that legislation will or may be necessary. Of the remainder Bermuda, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Aden and the Western Pacific have said that they are unwilling, for political or other reasons to introduce the necessary legislation, and in the case of Singapore and Zanzibar certain legal points are still under

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

24

consideration. We expect however, that as things stand at the moment, the Convention will eventually be acceptable to these two territories. 2.  Before we give further consideration to the position of those territories requiring new or amending legislation, and those which are unwilling to introduce legislation in order to accede to the Convention, we are anxious to have some indication as to what the United Kingdom proposes to do and indeed did ask verbally for information on this point in June of this year when we were told that the Foreign Office was about to discuss the matter with the Home Office. We understand that from the United Kingdom point of view one of the main difficulties is that of extradition, and that it has yet to be decided whether genocide will have to be put on the Statute Book in order to include it in the list of extraditable offenses. You will of course appreciate that if it is found necessary to place genocide in the United Kingdom Statute Book as a specific crime, the question of genocide in relation to Colonial legislation will have to be reconsidered and that it may then be necessary to introduce similar legislation in those Colonies which have already indicated that there are no difficulties in the way of their acceptance of the Convention, since such legislative action is obligatory under Article V if national laws do not cover the provisions of the Convention. 3. I am sending copies of this letter, together with enclosures, to Ormerod (Commonwealth Relations Office) and Hutson (Home Office) to whom we are writing separately on the legal implications of the present text of the Convention. (A.G. Denton-Thompson)

No. 184 Summary of Replies Received from the British Colonies whether or Not They Regard the Genocide Convention Acceptable [November 7, 1949] NA, C.O. 936/19/5 25102/26(A)49 [November 7, 1949] GENOCIDE Summary of Replies to Secretary of States Circular Despatch of the 7th February, 19491 A. The Convention is acceptable to the following Territories: 1) Gibraltar 2) Cyprus 3) Nyasaland 4) Hong Kong See doc. No. 113.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

25

5) Northern Rhodesia 6) Bahamas 7) Nigeria 8) Sarawak 9) Fiji 10) Trinidad 11) Barbados 12) British Honduras 13) Tanganyika 14) Brunei 15) Gold Coast 16) Federation of Malaya 17) Malta 18) St. Helena 19) Seychelles 20) Uganda 21) Leeward Islands 22) Windward Islands 23) Zanzibar + 24) Mauritius 25) Jamaica 26) Falkland Islands 27) Gambia 28) North Borneo 29) Singapore + 30) British Guiana 31) Somaliland Protectorate Notes: 1.  Legislation will or may be necessary in: (a) Barbados (b) Federation of Malaya (Subject to consultation with State and Settlement Governments) (c) Uganda (d) Leeward Islands (e) Jamaica (Legislation may be necessary. Executive Council has yet to be consulted. Colonial Office is asked to indicate the legislation which may be required to implement the Convention). (f) North Borneo (g) Somaliland Protectorate (Colonial Office will have to indicate whether legislation will be necessary) 2.  In the case of Zanzibar and Singapore certain legal points require clarification. B. The following territories are opposed to the Convention: (a) Bermuda Legislation will be necessary and the Governor considers that such legislation is so fantastic that it will stand no chance of enactment.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

26

(b) Kenya The convention is so loosely drafted that legislation will be difficult. The Governor sees great difficulty in accepting the convention. (c) Sierra Leone Legislation will be required and because of pressure of work on the legislative machine, consideration of the legislation would not be possible at present. (d) Aden Legislation, which the Governor considers both undesirable and unnecessary, will be required. Governor will, however, introduce legislation if pressed to do so. (e) Western Pacific (a) British Solomon Islands - no legal difficulties (b) Gilbert and Ellice Islands - no legal difficulties (c) Tonga – Legislation and an Extradition Treaty will be necessary (d) New Hebrides – An exchange of notes will be necessary No legislation will be required in the case of (a) but legislation will be required for (b). The High Commissioner is unwilling to introduce legislation of this nature for the Western Pacific.

No. 185 Secretary of State for the Colonies Informs the Home Secretary That the Majority of Colonies Accept the Genocide Convention in the Event of UK Accession, December 13, 1949 NA, C.O. 936/19/4 25102/26/49 December 13, 1949 [To James Chuter Ede, Home Office] Would you please refer to your letter of the 7th December enclosing a draft memorandum about the International Convention on Genocide which you propose to circulate to the Cabinet? It would perhaps be helpful if I first outlined the position of Colonial Governments in relation to the Genocide Convention. The text of the Convention was forwarded to all Colonial Governments in February and the replies received from them indicate that while they are not over enthusiastic about the Convention or impressed with its necessity it is in fact acceptable to the great majority. By some, however, legal difficulties have been mentioned which may necessitate new or amending legislation. In a recent letter to your Department (No. 25102/26/49 or the 7th November) it was pointed out that several Colonies had raised questions in connection with the



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

27

interpretation of certain provisions of the Convention; in the circumstances it was considered necessary to provide them and other Colonies with a legal commentary on the text and, in view of the basic similarity between United Kingdom and Colonial law, with some indication of the precise legal implications of the Convention in relation to the law of the United Kingdom, so that they might see in detail how it is considered the offences in the Convention are covered or not covered, as the case may be, by existing law in the United Kingdom.1 Your memorandum quotes one example of a gap in the United Kingdom law (viz. measures taken to prevent births within a group) and indicates that there are other gaps. When the detailed commentary is received it will be forwarded to Colonial Governments so that they may all reconsider their views. Further, if introduction of legislation is considered necessary in the United Kingdom to provide that genocide should not be treated as being a political offence for the purpose of extradition, the implications of this to the Colonies will also have to be considered. On the subject of your memorandum, although, for the reasons explained above, we shall be immediately concerned with the decisions taken on the questions set out in paragraph 9(b) and (c) thereof, we have no observations on the purely legal aspects of the arguments advanced. As regards the question contained in paragraph 9(a) of your memorandum, the further question of accession of the Colonies to the convention is covered by Article XII. This will permit the opportunity of further consultation with Colonial Governments irrespective of what action the United Kingdom may take in the immediate future as regards signature and accession. As regards the more general aspects, the only comment I have to offer is that the provisions of the Convention and the question of accession or non-accession are unlikely to give rise to much interest or feeling one way or the other in Colonial territories. If it is decided, however, that the United Kingdom should sign and accede I am confident that, subject to the clarification of the legal issues involved, to which I have referred above in paragraph 3, the great majority of Colonies, including those at present lukewarm in their attitude towards the Convention, will eventually follow suit. (Sgd.) A. Creech Jones

No. 186 The Majority of British Colonial Administration Accept the Genocide Convention yet Would Not Remonstrate Had the United Kingdom Decided against Accession, March 30, 1950  NA, C.O. 537/5689 March 27, 1950 (2) is a revised version of an earlier memorandum which was prepared by the Home Secretary on the subject of whether the United Kingdom should accede to the U.N. Genocide Convention. [see (42) on 1949 file]. At Foreign Office request (42) was not See doc. no. 183.

1

28

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

circulated to the Cabinet but was re-discussed between the F.O., Home Office and the Attorney-General in an effort to resolve those inter-departmental differences which the Home Secretary had intended to put to the Cabinet for decision. As a result (2), while it contains no new information concerning the practical legal difficulties facing the U.K. in acceding to the Genocide Convention, does submit an agreed recommendation to the Cabinet that the U.K. should not accede to the Convention. 2.  The position of the colonies in relation to the Convention is set out fully in Mr. Creech Jones’ letter to the Home Secretary [see (44) on 1949 file]; it has not changed since this letter was written. Colonial Governments depend on a lead from the U.K. since colonial application of the Convention is impossible unless H.M.G. accedes to it.1 Although the majority of Colonial Governments are prepared to accept the Convention, there is unlikely to be any unfavourable local reaction if U.K. does not accede, thereby preventing colonial application. Under these circumstances there are no C.O. observations to make on the paper. 3.  ? as in draft opposite. [Signed] N. B. J. H. [Nicolas B. J. Huijsman]

No. 187 British Foreign Office Officials Agree That the United Kingdom Should Put off Accession to the Genocide Convention despite Criticism, March 30, May 15–July 27, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88599/UP252/25 Draft of revised Cabinet paper on the Genocide Convention: Requests observations and figures showing the number of countries which have signed, ratified or accepted the Convention (MINUTES) March 30, 1950 This is the revised Cabinet Memorandum by the Home Office on the question of whether or not the United Kingdom should become a party to the Genocide Convention. The background to this question is given on the first page of the Memorandum. So far 43 States have signed the Convention, 8 have ratified it and no State has yet acceded. The original Home Office Memorandum with the text of the Convention is at A UN2815. The revised Memorandum is the result of further talks with the Attorney-General and takes into account Foreign Office views on the legal aspects of the question as set out in our letter of 6 7th February (UN2815). 2.  I think that the position has at last been fully clarified, and the Cabinet could now reach a decision on the matter. From our point of view the Memorandum raises

See doc. no. 185.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

29

two points, the first with regard to the reservations made by the Soviet bloc at the time of their signature and the second in regard to the general issue since the Home Office recommend that he United Kingdom should not become a party to the Convention. 3.  As regards the reservations made by the Soviet bloc, it has been decided that an official letter should be addressed to the Secretary-General to the effect that H.M. Government cannot accept them.1 We have now written to the Delegation asking them to prepare a draft note which we suggested should be discussed with the United Nations Legal Department and which would be transmitted to us for final approval. Our letter to the Delegation is at UP252/23.2 This official letter to the Secretary-General would be tantamount to a reservation of position. I think that this point should be incorporated in the memorandum, and that therefore we should write and explain the position to the Home Office. 4. As regards the question of principle the [?] our becoming a party to the Convention. Their main arguments are firstly that legislation would be required to provide that genocide should not be treated as a political offence for the purposes of extradition and that this legislation would be controversial, difficult to draft and a very awkward precedent to the extent possibly of endangering our right of granting asylum, and secondly that once any legislation is initiated amendments will be put down to bring our Law fully in line with the Convention and an immense amount of complicated legislation might result. The Foreign Office has not yet expressed any definite view on the question of principle because we have been waiting to get a clear picture of the exact legal implications of accession. The Secretary of State in his minute at U.N. 2354 asked for an early decision and added later when he had looked at the Convention that it was difficult to see where it would conflict with British law. Mr. Mayhew suggested in December that the United Kingdom should sign the Convention for political reasons, and consider at leisure later whether any legislation was required before ratification and if so what (see Sir. E. Beckett’s minute of the 14th December – UN2815). It was then decided that it was not possible to consult the Cabinet before the end of the year and that therefore we could not sign the Convention though we might accede later. In subsequent minutes it seems to have been assumed that we should accede in due course, but at that time the legal implications of accession were still not quite clear. We shall now have to make up our minds. If we want to accede we shall have to try to over-rule the Home Office and satisfy the Cabinet that there is good reason to over-rule the objections the Home Office point out in their memorandum. If we decide to agree with the Home Office recommendation that we should not accede we shall let ourselves in for a great deal of criticism. We have been heavily lobbied in the past by M.P.’s and Church dignitaries who feel strongly or are under pressure on this question. The Archbishop of Canterbury and many of the Church leaders have been won over to support the Convention and it is also strongly supported by the United Nations Association, various humanitarian societies and, of course, the Jewish community who are probably the most vocal.3

See doc. nos. 220, 222. Document not in the file. 3 See doc. no. 290. Geoffrey Fisher (1887–1972), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961. 1 2

30

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

5.  The decision is, of course, mainly a political one. But I would like to submit the following view. If the Convention marked a great step forward in international law and was likely to have practical and good results it does not seem to me that the Home Office case is really strong enough. We cannot always expect that all international conventions will be so framed that we will never have to make any alternations in our law and it creates a very bad impression when we stand out against the will of a large majority out of purely legal considerations. But in fact we have all along pointed out that the Convention contributes practically nothing to human progress. It is almost entirely concerned with genocide by individuals and hardly touches the only real problem which is, of course, genocide by or with the knowledge of Governments. It marks no step forward in international law and would not save a single human life or limb. If the intrinsic value of the Convention is so small and the legal objections to it so strong (even to the extent that it might possibly endanger our traditional right of granting asylum) then it seems to me we should not be put off by the criticism which non-accession would bring. This criticism would in any event die down fairly soon, and it is quite possible that if we decide not to accede many other members of the United Nations will follow our example and not ratify, even if they have already signed. In that case we would not be left in a small minority and it is even possible that the Convention would never come into force at all, since for it to come into force 20 ratifications are required. But if we do not accede, I think that when we explain our decision we should be as forthcoming and tactful as possible, showing a little more good will and a little less condescension than is envisaged in the last sentence of the Home Office memorandum. We could point out that the Convention had has almost no practical value, but was so worded that legislation to implement it might possibly endanger a right to which we attach great importance – that of granting the right of asylum. We would then say that we could not conceive of genocide in this country or that “genociders” would in practice be able to escape extradition. In any case as the explanation of our policy will be mainly a Foreign Office concern, it will be for us to decide this question. 6.  As regards procedures we should now, I submit, first of all inform the Home Office about the Soviet reservations explaining that we cannot in any case become a party to the Convention until the legal position in regard to the reservations has been clarified. If it is decided to support the Home Office recommendation, we would agree that their memorandum should be put to the Cabinet and confine ourselves to the point without about explanation of our attitude. If it is decided that the balance of advantage lies with accession we should suggest to the Home Office that their memorandum should be amended to bring out our views and the final decision would then have to be taken to the Cabinet. But in any case it is unlikely that the Cabinet would wish to take a decision until our position in regard to the Soviet reservations has been clarified. D.H.T. Hildyard U.N. (Pol.) Dept. * * *



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

31

May 15, 1950 This has been held up while we have been considering the effect of the Soviet reservations on the Convention. We have decided to write to the Secretary General and state that H.M.G. cannot accept the Soviet and other Slav reservations, because their effect would be to alter important aspects of the convention as drafted, and that we cannot regard as valid any ratifications of the convention maintaining such reservations. 2.  For the time being, therefore, we have good reasons for not acceding, but we should, I think, now decide finally our attitude to the convention in its original shape (i.e. not limited by the Slav reservations). 3.  I have always felt that the convention is an exceedingly hallow thing and that it is not worth the trouble it causes us. It deals almost entirely with the more remote crime of genocide committed by individuals and scarcely touches the only real issue – the responsibility of sates for acts of genocide committed or tolerated by them. I therefore sympathize with the Home Office view and agree with Mr. Hildyard’s submission in para 5 of his minute. I do not think we should be deterred by the prospect of any illinformed criticism which we are likely to incur but make up our minds that as the value of the convention is so light and the complications and possibly risks of acceding so great we should do better not to accede. C.C. Parrott * * * July 27, 1950 Have we any observations to make on the Home Secretary’s memorandum? Mr. Fitzmaurice Sr. A. Noble

No. 188 The US State Department Reports on the British Parliamentary Debates over Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 7, 1950 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950-54, 59/1341 (340.IAJ/6-750) June 7, 1950 FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNCLASSIFIED To: Department of State From: London, No. 2754, June 7, 1950 Subject: Debate on the Genocide Convention

32

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

There are transmitted herewith, as reported in Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates of May 18, 1950, the texts of speeches made during the debate on the motion for adjournment when Mr. Barnett Janner (Labor) raised the question of the early ratification by the United Kingdom of the Genocide Convention. Mr. Kenneth Younger replying to the debate for the Government made the following points: (1) When the Convention was discussed in the Legal Committee the United Kingdom representative had expressed misgivings about the practicality of some of the legal provisions of the Convention. For example, it had been pointed out that the United Kingdom could not commit itself to action which would prejudice its long-established and traditional right to grant asylum to persons who were charged with political offenses. The United Kingdom representative abstained in the vote in the Legal Committee. The issue in the General Assembly, however, was a much broader political issue and as the United Kingdom was in complete accord with the purpose of the Convention the British voted in favor, with the reservation that they could not, without further examination, be taken to be assuming a commitment to make changes in domestic law. (2) Careful study would be necessary before ratification. Other countries have also found that there are difficulties when it comes to the legal application of this convention, for out of the whole body of nations who voted in favor so far there were only a small number of ratifications. (3) A further complication had arisen in that “the Soviet Union has now purported to ratify this Convention with reservations, and that, I understand, raises exceptionally difficult question of international law – the question whether we, were we now to ratify it, would be taken to accept the Soviet reservations. I understand that the balance of opinion is that we should be taken to have accepted it, and this would affect the position of the International Court in this matter.” In his defense of the United Kingdom position Mr. Younger also made the following statements: “We believe in a principle, in relation to international Conventions, which, I may say, is not by any means universally accepted – that if we ratify a Convention, we mean to implement. We do not think we should ratify this Convention until we are satisfied how it is going to affect, in particular, this right to grant asylum to which we attach very great importance as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend, and until we are quite sure, in regard to the question of these reservations, just what it is we are ratifying. That does not seem to me an unreasonable point of view. I hope we will be able to clear up this matter.” In the course of the debate which strayed far from the question of genocide Mr. Emrys Hughes (Labor), who frequently hews very close to the Communist line, argued that if the Government wished to outlaw genocide it should also be prepared to outlaw war. In this connection he made the following statement: “I say to my hon. Friend, therefore, that if he wishes to defend any particular nation, or any section or race within a nation, he has to carry this argument to its logical conclusion and demand the abolition, not only of genocide, but of the atom bomb, the H-bomb and all the infernal instruments of modern war.”



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

33

Mr. Emrys Hughes also taxed the Government with not having taken the visit of Mr. Trygve Lie to the United Kingdom “with the earnestness and seriousness it really deserves”. He contrasted the reception given Mr. Lie in London and in Moscow. (It should be recalled that Mr. Hughes made his speech after Mr. Lie’s first visit to London en route to Moscow but as reported in the Embassy’s telegram no. 2948, May 25, 1950 Mr. Lie’s return visit attracted far more attention.) In replying to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Younger pointed out that when Mr. Lie was in London he saw the Prime Minister and had long conversations with everybody he wished to see. Furthermore he offered the explanation that “if there was not much comment in the press about this it was partly because these were confidential talks and partly because we are well known to have been supporters of United Nations in the past and to be in broad agreement with Mr. Lie, among others, about the way in which United Nations should function. Therefore, talks of this kind do not make news in the same way as it makes news when Mr. Lie goes to Moscow and is known to be discussing the future of the United Nations, whose progress has been so signally obstructed over the past five years by the Government of the Soviet Union.” Frances E. Willis First Secretary of Embassy Enclosure: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, May 18, 1950 (five copies)

No. 189 The British Foreign Office Explicates the Difference between Signature and Ratification, as related to the UK Position on the Genocide Convention, October 4, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/59 October 4, 1950 SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION POSITION OF UNITED KINGDOM REGARDING GENOCIDE CONVENTION There has been some confusion and some rather inaccurate statements made both inside and outside the Foreign Office on the subject of the “ratification” of the Genocide Convention by H.M. Government. The purpose of this note is not to discuss our attitude to the Convention as such (this has already been done at some length elsewhere) but to clarify the position regarding “signature” and “ratification.” 2.  The Foreign Office have received several letters from societies and bodies of different sorts urging H.M. Government to “ratify” the Genocide Convention without delay, and replies have been sent stating that for various good reasons H.M. Government are at present unable to “ratify” it at the present stage. In actual fact we have not yet “signed” the Convention. Signature must precede ratification, so it

34

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

would have been more correct to have given reasons why H.M. Government were not yet prepared “to sign or ratify”. The confusion may have been begun, or at least increased by the debate on the Genocide Convention in the House of Commons on the 18th May, 1950. In this debate, Mr. Janner, a lawyer who obviously knows a considerable amount about his subject, said “it is clear that the legal implications of the Convention must have been known by us when the Convention was agreed to and signed” (page 1494) and later referred to “this Convention that has now been signed by us”. He called for early “ratification”. The Minister of State in his reply expounded on “the legal difficulties which have so far held up our ratification” (page 1509) but made no reference to the fact that we had not yet signed.1 The brief provided by the Foreign Office for the Minister of State on this occasion refers repeatedly to our reasons for not ratifying the Convention and does not mention that we have not signed, though an attached list of signatories does not include the United Kingdom. 3. The procedure by which conventions come into force is a technical legal question. In the United Nations the normal procedure is for a resolution to be brought up introducing a convention. This is then voted upon, and accepted if the requisite two-thirds majority, required for important subjects, is obtained. The convention is then open for signature, but it is not binding on any government until the signature has been ratified by the government concerned. In any case, there is usually a provision in the convention that the convention will not come into force until a specified number of ratifications have been obtained. A third method of becoming a party to a convention is by “accession”. In certain cases countries which did not take part in the preparation of a convention are allowed to accede to it. Accession is thus a form of simultaneous signature and ratification. In the case of some conventions such as the 1950 convention on Privileges and Immunities it is specifically stated that accession, rather than signature and ratification, will be the normal method of becoming a party thereto. 4. In the case of the Genocide Convention, a resolution introducing it was unanimously accepted by the General Assembly in plenary sessions on the 11th December, 1946. It was stipulated that the Convention would come into force 90 days after 20 countries had signed and ratified, or acceded, to it. So far, up to the date of the Secretary-General’s report on “Reservations to Multilateral Conventions” of the 20th September, 1950, 43 states had signed the Convention, 11 states had ratified it and 6 acceded. Some of these states at the time of signature, ratification or accession have made reservations which are not acceptable to H.M. Government. The United Kingdom have neither signed nor ratified the Convention. 5. I should be grateful if the Legal Advisers would comment on the above and confirm that I have explained the position correctly. D.F. Duncan

Cf. doc. no. 189.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

35

No. 190 The World Jewish Congress Urges UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, May 29, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/22 May 29, 1952 Dear Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, The Executive of the World Jewish Congress have learned with great pleasure of the statement you were good enough to make on the occasion of a recent anniversary Warsaw Ghetto Memorial Meeting, when you expressed the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to give speedy consideration to the question of ratifying the Convention on Genocide.1 I am directed by the Executive to express the hope that the Government may now feel able to agree to ratify the Convention, and thus to join the other 37 States which have ratified it. It has been a source of disappointment to us that the British Government should, for so long a time after the adoption of the Convention, not have seen their way to recommend to Parliament the ratification of this most important international instrument, designed to protect groups against such crimes as mass annihilation, which the German Nazi regime committed against the Jews and other groups in Europe. The grounds of the British Government’s reluctance hitherto to ratify the Convention have never been clear to us, and I am bound to say this has created a most unfortunate impression in the Jewish world, and no doubt elsewhere. Our disappointment has been all the greater since we have always felt that the British Parliament would not have found any difficulty in accepting the Government’s recommendation to ratify the Convention. All Parties would certainly recall the memorable scene in the House of Commons on the occasion of Mr. Eden’s reading of the Allied Declaration of 17th December, 1942, announcing to the world the mass massacres of the Jews then proceeding at the hands of the Nazis, and declaring the intention of the Allied Powers to punish this unspeakable crime.2 The House of Commons spontaneously rose in silence as a tribute to the Jewish dead and to express their horror of the crime perpetrated against them. This crime was an act of Genocide which the Convention deals with. We are encouraged to ask Her Majesty’s Government now to ratify the Convention by the news that the Canadian and the Swedish Governments have, during the last few days, deposited their ratifications with the United Nations.

Cf. doc. nos. 204, 216. In his capacity as Political Secretary of the World Jewish Congress, Alexander Easterman (1890– 1983) urged the Allied governments to adopt the declaration. Easterman took part in the United Nations founding conference at San Francisco in 1945 and later participated in the ECOSOC and CHR meetings in the role of an observer.

1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

36

We are also informed that the Government of the Argentine has intimated to the representative of the World Jewish Congress and the President of the Argentine Jewish Community its intention to ratify the Convention. Yours sincerely, A. L. Easterman

No. 191 The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary Jointly Propose UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, TAQ July 25, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101410/UP259/28 DRAFT SECRET CABINET INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE Joint Memorandum by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary 1. This memorandum raises the question whether we should accede to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The text of the Convention is set out in the Annex. Its purpose is to prohibit and punish acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethical, racial or religious group. 2.  The Convention was unanimously adopted at the Third Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in December, 1948. The United Kingdom delegate, whilst voting in favour, made the reservation that His Majesty’s Government could not, without further examination, be taken as committed to changes in British domestic law, in particular the law relating to political asylum. 3.  The Convention came into force in January, 1951, and, so far, [33] 38 States have ratified or acceded to it. The question of our accession was complicated by certain reservations made by the U.S.S.R. and other States. This difficulty has, however, now been disposed of, since the International Court of Justice has ruled that reservations may be made to the Convention provided they are compatible with its purpose. The ruling of the Court leaves it to individual States to decide for themselves whether or not a reservation is compatible. 4.  The opinion of the International Court leaves it open to us, in theory, to accede with reservations, but it would be contrary to our general policy to do so. We have considered whether we should ask the Cabinet to approve a departure from that general policy on this occasion by authorising a reservation to the effect that, whilst this country accepts the principle of Article VII of the Convention that the political nature of the offence should not be an absolute bar to extradition for genocide, nevertheless a discretion should be retained to the Home Secretary or to the courts



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

37

to refuse to surrender a fugitive; but we fear that other parties to the Convention might well maintain that such a reservation was not compatible with the objects of the Convention, which was intended to brand genocide as a crime which nothing, and certainly not political motives, can excuse, and we suggest that the decision must be either to accede or not to accede. 5.  The following considerations are relevant: (a) Genocide is ordinarily a crime committed by, or connived at, by a Government; and a Government which is prepared to commit or connive at such a crime is not likely to be restrained by the provisions of the Convention. The Convention indeed is not likely to have much practical effect. (b) It is possible however that the provisions of the Convention might be invoked when a Government responsible for acts of genocide had fallen and had been succeeded by a Government of a different complexion. At that stage the members of the original Government might have sought asylum in a country sympathetic to their views, where they would have become political refugees; and it is in those circumstances that accession to the Convention might give rise to difficult questions. Suppose, for example, that a political leader in a country with which we had an extradition treaty were driven out of power and sought refuge in this country, it is not inconceivable that a request might be made by the new Government for his surrender for an offence of genocide, and if adequate prima facie evidence were supplied of such an offence, it might well be difficult to refuse to surrender him, whatever we thought about the motive behind the request for his surrender. It might well be, however, that public opinion would be much disturbed by the surrender of a fugitive in such circumstances. (c) The Convention commands considerable support at home and abroad and we should be giving useful propaganda to the Communists if we failed to support a measure which had on the face of it such laudable intentions and had already been ratified, for all its limitations, by [33] 38 States. A failure to accede might be exploited by the ill-disposed, and might confuse the illinformed, with regard to the Government’s attitude to the crime of genocide. There has already been some criticism, at home and abroad, of the delay in acceding to the Convention. 6.  Our view is that, on balance, it would be right to accede to the Convention. It would however be necessary first to pass legislation, and as implied in paragraph 5(b) that legislation would be controversial, since for this class of offence we should be surrendering the traditional right of asylum for political refugees. 7.  We suggest that it would be as well if, before a final decision is to come to, a Bill should be drafted so that the Cabinet can see exactly what legislation would be necessary to enable this country to accede to the Convention. The Bill would have to provide (a) that all the acts of genocide set out in the Convention should be made criminal offences; (b) that all such offences should be made extradition crimes; and (c) that where a request was made for the extradition of a person for an offence of genocide, it should not be a bar to his surrender that the offence was of a political character, although it should clearly remain permissible to refuse surrender if it

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

38

appeared that the motive of the request was political and there was not a bona fide charge of genocide. 8. We accordingly ask for authority to have a Bill drafted, with a view to our bringing the matter before the Cabinet again when the draft is ready, and we suggest that a decision on the question whether we should accede to the Convention should be deferred until then.

No. 192 The British Foreign Office Reports no Change in the UK Position on the Genocide Convention in Reply to the Parliamentary Question by Barnett Janner, July 30, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101410/UP259/30 July 28, 1952 UNITED NATIONS (POLITICAL) Parliamentary Question * 80 78 Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many ratifications have now been made of the Genocide Convention; and why he has not yet ratified this convention. Mr. Janner has been asking questions about this since 1950, and unfortunate delays on the part of the Home Office make it increasingly difficult to give convincing answers. 2.  The situation is in fact exactly the same as it was at the time of Mr. Janner’s last major question on 19th May (see minutes at UP 259/20 and UP 259/1).1 On 1st August, however, the Cabinet are to consider a joint paper by the Home Office and ourselves seeking their the authority to prepare draft legislation (for further consideration by the Cabinet) which we have been pressing the Home Office to seek since January. 3.  The Minister of State gave a full reply to Mr. Janner on the 19th May, and I suggest that Mr. Janner now be told that there is nothing to add to that answer; this is what the Home Office would like us to do, and it is entirely accurate. We can hardly do more since a bill drafted by Parliamentary Counsel to enable us to put the Convention into effect in the United Kingdom may might look so awkward that the Cabinet might be reluctant to put it to Parliament. The only thing we could possibly add, I suppose, is one more reassurance to Mr. Janner that Her Majesty’s Government are giving the matter continuous consideration. 4.  I submit a draft reply along these lines, together with notes for supplementaries similar to those used in January and May. The answer to the first part of the question is designed to put Mr. Janner straight on the question of ratification, as opposed to accession, which he always confuses. [Signed] J.E. Jackson See also doc. nos. 193, 196, 234.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

39

July 28, 1952 I have nevertheless suggested shortening the answer, since this is a tiresome position for us to be in. [Signed] Peter Hope DRAFT REPLY TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 80 BY MR. JANNER ON WEDNESDAY, 30TH JULY 1952 38 States have ratified and 16 States have acceded to the Convention which came into force on the 12th January 1951 after the 20th instrument of accession or ratification. As regards accession by H.M. Government, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my Right Honourable and Learned Friend to the Honourable Member on 19th May. Her Majesty’s Government are giving continuous and close consideration to this question. POINTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARIES 1. The legal difficulties were explained at some length to Mr. Janner by the Right Honourable Member for Grimsby, Mr. Kenneth Younger, in the debate on the adjournment on the 18th May 1950. The same difficulties still arise. 2.  Any delay in reaching a final decision has been caused because it was necessary (a) to consider the legal implications of acceding to the Convention, including the special domestic jurisdiction that will be necessary. It is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to accede to a convention unless they believe they can comply meticulously with its provisions; (b) to await a ruling of the International Court of Justice with regard to certain reservations made by other Governments when ratifying or acceding to the Convention. The Court recently ruled that States may make reservations, at the time of ratifying or acceding to the Genocide Convention, provided that these reservations are compatible with the purpose of the Convention. The Court left it to individual parties to the Convention to decide whether they consider any given reservation to be compatible or not with the purpose of the Convention, and say that the Convention will be in force between a party making a reservation and those parties which do not object to this reservation, but will not be in force between a party making a reservation and those parties which object to it.1 Her Majesty’s Government might therefore in theory accede to the Convention with reservations, but have not so far decided to do this in view of their policy of not ratifying the difficulty of foreseeing on the basis of the courts’ finding that the practical consequences of this would be or since often Governs. do not in principle favour acceding to Conventions with reservations or acceding to multilateral conventions with reservations unless those reservations are accepted by all other States party to the Convention in question. (If we say this we may say [illegible] all them.)

Cf. doc. no. 227.

1

40

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

3.  The Convention was open for signature until 31st December 1949. Signatures have to be ratified. Since 31st December 1949 the Convention has been open to accession by States which did not sign. H.M. Government did not sign, and can therefore accede to the Convention, although it is too late for them to sign and ratify. The effect in each case is the same.

No. 193 David N. Royce of the British Foreign Office Enumerates Reference Points in Reply to Barnett Janner’s Parliamentary Question concerning UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, December 5, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101410/UP259/39 ADVANCE NOTICE QUESTION Parliamentary Question Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the dominions have now ratified the Genocide Convention and why H.M.G. have not yet done so. Monday, 8th December December 5, 1952 Four Three Commonwealth countries have so far become parties to the Genocide Convention ……Australia, Canada, Ceylon and Pakistan. 2.  The Genocide Convention which is intended to outlaw and punish those who commit an act of genocide was unanimously adopted by the Third Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1948. The United Kingdom Delegate explained that he had voted in favour but with the reservation that His Majesty’s Government could not without further examination commit themselves to changes in British domestic law which might be needed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention in the U.K. In particular they could not commit themselves to action which would prejudice their traditional right of granting asylum to persons charged with political offences. 3.  Since that time Mr. Janner and some other M.Ps. have consistently pressed Her Majesty’s Government first to ratify the Convention and after it had come into force to accede. The last question of Mr. Janner was answered on the 30th July but this was only by reference to the answer he had received on the 19th May of this year.1 At that time the Minister of State said inter alia that he would do his best to secure a decision in the matter as soon as possible.

See doc. nos. 192, 196.

1



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

41

4.  Her Majesty’s Government have not decided whether to accede to the Convention because the Foreign Office and Home Office had, until July of this year, failed to reach an agreed policy. A joint paper was however submitted to the Cabinet in July and the Cabinet in September invited the Home Secretary to prepare a draft of the Bill which would be required if the United Kingdom acceded to the Convention, and then to bring the matter before the Cabinet again. The Prime Minister expressed the view that we should no doubt find it necessary to accede to the Convention but that there was no hope of including legislation in the present Session of Parliament. 5.  The Home Office tell me that the Parliamentary draftsmen have been working on a draft Bill, but that the text is not yet sufficiently advanced to be discussed with the Foreign Office. 6.  The position therefore is that some progress has been made since the last answer to Mr. Janner, but no final decision has been reached. 7.  I have discussed the form of the reply with the Home Office, and they would like it cleared in final form again with their Private Secretaries when it has been considered by Ministers in the Foreign Office. [Signed] D.N. Royce

No. 194 The Office of the UK High Commissioner in Bonn Comments on the Status of Political Debates in West Germany concerning Potential Accession to the Genocide Convention, November 9, 1953 NA, F.O. 371/107080/UP254/33 Convention on Genocide Encloses copy of translation of reply made by Prof. Hallstein to a question put forward in the Bundestag about Germany becoming party to the Genocide Convention MINUTES November 17, 1953 It is interesting to see that the German position on this convention is not unlike our own: i.e. like us, they find it difficult to reconcile the terms of the Convention with their existing legal structure. However, unlike Prof. Hallstein, our own ministers have not promised that legislation will “shortly” be submitted. Mr. Cahill * * *

42

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

November 20, 1953 Please consider what documents should be sent to Bonn to make the subject intelligible to them. Mr. Cahill * * * November 20, 1953 M. send a copy of the current IOC paper on Genocide (i.e. the 8th session Brief) to Bonn referring on the slip to their 170/11/2/53. Mr. Cahill * * * The Chancery, Office of the U.K. High Commissioner, to United Nations (Eastern?) Department, Foreign Office November 9, 1953 UNCLASSIFIED 170/11/2/53 Dear Department, We do not seem to have any recent papers in our files on the subject of the Convention for the Prevention and Repression of Genocide. All we can trace is correspondence between the International Court of Justice in the Hague and the Allied High Commission ending with the latter’s letter AGSEC (51) 207 of January 30, 1951 about the transmission of an invitation to the German Federal Republic to become a party to the Convention. 2.  Nevertheless, you may be interested in the enclosed translation of a written reply made by Professor Hallstein, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on October 23 to a question put by the Deutsche Partei Fraktion in the Bundestag. Yours ever, Chancery TRANSLATION 1. It is correct that the Federal Government, like all other countries which are not members of the United Nations and which have through their cooperation in the organisation of the United Nations expressed their readiness to further international cooperation, has been invited by the Secretary General of the United Nations to accede to the Convention of 9th December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. 2. Because the Convention contains terms and definitions in criminal law, some of which are unknown in German law, especially in German Criminal Law, the preparation of the accession of the Federal Republic to the Convention has necessitated extensive preparatory work in order to adapt the provisions of the



The United Kingdom Government Split on the Issue of Accession

43

Convention to internal German law and to ensure an early implementation of the Convention. This work was concluded several months ago. It was not, however, possible to submit a draft law approving the Convention to the legislative bodies before the expiry of the first German Bundestag. After having passed the Federal Cabinet, the draft will now be submitted shortly.

44

VII

The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62 (nos. 195–217)

The continuous opposition of the United Kingdom to the Genocide Convention was nothing new. More unexpected perhaps was delayed action on ratification in the United States. In the spring of 1949 the US Embassy in Tel Aviv assessed the claim of whether or not the Israel government had charged Arab states with genocide of Jews residing within their borders (docs. 195–96). President Harry Truman meanwhile pushed for US ratification of the Genocide Convention (doc. 198). When seeking Senate consent to ratification on June 16, 1949, he emphasized the leading role of the United States in the adoption of the convention and the principles of law and justice that it had advocated. The most consequential opposition to US ratification came from the American Bar Association (ABA). Some American citizens came to embrace the association’s argument, according to which human rights law was a means toward establishing a so-called world government. An international treaty like the Genocide Convention threatened to supersede state laws or even the US Constitution, effectively opening up to a possibility of direct pressure from Russia (docs. 197, 199). The supporters of the Genocide Convention in the United States—Jewish organizations in particular—sprang into action, beginning with the Senate hearings on US ratification in January and February 1950. The Jewish Labor Committee viewed the genocide treaty as an answer to Nazi gas chambers and urged the Senate to fulfill its moral duty by approving ratification (doc. 200). Around the winter of 1950, the word genocide was for the first time entered into dictionary, with a broader definition than that provided for in the convention (doc. 201). While the American Jewish Congress put an emphasis on the volume of support mail to individual senators (doc. 202), the Jewish Labor Committee developed a comprehensive program on behalf of the Genocide Convention (docs. 204, 208). The 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising served as a particularly strong symbol to rally support for US ratification (doc. 216). The Canadian parliament in May 1952 approved the Genocide Convention. During the discussion on the motion, one of the parliamentarians cited an inconvenient fact, namely that none of the former Allies and the world’s leading powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union—had so far ratified the convention (doc. 205). As of March 1953 (a period immediately preceding the death of Joseph

46

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Stalin and marked by a spike in political repression across Communist bloc, especially targeting Jews) the State Department regarded US ratification “highly desirable” (doc. 206). Like in the case of the United Kingdom, it was becoming “increasingly difficult to explain satisfactorily our reluctance to accept the limited obligations of this Convention.” Additional pro-ratification arguments included having an agreeable alternative to covenants on human rights—to which the United States was opposed—and being able to use the Genocide Convention in psychological warfare against the Soviet Union (doc. 207). Then, an unsurmountable obstacle in the face of Bricker Constitutional Amendment had emerged. Back in July 1951, John Bricker introduced a resolution on the Senate Floor stating that the UN treaties—the draft Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention in particular—threatened constitutional freedoms of the American people (doc. 203). On April 6, 1953, State Secretary John Foster Dulles declared that the United States would not seek ratification of the Genocide Convention. In his opinion, the convention fell short of expectations invested into it by its drafters. Furthermore, the Soviet Union and its satellites either refused to ratify the convention or ratified it with reservations. Dulles’s statement came in response to a direct question by Senator Bricker, who had sought to limit the treaty-making powers of the president (doc. 209). The British Embassy in Washington, DC was certain that the State Secretary’s announcement effectively ruled out the Administration or Congress making further moves toward ratification of the Genocide Convention (doc. 211). This information the Foreign Office in London sought ahead of a Cabinet meeting concerning UK accession to the convention (doc. 210). The State Department was forced to defend itself and the Administration against the inevitable criticism by both the supporters and the opponents of the Genocide Conventions. Although the United States abhorred the crime of genocide, it did not commit to ratification (doc. 214). Another explanation offered was that the United States could promote human rights internationally without resorting to the letter of the human rights treaties (doc. 215). A concerned citizen from Pennsylvania chose to appeal to no-one else but Senator Joseph McCarthy with the request to purge the State Department, which allegedly colluded with the British and the Russians in sabotaging the Genocide Convention (doc. 212). A resident of California, for his part, imputed double-talk to Secretary Dulles, for the US delegation later that year voted for a resolution calling for speedy world ratification of the convention (doc. 213). Nearly a decade had passed, and the State Department was expressing exasperation with the process of US ratification. As of June 1962, the Genocide Convention had been ratified by sixty-five countries. Meanwhile the treaty had been “sitting in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee pigeonhole since 1950.” The State Department identified as the core problem “irrational Southern opposition to signing anything that deals with race relations.” The problem was thus political and certainly not on the Administration’s priority list (doc. 217).



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

47

No. 195 US Secretary of State Dean Acheson Inquires with US Embassy in Tel Aviv on Israel’s Prompting Arab States to Comply with the Genocide Convention, April 1, 1949 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1945–49, 59/2186 (501.BD Genocide/4-149) April 1, 1949 Department of State Outgoing Telegram AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV NY Times March 31 carries story from Tel Aviv stating Ben Gurion March 30 informed Knesset that Israeli Delegation Lake Success instructed request UN inquiry whether Arab states complying with GA resolution outlawing genocide.1 PRIMMIN reportedly stated condition of many Jews in Arab states terrifying and QUOTE hinted that Israel was exerting pressure upon Arab states through American diplomats. UNQUOTE Pls comment ACHESON

No. 196 The US Embassy in Tel Aviv Comments on a Statement before the Israeli Parliament concerning Genocide, April 7, 1949 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1945–49, 59/2186 (501.BD Genocide/4-549) April 7, 1949 DEPARTMENT OF STATE INCOMING TELEGRAM Action: NEA Info: UNA USUN CIA DCR Control 2489 RESTRICTED Ben Gurion (1886–1963), Prime Minister of Israel from 1948 to 1963.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

48

From: Tel Aviv To: Secretary of State No: 261, April 5, 4 p.m. Answer DEPTEL 199 April 1, neither Prime Minister nor Sharett has at any time throughout asked or intimated desire US use pressure upon Arab states about alleged genocide.1 Gist of statement Knesset March 31 was to effect that after having discussed condition Jews in neighboring Arab States with people who have left these states, “we decided to act at present only through our representatives in the various capitals in Europe and America and especially our representative in UNO whom we instructed to investigate whether these countries which were accepted as members of the UNO as democratic and peaceful nations observe the charter of this organization, whether the conditions of their Jewish residents including previous and present relations with them, are in accordance with their membership in the UNO, and especially how far these countries, in particular Iraq and Syria, observe the last resolution, which was confirmed after prolonged deliberations, in the matter of the prohibition of genocide. What I can say to Knesset at present moment is that our representatives have been instructed to raise this question at the proper time and especially after Israel shall have been accepted as a member of the UNO.” MCDONALD

No. 197 President of the Indiana Council of Church Women Shares with US State Secretary Dean Acheson Her Concerns about Prospective US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 12, 1949 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1945–49, 59/2186 (501.BD Genocide/6-1249) June 12, 1949 Mr. Dean Acheson Secretary of State Dear Mr. Acheson: Christian people are expected to be in favor of the ratification of the Genocide Convention. However, I have just read “The Debate on Genocide” in the June issue of “The United Nations News” written by Frank E. Holman.2 He says, “An examination of the…so called international Bill of rights discloses an extraordinary scheme for world collectivism…The proposal to implement the Moshe Sharett (1894–1965), Foreign Minister of Israel from 1948 to 1956. Frank E. Holman (1886–1967), president of the American Bar Association in 1948–49.

1 2



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

49

provisions of the covenant by and thru an International Court on Human Relations is most revolutionary and will inevitably result in an interference with the domestic law and policy of member states, and hence result in international frictions.” He states also that private citizens, public officials, cities, countries and states in this country may be complained against not only by individuals and pressure groups in the U.S. but by individuals and pressure groups in Russia, or any other country, and tried for punishment. This could have far reaching, and very troublesome results. Will the genocide pact, if ratified, supersede every city ordinance, county ordinance, every state law and state constitution? Is the Congress trying to push ratification of this pact through hurriedly – and if so, why? May I please have an answer to these questions, as these are the ones now being asked of me. Very sincerely, (Mrs. H. I.) [signed] Hezel W. Rudduck

No. 198 US President Harry S. Truman Seeks Senate Approval of the Genocide Convention, June 16, 1949 NA, F.O. 371/78849 June 16, 1949 HOLD FOR RELEASE CONFIDENTIAL To be held in STRICT CONFIDENCE and no portion, synopsis or intimation to be given out or published until the READING of the President’s Message has begun in the Senate. Extreme care must therefore be exercised to avoid premature publication. CHARLES G. ROSS Secretary to the President *** TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a certified copy of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris on December 9, 1948, and signed on behalf of the United States on December 11, 1948. The character of the Convention is explained in the enclosed report of the Acting Secretary of State. I endorse the recommendations of the Acting Secretary of State

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

50

in his report and urge that the Senate advise and consent to my ratification of this Convention. In my letter of February 5, 1947, transmitting to the Congress my first annual report on the activities of the United Nations therein, I pointed out that one of the important achievements of the General Assembly’s First Session was the agreement of the Members of the United Nations that genocide constitutes a crime under international law. I also emphasized that America has long been a symbol of freedom and democratic progress to peoples less favored than we have been and that we must maintain their belief in us by our policies and our acts. By the leading part the United States has taken in the United Nations in producing an effective international legal instrument outlawing the world-shocking crime of genocide, we have established before the world our firm and clear policy toward that crime. By giving its advice and consent to my ratification of this Convention, which I urge, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate that the United States is prepared to take effective action on its part to contribute to the establishment of principles of law and justice. HARRY s. TRUMAN THE WHITE HOUSE, June 16, 1949

No. 199 American Bar Association Opposed to the Genocide Convention, September 15, 1949 AJHS, P-154/2/10 September 15, 1949 Fox & Orlov Attorneys at Law 206 Barristers Hall Boston 8, Mass Mrs. Jean K. Landon 25 High Street Springfield, Mass Dear Jean: I received you note of Tuesday and the editorial on “Outlaw and Genocide”.1 I don’t think it is so much a matter of educating the American Bar Association as it is a matter of educating the public. The American Bar Association is not against outlawing Genocide. It so happens that our Constitution, which is occasionally William M. Blair, “Bar Group Rejects U.N. Genocide Plan,” New York Times, September 9, 1949.

1



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

51

enforced by the Supreme Court of the United States, provides in substance that treaties constitute the supreme law of the land once they are adopted, and the Bar Association has a very real apprehension lest the proposed Genocide Convention, being a treaty, shall supercede the Constitution of the United States in the area that it deals with, thus carrying with it certain consequences in the vesting of jurisdiction over the United States courts and United States citizens in other tribunals which could well have an effect far beyond that sought to be attained through the Convention. I will try to get a copy of the Committee’s Report to the American Bar Association, and I think if you would read it fairly you would come to the conclusion that they were right. Love, Myer [Orlov] Dear Mr. Lemkin, this is from my brother-in-law, Mr. Orlov.

No. 200 Jewish Labor Committee Communicates to Senator Brien MacMahon Its Support for the Genocide Convention, January 16, 1950 WAG, 232/2/69, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee January 16, 1950 Senator Brien McMahon, Chairman Sub-Committee Foreign Relations Committee Dear Sir: The Jewish Labor Committee, with an aggregate membership of half a million Jewish trade unionists affiliated with both the A. F. of L. and the C.I.O., wish to express to you the viewpoint of the working Jewish masses in this country concerning the Genocide Convention now in deliberation before your Sub-Committee. The Jewish people, during the many centuries of their existence, have borne sufferings without end. Again and again they were singled out for persecution and even annihilation by tyrannical governments oppressing their own people and seeking to cover up the crimes against their people by crimes against humanity, committed against the Jewish minority. Now were the Jews the only minority in their unfortunate position. There have been other peoples in history in history who suffered similar barbarian treatment and even extermination, on a lesser scale. The catastrophe which the tyrannical Nazi regime loosened on humanity is sufficient proof that there can be no hope for an enduring peace unless the elementary rights of men are protected by the world organization of the peace-loving nations. The Jewish Labor Committee welcomes the Genocide Convention as the first international law to protect the most sacred right of helpless minority groups in all

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

52

countries, their right to live as human beings. The solemn obligation of the United Nations to punish genocide and to prevent mass murder and destruction of minority groups must be the answer of the civilized world to the Nazi gas chambers, the promise that it will never happen again. The United States government assumed world leadership in the General Assembly of the United Nations in furthering the adoption of the Convention on Genocide. We now consider it to be the moral duty of the United States Senate to complete this honorable task by ratifying this Convention. May we express our earnest hope that your Committee will reach the conclusion to recommend to the United States Senate the ratification of the Genocide Convention. Sincerely yours, JEWISH LABOR COMMITTEE Adolph Held, Chairman

No. 201 The Word Genocide Entered in Webster’s Dictionary, February 15, 1950 NYPL, ZL-273/1 February 15, 1950

G. & C. Merriam Company

Mrs. Elizabeth Nowinski 2480 Sixteenth Street Washington 9, D.C. Dear Mrs. Nowinski: Thank you for your letter which we received on February 13. We are glad of an opportunity to tell you that the word genocide is entered in the 1950 Addenda Section of Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition. This entry is on page six and reads as follows: gen´o-cide (jēn´ō·sīd), n. [Gr. Genos race + -cide.] The use of deliberate, systematic measures such as killing, bodily or mental injury, unlivable conditions, prevention of births, calculated to bring about the extermination of a racial, political, or cultural group or to destroy the language, religion, or culture of a group. -gen´o·cid´al (-sīd´āl; -‘l;..), adj.

This word is also entered and defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, although the definition is, of necessity, a shorter one. Very truly yours, G. & C. MERRIAM COMPANY



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

53

No. 202 American Jewish Congress Sees to It That US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Keeps Receiving Mail in support of the Genocide Convention, May 18, 1951 AJA, 60/2/8, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio at americanjewisharchives.org May 18, 1951 American Jewish Congress Memorandum From: Will Maslow To: Gerald Berlin Senator Lodge of Massachusetts recently told Lemkin that he was getting very little mail from New England on the Genocide Convention. It is important that he continue to get such mail, particularly thoughtful and intelligent letters. Can you see that he receives such mail? He does not have to get a bunch in one day. In fact, it would be better that it is spaced out so that he gets five or ten letters a day. Please let me know how successful you are with this project.

No. 203 Attorney Stuart Chevalier Inquires with the Office of the US Attorney General about Legal Challenges to the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights, February 21, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 February 21, 1952 MILLER, CHEVALIER, PEELER & WILSON P 819 TITLE INSURANCE BUILDING Y LOS ANGELES 13, CALIFORNIA To the Office of The Attorney-General, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. McGrath: I have been asked by the American Association for the United Nations to prepare a memorandum in answer to the frequent criticism that the proposed Genocide

54

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Treaty and the Covenant of Human Rights, if adopted by this country, would be in contravention of our own civil rights under the provisions of the Constitution that treaties are the supreme law of the land. I am interested particularly in knowing whether the Department of Justice or the Attorney-General’s Office is taking any steps to appeal or otherwise contest the Fujii case in California holding that the United Nations Charter overrides local laws in this state.1 Also, I would like to know whether you have any brief or other document that would meet the argument by Senator Bricker, of Ohio, that the United Nations treaties are a threat to the freedom of the American people. You may recall a group of Senators proposing that we amend the constitutional provision dealing with the effect of treaties. I would consider it a very great favor, therefore, if you would send me any literature available in your office pertaining to the above, and I would be glad to meet any expense involved. It is very important that I get this material as soon as possible, as the Association is hoping to publish some document to meet these quite widely prevalent criticisms. Senator Bricker’s Resolution (Senate Resolution #177) introduced in July 1951 is directed particularly against the Covenant on Human Rights and I personally feel it grows out of a misconception as to what we are able to do in adopting such a covenant to protect our own rights, if they are in any way endangered thereby. I am enclosing a pamphlet which I wrote and which on page 29 discusses some phases of this subject. Yours very truly, (signed) Stuart Chevalier2 (Enclosure)

No. 204 Jewish Labor Committee Capitalizes on the Commemoration of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to Urge US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 25, 1952 WAG, 232/2/69, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee March 25, 1952 Philip Murray, President Congress of Industrial Organizations The 1952 California Supreme Court case Fujii v. California struck down state’s Alien Land Act, which barred Japanese and other Asian aliens “ineligible to citizenship” from owing land. See also doc. no. 294. 2 See also doc. no. 294, reply to Stuart Chevailer dated March 6, 1952. 1



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

55

Dear President Murray: On April 19th, the Jewish Labor Committee will commemorate the anniversary of the massacre in the Warsaw Ghetto, where thousands upon thousands of Jewish men, women and children were killed in defense of their human rights, their homes and their city. In connection with their commemoration, we aim to emphasize the need for the ratification of the Genocide Convention on the part of the United States.1 In as much as the United States was one of the governments that fostered the idea of a Genocide Convention, and thirty-five countries have already ratified it, we deem it essential that our reputation and sincerity be upheld and demonstrated. The CIO has already expressed itself in favor of ratification of the Genocide Convention. We would, however, appreciate a message from you as president of your organization, on the occasion of our memorial meeting for the martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto, reiterating your support of the Genocide Convention. Our members and friends, who are part of organized labor, will appreciate hearing the leader of their movement voice the ideals of humanity and justice traditionally espoused by the trade unions and their philosophy. It is our feeling that it will be of great help also in reminding the American public of the importance of the international treaty which will prevent a recurrence of such tragedies. Your kind consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated. Fraternally and sincerely yours, ADOLF HELD, Chairman Jewish Labor Committee

No. 205 The House of Commons of Canada Approves the Genocide Convention, Chides the Great Powers for not Ratifying the Treaty, May 26, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/5-2652) May 26, 1952 UNCLASSIFIED FOREIGN SERVICE DISPATCH From: AMEMBASSY, OTTAWA To: THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON Subject: GENOCIDE CONVENTION APPROVED BY HOUSE OF COMMONS On May 21, 1952 the House of Commons approved the genocide convention which was prepared by the United Nations and signed by Canada on November 28, 1949. The motion was moved by External Affairs Minister Pearson: See also doc. nos. 190, 216.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

56

“That is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as signed by Canada on November 28, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.” Discussion on the motion centered around three themes: a) the motion has no enforcing provision, b) all countries should ratify it without reservations, and c) the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain countries are today flagrant examples of countries where genocide is still being committed. Mr. Alistair Stewart, CCF member from Winnipeg North, emphasized the first two points by saying, “There are no teeth in this legislation by which we could make it operative, but at least it is a start to something better,” and later, “It must be ratified by all countries in the world…without any reservation whatsoever. Meanwhile those who refuse to ratify this convention must stand condemned by the world.” Mr. Gordon Graydon, Progressive Conservative member from Peel, commented: “…Strangely enough, the three so-called leading powers in the world have not so far become actual ratifying parties to the convention – the United States…the United Kingdom…the Soviet Union…in ratifying and signing the convention put in so many joker clauses…that it is not of great importance so far as that nation is concerned today.” External Affairs Minister Pearson cited the genocide convention as “possibly the most important source of international criminal law which has developed since the last war.” He gave an explanation of the convention, emphasizing that it was not aimed at discrimination but at mass destruction or the intention to commit mass destruction, and further emphasizing that no Canadian legislation would be required to implement the convention within Canada. The motion was passed unanimously and is expected to pass the Senate without difficulty. For the Charge d’Affaires a. i. George S. Vest Second Secretary of Embassy

No. 206 The US State Department Favors US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 2, 1953 NARA, DoS General Records, Files of Durwald V. Sandifer, 59/55D429/8 March 2, 1953 To: The Secretary Through: S/S From: L – Mr. Phleger UNA – Mr. Hickerson Subject: Proposed United States Position on the Genocide Convention



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

57

In response to your request, we have re-examined the issue relating to the Genocide Convention and have prepared the attached outline of points for your consideration. As this outline indicates, the various considerations involved heavily favor our support of United States ratification of this convention. There are certain legal difficulties to be overcome, but we feel they can be overcome in various ways as outlined. All foreign policy considerations make United States ratification highly desirable. Your attention is particularly called to the language of the resolution adopted by the Senate on February 27, 1953 condemning the current persecutions of religious and ethnic groups by the Soviet bloc and requesting the President to protest these outrages in the United Nations. Attachments: Outline1 *  * * SENATE RESOLUTION OF FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1953  ADOPTED 79-0 “Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate of the United States that the vicious and inhuman campaigns conducted by the Soviet Government and its puppet governments in satellite states in Europe and Asia against minority groups, such as the persecution of Greek Orthodox congregations, the imprisonment of Roman Catholic prelates, the harassment of Protestant denominations, the suppression of Moslem communities, the persecution and scattering of ethnic groups in Poland, in the Ukraine, in the Baltic and Balkan states and in many other areas under Soviet domination, and most recently the increasing persecution of the people of the Jewish faith deserve the strongest condemnation by all peoples who believe that spiritual values ate the bases of human progress and freedom. Resolved further, that the President of the United States is hereby urged to take appropriate steps to protest particularly in the General Assembly of the United Nations, against these outrages in order that the United Nations shall take such action in opposition to them as may be suitable under its Charter.”

No. 207 John D. Hickerson Prepares a Memorandum for the US Secretary of State Outlining the Current Position of the United States on the Genocide Convention, March 10, 1953 NARA, DoS General Records, Files of Durwald V. Sandifer, 59/55D429/8 March 10, 1953

The outline advocated for US ratification as an extension of its policy denouncing Soviet oppression.

1

58

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

To: The Secretary Through: S/S From: UNA – Mr. Hickerson Subject: Proposed United States Position on the Genocide Convention In response to the request in Mr. O’Connor’s memorandum of February 25, the issues relating to the Genocide Convention have been re-examined jointly by the staff of this Bureau and the Legal Adviser Office and the attached outline has been prepared for your consideration. As to tactics, I agree with the position in Mr. Phleger’s separate memorandum that it would be advisable for the President to withhold a message to the Senate recommending that the Senate advise and consent to this convention until after the current consideration of the Bricker Constitutional amendment. From the standpoint of United States participation in the United Nations it is desirable for the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention, particularly in the light of the following factors: 1. The Convention states a laudable objective and enjoys strong popular support in the United Nations. It is becoming increasingly difficult to explain satisfactorily our reluctance to accept the limited obligations of this Convention. 2. Ratification of the Convention would be in line with the policy of seeking desirable affirmative alternatives to the Human Rights Covenants. Support of the Genocide Convention at the time that we modify our policy on the Human Rights Covenants would strengthen our Human Rights position both practically and morally. 3. It is difficult for us to exploit the possibilities of the Genocide Convention in terms of propaganda and psychological warfare unless we have ratified it. For example, in 1952 a large number of Congressmen urged the Department to press charges of genocide in the United Nations in connection with the investigation and report of the Katyn Massacre.1 It is expected that the genocidal practices of the Soviet Government will be the subject of condemnation in the debate in the current session of the General Assembly, particularly in the Czech item on the Kersten amendment.2 Attachment: Outline on Genocide Convention3

The Katyn massacre refers to mass executions of the 14,587 Polish officers by the NKVD in April 1940. The atrocity had been sanctioned by Stalin, yet the Soviets put the blame on the Germans. The Katyn massacre became a hot-button issue during the Cold War, culminating in the congressional hearings in 1951 and 1952. 2 US Representative Charles Kersten (R-WI) in 1951 sponsored an amendment, which directed the Congress to appropriate $100 million in annual support to anti-Soviet resistance in Eastern Europe. 3 Cf. doc. no. 210. 1



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

59

No. 208 Jewish Labor Committee Outlines a Program of Action on the Genocide Convention, March 17, 1953 WAG, 25/298/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee March 17, 1953 Mr. Jacob Pat Executive Director Jewish Labor Committee Dear Friend Pat: I should like to suggest the following as an outline for our program on the Genocide Pact. It is possible that some of these things have already been done, but as part of a larger program they will take on more meaning than at present. 1. Issue a leaflet on Genocide with the imprint of the Jewish Labor Committee. 2. Draw up a resolution for ratification of the Genocide Convention which can be recommended for adoption at all labor and Jewish conventions. 3. Make the Genocide ratification part of the program of combatting Soviet anti-semitism. 4. Propose a more intensive Genocide ratification program at the NCRAC. 5. Issue a project for the formation of local community conferences on behalf of ratification. Have the J.L.C., W.C., and trade unions sponsor such conferences and be identified as the leaders and initiators of this work. Include mention of the Genocide program in all publications and new materials issued by the J.L.C. 6. Draw up a petition from which can be used by organizations and communities for gathering signatures. 7. Work towards the organization of Committees for the Ratification of the Genocide Convention – in the AFL, CIO, cities and states. Thus, the AFL Committee for the Ratification the Genocide Convention. 8. Keep a tally of Senators who agree to vote for ratification, and publicize each who will agree to such publicity. Thus, “Senator X declared he will vote for Genocide ratification in a reply to a letter sent him by the Jewish Labor Committee, etc.” 9. Use the movies, records, and literature available from the U.S. on this subject. 10. Assign the administrative handling and promotion of this work to a staff member or a department of the J.L.C. 11. Emphasis on this work can effectively be made among the English-speaking branches of the Workmen’s Circle and the Women Division groups of the J.L.C. Your suggestion that this program be recommended at the Atlantic City Conference of the J.L.C. is a very good one. After we have talked it over further, I believe that Jack Zuckerman will be well enough to make such a recommendation in Atlantic City. Fraternally yours, William Stern, Director E-S [English Speaking] Division [of the Workmen’s Circle]

60

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 209 National Community Relations Advisory Council (NCRAC) Deplores the Announcement by US State Secretary John Foster Dulles That the Administration Will Not Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 3, 1953 WAG, 232/298/36, courtesy of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs June 3, 1953 National Community Relations Advisory Council MEMORANDUM To: Will Maslow, Rabbi Eugene Lipman, Harry Blake, Rabbi Morris Dembowitz, George Silver, Victor Seller From: Albert Vorspan Subject: Genocide Convention Enclosed is a  draft statement which was considered by the NCRAC Executive Committee at its last meeting. The Executive Committee authorized the issuance of a statement along these lines, deploring the announcement by Secretary of State that the Administration will not press for Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention. Because of subsequent tactical differences as to whether the statement should or should not also refer to the Administration’s reversal on the Covenant on Human Rights, the statement was not issued. However, Will Maslow of the AJ Congress has now suggested re-consideration of this matter in view of the fact that the published testimony of Dulles does not completely shut the door on the Genocide Convention (as it does on the Human Rights Covenant). The following is the excerpt from testimony by Secretary Dulles on April 6, 1953: “Senator Bricker: You favour, then, the ratification of the Genocide Treaty? Secretary Dulles: I have some doubt as to whether in the view of the events that have intervened the Genocide Treaty is going to accomplish the purposes which are in the minds of those who drafted it. The Soviet Union and its satellites have either refused to ratify or ratified it with serious reservations. I believe that the solution of the problem which must be envisaged by that treaty could better be reconsidered at a later date. I would not press at the moment for its ratification.” In view of the above, it has been suggested that the attached statement should be issued without further delay. Please let me have your comments and suggestions by telephone tomorrow. *** DRAFT NCRAC STATEMENT RE: GENOCIDE The six national agencies and 28 Jewish community councils associated in the NCRAC deplore Secretary of State Dulles’ recent announcement that the Administration will not press for Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention, which defines as an international crime the destruction of any racial, religious or ethnic group.



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

61

The people of the world have long looked to the United States for action on this great humanitarian issue, the objectives of which are in keeping with the spirit of our great Bill of Rights and the Judeo-Christian concept of the sanctity of human life, especially since originally we assumed vigorous and inspiring leadership on the Genocide Convention. As Jewish organizations, we are, of course, particularly moved by the fresh memory of the destruction of millions of our fellow Jews as a result of Nazi genocide. It has shocked many smaller nations that, despite the fact that the United States signed this important document when it was adopted by the U. N. in 1948, the Convention has been before our Senate for five years without having been acted on, delayed by the bitter opposition of the isolationist diehards. Now, we are told that efforts to secure ratification are to be abandoned altogether. Our failure to adopt the Genocide Convention contrasts strangely with the almost universal acceptance of the Convention not only at home but abroad as well. In the United States leaders of religious, ethnic, and civic groups, representing millions of constituents, have urged its acceptance. Abroad, the Convention has already been adopted by fortythree nations, and would be ratified by many more were the United States to take positive action. It is a tragic irony that efforts to obtain ratification of the Genocide Convention should be abandoned now when so many of the captive peoples of the world are threatened by Soviet tyranny. Our failure to ratify can lead only to a cynical questioning of our support of international cooperation as an instrument of justice and morality. We urge the administration to reverse the position which it has expressed and to press for early ratification by the Senate of the Genocide Convention, and we pledge our unremitting support of Senate action to ratify the Genocide Convention.

No. 210 The British Foreign Office Seeks Information on US Government’s Position on the Genocide Convention, June 16, 1953 NA, F.O. 371/107080/UP254/9 June 16, 1953 To British Embassy in Washington RESTRICTED Dear Chancery, The question of United Kingdom accession to the United Nations International Convention on Genocide will shortly come up for decision by Ministers. A point that may be raised is the attitude of the United States Government. We should accordingly be glad of an early note on the present ideas of the United States Government in so far as they are known to you. Yours ever, UNITED NATIONS (POLITICAL) DEPARTMENT See now UP 254/111 See doc. no. 214.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

62

No. 211 The British Embassy in Washington, D.C. Predicts No Further Action on the Genocide Convention by the American Administration or by Congress, June 24, 1953 NA, F.O. 371/107080/UP254/11 June 24, 1953 From British Embassy in Washington AIR BAG CONFIDENTIAL 1730/45/53 Dear Department, Thank you for your letter (UP 254/9) of June 16 asking about the attitude of the United States Government towards the United Nations International Convention on Genocide. 2.  As you know, the United States have already signed the Convention. The attitude of the present Administration remains as outlined under the heading “The Present Trend” on pages 2 and 3 of Mr. Dulles’ statement of April 6, 1953, enclosed with our letter of April 16 to Economic and Social Department US1731/52. In other words, no further move is likely to be made by the Administration or by Congress towards ratification of the Convention. Yours ever, M. A. Wenner

No. 212 Senator Joseph McCarthy Commended on His Crusade against the US State Department, Allegedly in Conspiracy to Kill the Genocide Convention, July 5, 1953 NYPL, ZL-273/4 July 5, 1953 Senator Joseph McCarthy Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: May I suggest for your consideration the necessity for prompt ratification of the Genocide Convention which has been before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years.



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

63

Our Nation was instrumental in preparing the draft; in fact it was prepared by a Yale Professor – not a Harvard Professor. It has been actively opposed by such outstanding American patriots as Dean Acheson, Francis Biddle and Roger Baldwin. They profess abhorrence of the use of genocide. None would doubt their sincerity; but why should you and me be recognized by members of the 41 ratifying nations as balancing in a class with the citizens of Russia and Great Britain, two of the other nations which have abstained from ratification. I am reliably informed that Tom Connally disliked the Convention. He pocketed it. Now Mr. Dulles has a new look on international agreements. A group of lawyers conceived the idea that while genocide should be outlawed in time of war, its use in time of peace is a matter to be decided within the borders of nations, and should not be meddled with by us or other nations. Acheson, Biddle and Dulles seem to have accepted that position. Roger Baldwin wanted genocide tied up with other human rights provisions in a more general convention. Judging from Dulles’ comments on his statement of April 6th, he considers genocide as on parity with right of women to hold political office. He believed in the equality of women, but would consider it an interference with the rights of Hottentots if we demanded that their governments treat women as we do here in America. But he seems to forget that Genocide has won the universal approval of the peoples of most nations. The willingness of our State Department to cooperate with Russia and Britain in the continuance of the barbarous practice of genocide would seem to be only another evidence of the inability of the bureaucrats in the State Department to sense sentiment for the abolition of Genocide in both peace and war. It is my impression that 95% of our people would outlaw it, and even if Dulles opposes the Bricker plan for reasons which seem to impress most with their wisdom, the preponderant public morality supports the convention, which Tom Connally held in his pocket, and which Acheson & Dulles wish to kill. It would seem, that any opportunity to show the nation more civilized than Russia and Britain would appeal to the administration, and your own interest in correcting the mess in the State Department arising out of policies adopted by Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, or any other President, has moved on to solicit your help in securing ratification. All the convention needs is the approval of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a two third vote from the Senate. Since no Senator is likely to make [?] the citizens of his State to believe he favors the use of Genocide either in his own State or other States or in any nation of the world. If there [will] be any senators who favor genocide the voters can take care of them at the next election at which they are candidates for reelection. I cannot believe that President Eisenhower would go along with Dulles on the reactionary position he takes with respect to the ratification of the Genocide Convention. However the Convention is before the Senate – and any interference from the White House or the State Department would be interference with the legislative function by the executive. The fact that Acheson, Baldwin, Biddle and Dulles are and have been ringleaders in sabotaging this convention will appeal to you I am sure, and I venture to express the profound hope that you will be able to convince your associates in the 96 club that our

64

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

State Department under the Acheson-Dulles regimes has not been very enlightened in the position which it has taken.1 Sincerely yours, Robert Gray Taylor2

No. 213 West Wuichet of California Chides the US State Department in the face of John Foster Dulles for Its “Double Talk” on US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 22, 1953 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/10-2253) October 22, 1953 WUICHET LUMBER CO. 373 HAWTHORNE AVENUE LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA J. Foster Dulles Secretary of State Washington, D.C. Sir: On April 6th of this year, you appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and stated among other things that the administration does not intend “to become a party” to any Covenant on Human Rights “or present it as a treaty for the consideration of the Senate.” You also indicated that the administration would not press for ratification of the Genocide Convention. These few words comprised, and were accepted as, a commitment unto the people of the United States. Your own views with respect these issues are known, – too well known, – going back to ’49 when you berated the Bar Ass’n for opposing the ratification of the Genocide Pact. You are personally aware that one &/or both would for all time deprive the people of this country of the freedoms and way-of-life they have long enjoyed as citizens of this once grand Republic as their inalienable rights under their Constitution. You are aware of these things because you have perhaps contrived much of this one-world take-over yourself, or at least sat in to some extent on its development, – so it should not be necessary to go into further detail. You also know that our representative, also the designate of the State Dep’t, one Archibald Carey, on the legal committee of the United Nations on October 9th voted The “96 club” alludes to the members of the US Senate. Robert Gray Taylor was a Media, Pennsylvania resident and a crusader for the United Nations. In 1945–46 he unsuccessfully vied for the world organization to establish its headquarters near the city of Philadelphia.

1 2



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

65

TO SUPPORT a six-nation resolution calling for quick world ratification of this same Genocide Pact, the idea being presumably to “sweat” the nation into it, against their will and better judgment. In view of your commitment on April 6th before the Senate committee, this for the record is a flagrant violation of your said commitment to the people of the United States. May I ask, sir, on just whose authority Mr. Carey so voted? He could not have voted for this without some authorization? If you authorized it, the people should know it. If someone, anyone, above you so authorized or directed it, the people should also know about it. And by what right did you or that other person or other small group figure they had any right to so commit the people of this country before the world? There can not be more than 1/100 of one (1%) percent of the people who know a thing about this issue; how thus can but a few and only appointive officials, make such decisions for them? Please advise, and without all the double-talk that I have at times seen emanate from your department. West Wuichet

No. 214 Howard A. Cook of the US State Department Explicates Dulles’s Statement re. the Genocide Convention in Reply to Katharine Engel of the National Council of Jewish Women, December 7, 1953 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 December 7 1953 In reply refer to SEV 340.1AJ/11-653 Mrs. Irving M. Engel, President National Council of Jewish Women, Inc. One West Forty-Seven Street New York 36, New York My dear Mrs. Engel: Secretary Dulles has asked me to reply to your letter of November 6.1 We appreciate the continuing interest of the National Council of Jewish Women in the Genocide Convention, and wish to thank you for sending us a re-statement of its views on this question. The general position of the Administration was explained in the Secretary’s statement before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate on April 6, 1953 Document not in the file.

1

66

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

regarding the proposed amendment (Senate Joint Resolution No. 1) to limit the treaty making power of the President. During the discussion which followed, the Secretary stated in reply to a question by Senator Bricker that he would not press at the moment for the ratification of the Genocide Convention. I am enclosing a copy of the Secretary’s statement and also his reply to Senator Bricker’s question.1 As Ambassador Lodge explained in the United Nations General Assembly on November 3, the United States voted for the resolution on the Genocide Convention as the best way of showing that our nation abhors the crime of genocide. Ambassador Lodge, as you know, also indicated that our support of this resolution involved no commitment with respect to ratification of the Genocide Convention by our Government. Sincerely yours, Howard A. Cook Chief Public Services Division Enclosures: As stated

No. 215 Howard A. Cook of the US State Department Explicates the Decision of the US Government Not to Press for Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Reply to Ilmar Heinaru of the Baltic Nations Committee of Detroit, August 3, 1954 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 August 3, 1954 In reply refer to SEV 340.1-AJ/6-1354 Mr. Ilmar Heinaru, Chairman, The Baltic Nations Committee of Detroit, 18446 Greenview Road, Detroit 19, Michigan. Dear Mr. Heinaru: I trust you will excuse this delay in replying to your letter of June 13 to Secretary Dulles on behalf of the Baltic Nations Committee of Detroit.2 Your similar letter to the See doc. nos. 209, 212. The letter of June 13, 1954 conveyed the resolution passed in Detroit in connection with the commemoration of victims of the 1941 Soviet mass deportation. The resolution condemned Soviet “deportations and exterminations of whole ethnic groups” as genocide and urged US ratification of the Genocide Convention.

1 2



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

67

President has been referred to us for acknowledgement. Your interest in informing this Government of the resolutions adopted by your Committee at its gathering on June 13 is appreciated. Our Government has decided not to press at the moment for ratification of the Genocide Convention, nor to sign or seek ratification of the proposed Covenants on Human Rights. This decision was made after careful consideration had been given by the United States Government of how best to promote the human rights goals of the United Nations. It was our conclusions that these goals can be advanced most effectively at this time by specific action programs rather than by the treaty-making process. Material is enclosed which explains our position on this matter. Sincerely yours, Howard A. Cook Chief Public Services Division Enclosures: Selected material1

No. 216 United Warsaw Ghetto Memorial Committee Urges US President John F. Kennedy to Act on Genocide Convention, April 29, 1962 NARA, DoS, Central Decimal File, 1960–1963, 59/570 April 29, 1962 President John F. Kennedy White House Dear Mr. President: 225 people, meeting today at the Bradford Hotel, Boston, Mass., to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, unanimously passed the following: Whereas, six million of our fellow Jews were tortured and killed by the Nazis during World War II. And whereas, we view with great apprehension the emergence of an American Nazi Party, patterned after Hitler’s creed, and boastfully proclaiming that when in power Jews will be herded into concentration camps and destroyed in gas vans.2

Documents not in the file. The American Nazi Party, with headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, was founded in 1959 by George L. Rockwell. In the wake of Rockwell’s assassination in 1967 several splinter groups continued using the name “American Nazi Party.” For a detailed analysis of American far right organizations see doc. no. 412.

1 2

68

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

And whereas, many other hate groups such as the John Birch Society, the Minute Men, the Hargis group, are preaching race hatred and discrimination against Jews and Negroes; all of which agitation is similar to that which occurred at the beginning of the Nazi era in Germany, and could lead to the same results in our country. We therefore respectfully urge you to apply appropriate measures to halt this disturbing trend toward Nazism, which constitutes a great threat not only to the Jewish people, but to all minority groups, and eventually to all Americans. We are cognizant of the fact that the right of free speech is an integral part of our American democracy, and we concur that there should be free speech. However, we cannot believe that free speech means freedom to incite to kill, to destroy peoples, and democratic institutions. If we allow that, and Nazism should come to our country in full force, as it may if unchecked, then we would share the same guilt that the people of Germany shared in allowing Nazism to come to power. The Genocide Convention, which was adopted by the United Nations, provides in its article III “for punishment for direct public incitement to commit genocide.” Although 70 States have ratified this Convention, the United States has not. In the name of our six million murdered Jews, we ask you to help prevent further genocide by ratifying the Genocide Convention, and enforcing its provision to halt Nazism. Respectfully yours, UNITED WARSAW GHETTO MEMORIAL COMMITTEE Myer Klarfeld, Chairman

No. 217 The US State Department Expresses Exasperation with the Process of Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 4, 1962 NARA, DoS, Central Decimal File, 1960–1963, 59/570 (344.1/6–462) June 4, 1962 Department of State Office of the President’s Special Representative To: Chet [Chester B. Bowles?] From: Phil [Philips Talbot?] Subject: Genocide Convention 1.  As you know, this has been sitting in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee pigeonhole since 1950. 2.  In the meantime, it has been ratified by 65 other countries, including the Soviet Union, although they cut the guts of the thing out with a reservation. 3.  The core of the problem is irrational Southern opposition to signing anything that deals with race relations.



The United States Delays Action on the Genocide Convention, 1949–62

69

4.  The problem therefore is purely political. It was and is not high on the Administration’s priority list with the result that it keeps getting put off. 5.  H [?] is leery about even saying that it’s up to the Foreign Relations Committee to act. When that was done Fulbright responded with assertions that Administration pressure was needed to assure passage. No one wants to make life tougher for Fulbright at this time. 6.  The result is that Mr. Shecter, who has written to just about everybody in Washington on this subject, is quite right. We are dragging out feet.

70

VIII

The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52 (nos. 218–235)

One other issue that made the British and the Americans pause was reservations to the Genocide Convention. The offending party was the Soviet Union. On December 16, 1949, the USSR signed the convention, but with reservations to Article IX and Article XII (doc. 218). As expressed repeatedly during the 1947–48 debates in the United Nations, the Soviet Union rejected the provision, according to which all disputes concerning the interpretation, application, and implementation of the Genocide Convention should be referred to the ICJ. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union insisted that the convention should automatically extend to non–selfgoverning territories, including trust territories. Czechoslovakia followed suit a few months later, using the exact same argumentation and taking a swing at “states, including their colonial possessions which needed it most” (doc. 221). The reference to the United Kingdom was unmistakable. The UK delegation to the United Nations promptly reacted by emphasizing the dangers of a legal precedent thus created (doc. 219). By signing the Genocide Convention with reservations, the USSR had effectively nullified it. Basically, it was a bogus political move on the part of the Soviets, who could now claim they acted in good faith and dismiss the criticism as malevolent. The Foreign Office was struggling with the question whether to lodge an objection itself or to delegate it to a former dominion such as Australia or New Zealand (docs. 220, 222). Despite the status of a non-signatory, the United Kingdom could, and should, point out that, unless all parties to the Genocide Convention accepted the reservations, they remained invalid. True, it might also look like as if the United Kingdom was “merely using the Soviet reservations as a pretext for non-accession.” Taking cues from the British, UN Secretary General Trygve Lie submitted to the General Assembly a proposal, according to which no state could file reservations to multilateral conventions without the consensus of all parties involved. This proposal, wrote Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to Stalin in September 1950, was absolutely unacceptable (doc. 223). In January 1951 the United Kingdom resolved to seek an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on reservations to multilateral conventions. An attempt to extend the Genocide Convention to non–self-governing territories was a part of the Soviet anticolonial propaganda, bluntly stated FO’s Gerald Fitzmaurice (doc.

72

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

224). The UK’s opinion was among the thirteen that the ICJ had received on the matter of reservations by March 1951. At that point, speculated a Soviet representative on the court, it was unsure which way the ICJ would go (doc. 225). The public hearings that began in The Hague on April 10 set out to answer the following legal question related specifically to the Genocide Convention: could the state that had filed a reservation be regarded as a party to the convention if its reservation is objected by other parties to the convention (doc. 226)? The ICJ issued its opinion on May 28, 1951. Passed by the narrow majority of 7:5 (with two judges, including the Soviet, absent), the advisory opinion was hailed by the Soviet Union, accepted by the United States, and criticized by the United Kingdom. In particular, the Foreign Office expressed its dissatisfaction with the ICJ’s position, according to which the reserving state could be regarded as a party insofar as the reservation was “compatible with the object and purpose of the convention” (docs. 227–28). Deciding on compatibility, however, was effectively left up to each individual party. Leaving aside how arbitrary that interpretation might be, the status on nonsignatories with regard to reservations remained undetermined. The question for the UK delegation was how to go about the “immense practical difficulty resulting from the advisory opinion of the court.” While stating that the ICJ had let the United Kingdom down, the Foreign Office recommended against capitalizing on the dissenting opinion in favor of deemphasizing the court ruling as such (doc. 229). Neither would it be wise for the United Kingdom to vote against the General Assembly resolution acknowledging the ICJ’s advisory opinion, due to the general practice to accept such opinions of the court. Besides, the entire issue of reservations to the Genocide Convention became less critical while the number of ratifications/accessions (without reservations) had meanwhile reached twenty and the convention, on January 12, 1951, officially came into force (doc. 230). The UK’s unease with regard to reservations was put to a test when Australia, in June 1952, commented on recent ratification of the Genocide Convention by Hungary. Responding to the request of the UN Secretary General, Australia stated that it objected to the reservations of Hungary, and earlier of the USSR, to Articles IX and XII, yet it did not regard them as incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention. In effect, the Genocide Convention entered into force between Australia and Hungary, sans those two articles (doc. 232). The Foreign Office regarded the position assumed by the Australian Government as perfectly reasonable and legitimate, yet regretted it had to make any statement at all. By means of its statement, Australia came to indirectly endorse the Soviet position vis-à-vis the colonial application clause and acquiesce to the situation in which a country became a party to the Genocide Convention without any danger of being taken before the ICJ if it violates the convention (doc. 233). As if to complicate matters further, in the light of the ICJ advisory opinion, the Home Office disagreed with the Foreign Office on the issue of filing an own reservation to the Genocide Convention. The Home Office thought UK accession was more likely had the government succeeded in safeguarding the right to grant asylum by means of a reservation to the provision concerning political offenses in Article VII (doc. 231). The Foreign Office found the proposal objectionable (docs. 234–35).



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

73

No. 218 UN Legal Department Informs That the Soviet Union Has Signed the Genocide Convention with Reservations, December 30, 1949 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (F.W. 340.IAJ/I-650) December 30, 1949 UNITED NATIONS Lake Success, New York C.N.170.1949.TREATIES CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER 1948  ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE SIGNATURE BY THE UNION OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS The Secretary of State Department of State Sir, I have the honour to inform you that on 16 December 1949 the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics signed, on behalf of his Government, the Convention of 9 December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide “with reservations regarding Articles IX and XII stated in the special procès-verbal drawn up on signature of the present Convention.” A certified copy of this procès-verbal is herewith attached. The present notification is made in accordance with Article XVII(a) of the Convention. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, For the Secretary-General, Ivan Kerno Assistant Secretary-General Legal Department * * * PROCES VERBAL OF SIGNATURE His Excellency Mr. A. S. Panyushkin, Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United States, prior to signing the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in the office of the Assistant Secretary-General

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

74

in charge of the Legal Department, at the Interim Headquarters of the United Nations, on Friday, 16 December 1949, made the following statement: “At the time of signing the present Convention the delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deems it essential to state the following: As regards Article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to the dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court’s jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision. As regards Article XII: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with Article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.” In witness whereof the present procès-verbal was drawn up. Done at Lake Success, New York, this 16th day of December 1949. (Signed) Dr. I. Kerno Assistant Secretary-General In charge of the Legal Department Translation by the Secretariat: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the U.S.S.R. to the United States of America (Signed) A. Panyushkin 16-12-49

No. 219 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Regards Soviet Signature under the Genocide Convention as Politically Expedient, Objects to Reservations, January 9, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88599/UP252/12 January 9, 1950 No. 23/7/50 (E) CONFIDENTIAL Dear Department, You will have already seen the notes from the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department to the Secretary of State about the signing of the Genocide



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

75

Convention by the U.S.S.R. (CN.170.1949 Treaties of December 30th), Byelorussia (CN.171), the Ukraine (CN.172) and Czechoslovakia (CN.180). (Our reference is 23/-/50(E) of January 3rd). All four Governments signed subject to two reservations which, even in the case of Czechoslovakia, were drafted in identical terms. 2. The Convention contains no provision for signature subject to reservation and it is consequently doubtful whether the four signatures have any validity. Quite apart from this the reservations themselves are not without interest. The reservations with regard to Article XII are clearly unilateral declarations which cannot affect the application of the principle of that Article to Parties to the Convention who might be concerned. If the four Governments had sincerely wished to question the Article they should presumably have made a request for revision of the Convention as provided for in Article XVI. The reservations with regard to Article IX are more interesting. You will have noticed that the four signatories have, by the use of the words “in each particular case” each made a unilateral declaration which might be interpreted either as a reservation in respect of cases affecting that signatory or as a statement of general application to any case between parties to the Convention. In any case the reservation would nullify the Convention entirely as between each of these four signatories and the other parties to the Convention and should therefore not be accepted, at any rate by the United Kingdom if it becomes a party. 3.  The signatures have no doubt been made, primarily if not solely, for political reasons. The Soviet Union especially would not like to be accused of not wishing to become a Party to this Convention. It remains to be seen whether the four Governments will attempt to ratify the Convention with their present reservations. From the propaganda point of view they would be able to maintain that they have duly signed the Convention and any counter-propaganda attempt to prove that their signatures were not valid would probably have little force since the main mass of people to which such propaganda is directed could hardly be expected to understand the finer points involved. It is doubtful whether many of them would even appreciate the distinction between signature and ratification. Probably the only opportunity there might be for showing up this Soviet attempt to circumvent the for them obviously inconvenient provisions of Article IX would be in the General Assembly. 4.  It is worth noting that Dr. Kerno in his notes has not even attempted to explain his action in accepting the signatures subject to reservations. This is certainly spineless if not irresponsible. 5.  It seems to us that this episode should not be allowed to pass unnoticed both as regards the legal aspect and the action of the Secretariat. Since His Majesty’s Government has not itself signed the Convention it would probably not be advisable for us to intervene but you may consider it worthwhile stimulating one of the signatories to do so, possibly Australia which has both signed and ratified the Convention. 6. With regard to His Majesty’s Government’s not yet having signed the Convention we feel we should bring the following considerations to your attention. Over forty members of the United Nations have now signed the Convention and five countries (Australia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Iceland and Norway) have ratified it. In the circumstances the fact that His Majesty’s Government has not yet signed will tend to become more and more noticeable and may well attract adverse comment.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

76

We have been asked more than once recently about our attitude to the Convention. We understand that there still are difficulties standing in the way of our signature. It would be useful if we could be informed of the present position and especially whether His Majesty’s Government might be expected to sign the Convention in the foreseeable future. An indication of the main obstacles to signature would be most useful to us. Even if the above information could not be used in reply to queries from other Delegations or the Secretariat we would nevertheless like to have it for our private information. Yours ever, DELEGATION

No. 220 British Foreign Office Officials Discuss How to Proceed with respect to Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention, February 8–May 1, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88599/UP252/16 Signature of the Genocide Convention by Slav states Encloses copy of a letter from Sir C. Day on the above and requests material for a reply1 (MINUTES) February 8, 1950 Delegation have also written to us about the Slav reservations see UP 252/12. I would be inclined to agree that we should take some action to avoid a precedent being created, and to show up this very bogus move by the Soviet bloc. New Zealand has signed the Convention which we have not, and it would therefore be far more convenient if they raised the matter to the S.G. Legal Advisors would be better qualified to say what would be the best procedure to adopt, but possibly it would be easier to write the S.G. and ask whether the reservations have been accepted by the other signatories and if not whether they are considered valid. The matter might be raised in principle later in the International Law Commission within the Sixth Committee for reference to the I.L.C. Mr. Fitzmaurice D. Hildyard * * *

In his letter to Richard Ormerod of the Commonwealth Relations Office from February 1, 1950, Cecil Day, External Affairs officer at the New Zealand High Commission, requested the opinion of the UK Government on the reservations to the Genocide Convention filed in December of the previous year by Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Belorussian SSR, and Ukrainian SSR.

1



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

77

February 12, 1950 We should certainly take action. We might perhaps approach the Australians and ask them whether they would be prepared to lodge an objection to the reservation made by the Slav powers. We ourselves could ask the Secretary General whether the reservations have been accepted by the other signatories. Would Mr. Fitzmaurice please advise? C.C. Parrott * * * February 14, 1950 We can object notwithstanding our non-signature. We can point out that according to the accepted rules, countries must either become or not become parties to the Convention as an integral whole and cannot at will select and specify particular parts by which they will not be bound. We can say there is a reservation of this kind attached to it. The Convention is no longer the instrument adopted by the GA in Dec. 1948 and for which we worked and we must reserve our position entirely as to the possibility of our signing it. G. G. Fitzmaurice * * * February 15, 1950 Would not a formal reservation as to signature encourage the lobbies to say that we have merely using the Soviet reservations as a pretext for non-accession? I wonder whether we could not merely imply that we must reconsider our position. If many other States support us as appears likely we shall be in a strong position vis a vis pressure to accede. D. Hildyard * * * March 28, 1950 Both Mr. Ormerod and Sir C. Day have been enquiring on the telephone how things were going. I have told them that we intend to lodge an objection, and that we will send them a copy of our official letter when it is ready. Sir C. Day has so informed his government. No interim reply is necessary. DH [David Hildyard] * * * May 1, 1950 C.R.O. have now sent our interim reply to Sir C. Day see UP 252/27.1 DH [David Hildyard]

Document not in the file.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

78

No. 221 Czechoslovak National Assembly Approves the Genocide Convention, March 1, 1950 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. IAJ/3-250) March 1, 1950 FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESTRICTED To: Department of State From: Praha 210 Subject: CZECHOSLOVAK NATIONAL ASSEMBLY APPROVES UN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF GENOCIDE In a plenary session of February 22, 1950, the National Assembly approved the international convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide adopted by the Third General Assembly of the United Nations. However objections to the text of the convention were reported in connection with the presentation of the subject by Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dr. Vladimir PROCHAZKA. In his report, Dr. Prochazka pointed out that “despite Soviet and Czechoslovak proposals, the organic connection between genocide and fascism and Nazism was not clearly expressed in the convention”. The rapporteur said that Czechoslovakia also objected to the rejection by the General Assembly of a Soviet proposal asking for the prohibition of organizations propagating racial, national or religious hatred or intolerance, and that Czechoslovakia insisted that “any dispute arising out of the convention be laid before the International Court only if all the parties to the dispute agreed with this step and that the convention be valid for the entire territory of signatory States including their colonial possessions which needed it most”. However, Dr. Prochazka concluded, “in spite of these objections, we considered the convention to constitute progress in international law”. The rapporteur in his speech, echoing old Soviet arguments, appears to have made the most of his opportunity, on the floor of the National Assembly, to emphasize Czechoslovakia’s agreement with the Soviet Union. His reference to colonial areas permitted him to cast a stone at a particularly favored target. Alexander Schnee Secretary of Embassy



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

79

No. 222 David H.T. Hildyard of the British Foreign Office Regards Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention as Complicating UK Accession, March 10, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88599/UP252/22 March 10, 1950 Parliamentary Question *18. Mr. Janner, – To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he intends to ask Parliament to ratify the United Nations Convention on Genocide [Monday 13th March.] The last question on the Genocide Convention was on October 19th when the Secretary of State replied that the implications of accession from the point of view of United Kingdom Law were being studied. After the question the Secretary of State gave instructions that the question should be discussed with the Home Office, and a decision reached in the near future. There are certain legal complications, however, especially over extradition and it proved impossible to come to any decision before the 31st December, the last day for signature of the Convention. Accession to the Convention after the 31st December 1949 is, of course, the equivalent of signature and ratification. But in the meantime there has been a new development, namely the signature of the Convention by the Soviet Union and three of the satellites, with various reservations that the Soviet Union and three of its satellites, when signing, made various reservations, in spite of the fact that the Convention makes no provision for reservations of any kind. The other States who might become parties to the Convention were not consulted, and the position under International Law is that unless they agree to the reservations expressly, or tacitly by making no objection within a reasonable time, the reservations cannot be regarded as effective valid. The question as to whether H.M. Government should lodge an objection has been under consideration, and it would is probable that an official communication will be sent to the Secretary-General setting out the legal position as we see it, and reserving our position as to the possibility of accession to the Convention. 2.  Had it not been for the Soviet reservations a decision in regard to our accession to the Convention might well have been taken in the fairly near future, and we could have replied to this question along those lines. After When [?] we have made our views known to the Secretary-General we can explain that the position has now changed in that the Soviet group have tried to limit the application of the provisions of the Convention and it is no longer the instrument approved by the Assembly. It seems to me, however, that it would be better to avoid mentioning the Soviet reservations until our letter has reached the Secretary General, and I therefore submit a draft reply Until then, however, I submit that our reply should be on the lines of those given last year. We can point out that the Convention will not in fact enter into force for some considerable time. But if the point is pressed, it could be stated that whereas a decision could might normally have been expected in the fairly near future, the position has now been further complicated by the Soviet reservations. D.H.T. Hildyard U.N. (Pol.) Dept.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

80

No. 223 The Soviet Union Will Vote against the Proposal of the UN Secretary General Trygve Lie to Outlaw the Practice of Reservations to Multilateral Treaties, September 25, 1950 RGASPI, 82/2/1081 September 25, 1950 To Comrade Stalin The UN Secretary General submitted to the Assembly a proposal, [according to which] from now on no state can file reservations to conventions without the consensus of all parties to multilateral conventions. If this proposal is adopted, the USSR will not be allowed to make reservations to the conventions to which it is a party. In regard to the reservations that the USSR made when signing certain multilateral conventions (on genocide, on the protection of war victims), our ratification documents on said conventions will be rejected if the Assembly adopts the General Secretary’s proposal. Due to abovementioned circumstances, Lie’s proposal is absolutely unacceptable to the USSR. The Foreign Ministry tends to agree with Vyshinsky’s proposal to vote against the General Secretary’s draft. Our objection is justified on the grounds that the General Secretary’s proposal infringes on the sovereign rights of state, as well as contradicts the until now existing practice whereby states have the right to make reservations to multilateral conventions. A. Gromyko

No. 224 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Helps Formulate the UK Request to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion on Reservations to Multilateral Conventions, January 11, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/88601/UP252/88 January 11, 1951 Dear [Maurice E.] Reed, With reference to Beckett’s letter to the Attorney, dated December 29th, and the Attorney’s reply of January 1st, about the request to the Hague Court for an advisory Opinion on reservations to multilateral conventions, I enclose a draft of the written



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

81

statement we have prepared to be sent to the Court next week.1 Unfortunately, the Court only gave us a very short time limit in which to do this and it has been impossible to get the statement ready sooner. It has not been corrected for typing errors and in addition, there are one or two alterations we ourselves want to make on points of detail and wording. However, in substance, it represents the sort of thing we think we want to say. As I have to get the thing off by about next Wednesday I will assume the Law Officers have no major comments if I do not hear to the contrary by Tuesday. Actually, I doubt whether they need bother themselves very much about it for the following reasons. This statement really contains practically nothing that has not already been said by us in one form or another in the proceedings in the General Assembly last autumn. I do not think it contains any actual errors and if there is anything we want to qualify or correct we can of course easily do so in the course of the oral proceedings which will take place later on. I attach a copy of the actual questions addressed to the Court and although these questions are not directed to any particular reservations which have been made to the Genocide Convention, it may be worth mentioning that the ones which have given rise to all this trouble are the reservations made by a number of Iron Curtain countries which were of two kinds. First, they reserved on that Article of the Convention which provides that any disputes about its interpretation or application, including the responsibility of any State in respect of acts of genocide, are to be submitted to the International Court of Justice. This was regarded as a vital part of the Convention when it was being drafted, and consequently, these reservations concern a major point of substance. The other set of reservations which are not, strictly speaking, true reservations at all, relate to the colonial Article of the Convention. This provides that any contracting party may at any time, by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose relations it is responsible. The effect of this is by implication to exclude from the Convention all colonies and overseas territories except such as it may from time to time be extended to by the act of the metropolitan Government. The Iron Curtain countries have put in, in the guise of a reservation, a rather nebulous statement that they are not in agreement with this Article of the Convention and consider that all its provisions should extend to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories. It is all part of the anti-colonial campaign. If it means anything beyond the mere pious expression of opinion it means something which is obviously beyond the competence of any country to do, namely, to extend the territorial application of the Convention as regards other States in a manner flatly contradictory to the actual terms of the Convention itself. I hope that these brief explanations will enable the Law Officers to understand the matter sufficiently for present purposes, should they think it necessary to go into it. Yours sincerely, (G.G. Fitzmaurice)

Documents not in the file.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

82

No. 225 Soviet Representative on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Evaluates the Opinions regarding Reservations to the Genocide Convention Submitted by the UN Member States, March 16, 1951 RGASPI, 82/2/1082 March 16, 1951 S. Krylov Report on Opinions Submitted to the ICJ by UN Member States on the Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention [The ICJ received] a total of thirteen opinion statements by [UN member] states, the UN Secretary General’s opinion, the opinion of the secretary of the Pan-American Union and of the International Labor Organization. France and China delivered no opinion. In regard to their content, the opinions can be divided into four groups. 1.  The opinions of the USSR, Ukrainian SSR, Belorussian SSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Those opinions proceed from the assumption that [any] sovereign state has the right to file reservations. Consequentially, the treaty enters into force between the state that filed a reservation and all other signatories, except for the part of the treaty circumscribed by the reservation. It should be noted that such interpretation [pozitsia] is regarded in the international law literature as classical theory, recognized through the signing and ratification of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.1 2.  The opinions of the USA and the Pan-American Union stipulate that [it is] the right of the state to not consent to the reservation, to register its objection, and to regard itself as not bound by the treaty to the state that filed the reservations.2 Hence, the state that had filed the reservation is regarded as a party to the treaty, yet it is bound by agreement only to those states that did not object to the reservation. According to the information at hand, Great Britain, Australia, and Ecuador have objected to the reservations of the USSR and of the countries of people’s democracy. 3.  Even though Great Britain has not yet ratified the convention, it forwarded to the court an opinion in support of the earlier practice by the League of Nations Secretariat and the present practice by the UN Secretariat. Great Britain’s opinion, as well as the UN Secretary General’s opinion, advances the proposition [teoriia], according to which even if a single state party to a multilateral treaty registers an objection to the The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 were among the first formal settlements regarding the laws of war and war crimes in the body of international law. The former convention consist of three treaties and three declarations, and the latter of thirteen treaties and one declaration. Nearly all treaties were signed with reservations, by the United States and Russia, among others. 2 The Pan-American Union was established in 1890 with the purpose of fostering regional stability and cooperation. Reconstituted in 1948 as the Organization of American States, it had twenty-one members. The member states signed a pledge to fight communism in the western hemisphere, and routinely voted along the lines of the United States in the United Nations. 1



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

83

reservation, the state that filed the reservation is no longer a party to the treaty or else must withdraw the reservation. This “theory” was an essential practice of the League of Nations due to England and France’s unwillingness to consider the reservations filed by other countries. 4.  The Philippines’ opinion, and similar opinion of Poland, is to wait until after all interested states, that is, those that filed a reservation or those that objected to reservations, address the court before responding to the General Assembly’s inquiry. It should be noted that the Philippines had reservations with regard to Article IX of the Convention (to which the USSR also attached a reservation) as well as with regard to other articles of the Convention.1 Despite the latter’s opinion, which argues against the court responding to the Assembly’s inquiry, it is likely that the court will consider the issue submitted to it by the Assembly. As regards the court’s ruling, it is not possible to determine at this point which position the court will take. I will be able to report [on the court’s position] only in situ, at The Hague.

No. 226 International Court of Justice Announces a Series of Public Hearings on the Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, April 5, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/23 April 5, 1951 I.C.J. Communiqué No. 51/5 (Unofficial) The following information from the Registry of the International Court of Justice has been communicated to the Press: The International Court of Justice will hold a series of public hearings beginning Tuesday, April 10th, at 11 a.m., in order to hear oral statements relevant to the request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide. Oral statements will be made on behalf of the Secretary General of the United Nations and on behalf of the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and Israel. The Hague, 5th April, 1951 A note giving a rough background of the case is communicated herewith (overleaf). * * * The Philippines had reservations to Articles IV, VI, VII, and IX of the convention.

1

84

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Annex to Communiqué No. 51/5 (Unofficial) Note on the Request for Advisory Opinion on the question of Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide The question submitted to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations, in its Resolution of the 16th November, 1950, are formulated as follows: “In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the event of a State ratifying or acceding to the Convention subject to a reservation made either on ratification or on accession, or on signature followed by ratification: I. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention while still maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others? II. If the answer to question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and: a) The parties which object to the reservation? b) Those which accept it? III. What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to question I if an objection to a reservation is made: a) By a signatory which has not yet ratified? b) By a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so? One can see that these purely legal questions refer exclusively to reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; this was a multilateral Convention which was approved by the General Assembly on the 9th December, 1948, in Paris, and which came into effect on the 12th January, 1951. After notices had been given by the Registrar, in conformity with Article 66 of the Statute of the Court, the Registry received written statements from the Secretary-General of the United Nations and from the Governments of the U.S.S.R., the Kingdom of Jordan, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Israel, Poland, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Rumania, the Ukrainian S.S.R., Bulgaria, the Byelorussian S.S.R., and the Republic of the Philippines, and also from two international organisations, namely, the International Labour Office and the Organisation of American States. Furthermore, when the oral discussions begin on the 10th April Dr. Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations in charge of the Legal Department, will submit an oral statement to the Court on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and Mr. G.G. Fitzmaurice, Second Legal Adviser to the British Foreign Office, M. Charles Rousseau, Professor at the Faculté de Droit in Paris, Assistant Legal Adviser to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Shabtai Rosenne, Legal Adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will address the Court and expound the views held, on the question before the Court, by their respective Governments.



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

85

No. 227 Gerald G. Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dissatisfied with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, May 30, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/28 May 30, 1951

Minutes

Sir Eric Beckett United Nations Department I have just received the opinion of the Court in the reservations case. I am sorry to say it is, from a purely legal point of view, almost as unsatisfactory as it could be. I shall, in due course, make a detailed report on this opinion in the same way as I have done regarding previous advisory opinions of the Court. But the following is a brief summary of the result. Only twelve judges of the Court were available for this case, Judges Krylov, Fabela and Azevedo being absent ill (and the latter has now died). The Court’s opinion was given by the narrow majority of 7 to 5, though it must be admitted that the three judges who were absent ill would have been more likely to vote with the majority than the minority. The five dissenting judges were Judges McNair, Read, Guerrero and Hsu-Mo (who delivered a joint dissenting opinion) and Judge Alvarez. It is noteworthy that the four jointly dissenting judges comprised three of the best judges of the Court, that is to say the British and Canadian judges and the Vice-President Guerrero. All the questions addressed to the Court were in relation to the Genocide Convention. The first question was whether a state making a reservation to that Convention in purporting to become a party to it could be regarded as being a party if its reservation was objected to by another party. The majority answered this question by saying that the reserving state could be regarded as being a party if the reservation was compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; otherwise that state could not be regarded as being a party. It will be seen at once that this answer standing by itself affords practically no real guidance as to what reservations are admissible and what not. The whole question is whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. It may be an extremely difficult matter to say whether it is or not, and in any case there is no certain method of determining the point. One of the principal objects of this reference to the Court was to give headquarters, governments and the Secretary General of the United Nations, when acting as a depository of international conventions, some objective criterion by which it would be possible to know whether a given reservation or ratification on accession accompanied by a reservation was admissible or not. Clearly the criterion suggested by the majority does not do this, and if anything makes matters even more uncertain than they already are.

86

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

In one sense the Court endeavoured to clear up this difficulty in its answer to the second question. The second question asked (assuming a country could become a party to a Convention while maintaining a reservation objected to by another party) what was the effect of the reservation as between the reserving state and other parties which accepted it on the one hand and parties which did not accept it on the other. The majority of the Court answered this question by saying that if a party to the Convention objected to a reservation which it considered to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention it could consider that the reserving state was not a party to the Convention. If, on the other hand, the other party accepted the reservation as being compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention it could consider that the reserving state was a party to the Convention. On this basis it appears to be left to each individual party to decide for itself whether the reservation is or is not compatible with the objects of the Convention, and on that basis to regard or not regard the reserving state as being a party. Nothing more unsatisfactory could well be imagined. In effect the majority of the Court have voted for the application of what has become known as the Pan-American system. Moreover, by this particular answer to the second question they have really destroyed whatever value the criterion adopted by them in answer to the first question might have had, because if it is left to each individual party to decide whether the reservation concerned is or is not compatible with the objects of the Convention, that amounts in practice to exactly the same thing as saying that any country can make what reservations it pleases to an international convention and that the other parties can either accept or reject the reservation. If they accept, that then the Convention is in force between them and the reserving state. If they do not accept the Convention is not in force. The very grave objections to this position were, of course, pointed out to the Court in argument and it was urged, as is indeed obviously the case, that a position of this kind in relation to general multilateral conventions of the social and law-making type is merely another way of giving the states a unilateral right to make what reservations they please to international conventions, a theory which the whole weight of international authority is against. A The third question addressed to the Court was whether the right of objection to the reservations was vested solely in actual parties to the Convention, i.e. those who had signed and ratified or else acceded, or whether it was also possessed by signatories who had not yet ratified and by states which had not yet signed or acceded, but were entitled to do so. In argument it was pointed out to the Court that this question had little meaning except on the assumption that a negative answer was given to the first question, since if states could become parties to international conventions while maintaining reservations, despite objections offered thereto by other countries, it became of little moment who was or who was not entitled to object, since no objection would be valid to prevent a the country concerned from becoming a party. However, despite the fact that each they gave an affirmative answer to the first question, the Court seems to have thought that it must answer the third question, although the answer now has little practical significance. On this question the Court declined to admit that states which had not even signed had any right of objection. Thus the Signatories who had not yet ratified could object, but as they pointed out, having



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

87

regard to their answer to the first question, the practical effect of such an objection was merely to give a sort of notice of the attitude which the signing state would take up towards reserving states when it became itself an actual party by ratification. In other words, it would act as a kind of notice that when the state became a party it would not regard the Convention as being in force between itself and the state which had made the reservation objected to. The four jointly dissenting judges began by quoting a great deal of authority to the effect that the existing rule of international law and the current practice of the United Nations was in the sense that without the consent of all the parties a proposed reservation could not become effective and the reserving state could not become a party to the Convention. They went on to point out that states negotiating a convention were free to modify the above rule and practice by making express provision in the convention allowing reservations and that this was frequently done. However, they pointed out the states negotiating the Genocide Convention had not, in fact, done so. They had, therefore contracted on the basis that the existing law and current practice would apply in the general usual way to any reservations that might be proposed, i.e. the reserving state could not become a party unless all the other parties agreed to the reservation. They then went on to attack the criterion put forward by the Court on reservations, i.e. which were they compatible or incompatible with the objects and purposes of the Convention. They said they could not accept this doctrine for the following reasons. The first was that it propounded a new rule for which they could find no legal basis. There was no trace of any authority for it in any decision either of the Court itself, of the former Permanent Court, of any other international tribunal or in any text book. If such a rule were, therefore, to apply to the Genocide Convention it would have to be deduced from the intention of the parties, but, as already indicated, no such intention could be deduced. In fact the parties seem to have contracted with exactly the opposite intention. Secondly, they pointed out the extraordinary practical difficulties that would arise in applying the criterion suggested by the majority. This part of the opinion, to my mind, completely demolishes the reasoning of the majority and as it is difficult to summarise the arguments effectively, therefore annexed to this minute in verbatim form are two of the main passages from the opinion. The opinion concluded this part of the subject by saying: “We do not find in the new rule that has been proposed any reliable means of solving the problems to which reservations to this Convention have given and may continue to give rise, nor any means that are likely to produce final and consistent results.” The jointly dissenting judges accordingly answered question I in the negative and for them consequently question II did not arise. On Question III they contented themselves by saying that they dissented from the reply given by the majority and that, having regard to the dominating importance that they attached to the issues raised by question I, they did not propose to give reasons for their dissent on Question III. Judge Alvarez, in his dissenting opinion, embarked upon his usual dissertation about the “new” international law but, nevertheless, he came to exactly the same conclusions as the other dissenting judges. He regarded the Genocide Convention as a convention of a type which did not admit of any reservations. Consequently he said

88

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

that he answered question I “with a categorical NO.” Therefore, for him Question II did not arise. As regards Question III, he thought that the legal right to make reservations was vested not only in parties but in signatories which had not yet ratified and in states entitled to sign or accede but which had not yet done so. We shall have to decide later what line we are going to take in the Assembly in the light of this opinion. We cannot, of course, consistently with our past attitude attack it on legal grounds, but I should have thought we could well say that however correct it must be taken to be as a matter of law, it would lead to practical consequences that are unacceptable and in this connection we might make use of the very cogent reasoning of the four generally jointly dissenting judges. The one possible advantage which this opinion may have is on the problem of the colonial clause. There has, I believe, been an idea that if we were unable to secure colonial clauses in conventions or if certain members of the United Nations insisted on inserting in conventions a clause to the effect that the convention automatically extended to all the overseas territories of a country becoming a party, we might get over the difficulty by appending to our signature, ratification or accession a reservation excluding the application of the convention to our colonies. I have never been quite certain whether, even assuming a unilateral right to make reservations, it was really legally possible to make a reservation bearing not on the substantive application of individual provisions of the convention but on the territorial extent of the application of the whole convention taken as a whole. However, assuming that there is nothing in this difficulty, it would appear that the opinion of the Court would enable us to make such a reservation. It would then be for each of the other parties to decide whether our reservation was compatible with the objects and purposes of the convention or not. For those who decided it was not [that] we should not be parties, whereas for those who decided that it was [that] we should be parties, or in other words the convention would then enter into force as between ourselves and those countries which accepted our reservation, but not between ourselves and those countries which did not. Of course, in the case of conventions of the social and law-making type there is, as was duly pointed out to the Court in argument, absolutely no reality in talking of the convention being in force between one country and another country a party to it but not in force between that country and some other country also a party. There is, indeed, no reality in talking of the convention being in force between parties at all for that type of obligation is not involved. However, the majority have found otherwise, and it might perhaps be argued that we should at least extract what benefit from it we can. This need not, I think, prevent us from attacking the whole theory on the basis of its lack of practicality and of the confusion and uncertainty it would lead to. We might even threaten [?] a reservation on the colonial clause as an argument against the whole idea. This would push [?] the S. Americans in argumentation [?] for the application of their […] (which the Court has in effect endorsed). Would enable us to reserve on the Colonial Clauses, which they would much dislike! See annex on next sheet.1 (G.G. Fitzmaurice) See “Extract from Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice, 1951” in the same file.

1



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

89

No. 228 The UK Delegation to the United Nations Decides on a Course of Action when the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion Comes for Discussion in the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), August 14, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/37 August 14, 1951 U.N. Dept. (Please enter) The Int. Law Commissions Paper on Reservations should be included. W.E.B. [Eric Beckett] UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, N.Y. My dear Eric [Beckett], When Fitzmaurice was here last weekend we discussed the tentative draft of the Provisional Agenda of the sixth session of the General Assembly which has been prepared by the Secretariat. I shall be writing to you later about one or two other matters but I should like to raise in this letter a query relating to the item “reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice”. We shall of course have to decide what attitude we are going to take on this item when it arises for discussion in the Sixth Committee. One possible course would be merely to take note of the opinion. In that event the United Kingdom Delegation might point out some of the practical difficulties of the opinion of the majority and emphasise the fact that the opinion relates only to the Genocide Convention and cannot necessarily be taken as a precedent for any other convention. The weakness of that course would be that in practice the opinion will be quoted as a precedent and it will be very difficult to distinguish many conventions from the Genocide Convention. The opinion of four of the dissenting judges is very convincing in showing that the probable intention of the drafters of the Genocide Convention was that no reservations should be allowed. Unfortunately, I think that this may make it even more difficult to distinguish the Genocide Convention from others which contain no special article on reservations. Considering the difficulty of merely taking note of the advisory opinion of the Court and the latent ambiguity in the opinion of the majority I have been wondering whether it would be any use trying to place before the Court a question on one or more specific reservations to the Convention. What is the effect of the opinion? If a party to a Convention objects to a reservation the objection must be made on the ground that the reservation is incompatible with the objects and purposes of the Convention. It is left however to the objecting state to decide whether the reservation is incompatible with those objects and purposes and the only effect of the objection is apparently to prevent

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

90

the convention from coming into force as between the objecting state and the reserving state. Nevertheless there is a suggestion in the opinion that there may be an appeal to some higher jurisdiction. It is a matter for surmise whether a finding by some higher jurisdiction (presumably the International Court) that a reservation is incompatible with the objects and purposes of a convention would result in the reserving state not being regarded as a party to the convention at all. In all common sense it does seem that if a reservation is incompatible the reserving state should not be a party. It would be to test this point and possibly to provide a way out of the immense practical difficulty resulting from the advisory opinion of the Court that I would suggest that you consider the possibility of asking the Court for an advisory opinion on the effect of certain reservations to the Genocide Convention. Since the United Kingdom is not even a signatory to the Genocide Convention it would probably not be open to us to take the initiative. Nevertheless, I think that the suggestion is worth consideration possibly with a view to trying to persuade some other Delegation to take the initiative. I wonder whether you would think it worthwhile adding your comments and sounding the views in the Foreign Office on this suggestion. Ever yours, Francis (F.A. Vallat)

No. 229 The British Foreign Office Suggests Deemphasizing the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, August 30, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/37 August 30, 1951 To F. A. Vallat, Esq., UKDEL New York Thank you for your letter of the 14th August about the International Court’s opinion on the issue of reservations to the Genocide Convention. 2.  It seems to us that the best line to take on this matter is for us to take our stand on the chapters of the report by the International Law Commission dealing with this issue (United Nations document A/CN 4/L22, dated the 12th July 1951). This report takes very much the line we should like to see adopted. Paragraph 6 of the report, for example, states clearly the grounds on which it will be possible to pigeon-hole the opinion of the Court so far as the general question of reservations is concerned, and paragraph 12 of the report indicates the reasons why the opinion of the court in relation to the Genocide Convention would not be suitable in relation to multilateral conventions in general. The report on the whole recommends the practice hitherto favoured by the Secretary-General and on the one point where the Commission differs from the practice recommended by the Secretary-General, namely on the question of



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

91

the rights of mere signatories to object to reservations (i.e. signatories who have not yet ratified), the Commission adopts the view which we were almost alone in putting forward in the Assembly and before the Court. It therefore seems that our right course in the Assembly will be to support this report in toto. 3.  We are not at first sight in favour of the suggestion that the International Court should be asked for an advisory opinion on the effect of certain reservations to the Genocide Convention. The Court has let us down once already and it is perhaps quite likely to do so again. To refer to the Court again would also keep its former opinion in the forefront of attention, whereas we hope, with the assistance of the International Law Commission’s report, to relegate the Court’s opinion to the shelf, or at any rate to localise its ill effects. (Eric Beckett)

No. 230 Gerald G. Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Dissatisfied with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, Sees No Other Option but to Endorse It in the UN General Assembly, October 12, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/45 October 12, 1951 Opinion of the Court on reservations in connexion with the Genocide Convention I do not know if this matter was gone into at all during my absences in August and September. If so, I should like to see any papers there are. We are in the somewhat embarrassing predicament that it is our general practice to accept the Opinions of the Court and we have frequently maintained that it is not for the Assembly to query their legal correctness. At the same time, it so happens that this was a very bad Opinion and the dissenting judges were able to demonstrate very clearly what results it would lead to. I am inclined to think that whatever we may feel about this Opinion we must accept it, that is to say, we must support, or at any rate, not vote against an Assembly resolution accepting it, provided that the resolution is in the normal form which is always employed on these occasions, simply taking note of the Opinion given by the Court. At the same time I see no reason why the United Kingdom representative should not make it clear in so doing that we cannot accept the theory or the rules or procedures set out in the Opinion as having any general application, i.e., as having any application beyond the strict scope of the Genocide Convention and in so doing, he might make use of the dissenting opinions to demonstrate the completely chaotic and impracticable results that would ensue if these factors were applied in a wider field. However, on the basis that they apply only to the Genocide Convention, we might express willingness to accept the Opinion.

92

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

There will then arise the question of what action is to be taken beyond merely taking note of the Opinion. The matter arose because a number of reservations had been made to the Genocide Convention and the Secretary-General did not know what to do about those reservations, in particular, the position then being that the Convention had not yet come into force, the Secretary-General did not know whether ratifications which he had received, subject to reservations which had been objected to by other States, were valid or not or counted towards making up the number of ratifications necessary to bring the Convention into force. Since that date the Convention has in any case received a sufficient number of unconditional ratifications to bring it into force irrespective of the ratifications which had reservations attached to them, so this particular question no longer arises. At the same time, it is necessary to know whether the reservations which have been made valid and whether the countries which made them are, or are not, parties to the Convention. Now the Opinion of the Court said that they could be regarded as parties to the Convention if their reservations were not inconsistent with its objects and purposes but otherwise they could not be regarded as parties. However, the Court laid down no criterion for determining whether any given reservation was, or was not, in accordance with the purposes of the Convention and went on to indicate that it was really for each of the other parties to decide this for itself and to determine whether it regarded the Convention as being in force between itself and the reserving State or not. All this makes the position of the Secretary-General in dealing with these reservations very difficult and I think the point is certain to be taken that on the basis indicated by the Court no one is really much further forward. It seems to me that the only practical instructions that could be given to the Secretary-General in the light of the Opinion so far as the Genocide Convention is concerned is that he should simply accept any ratifications or accessions that may be made accompanied by reservations, should communicate these to the other parties and ask whether, in the light of these reservations, those other parties consider the Convention to be in force between themselves and the reserving State or not and that he should then circulate the replies he receives. It seems to follow that unless every other party rejects a given reservation the reserving State will be a party to the Convention in theory, though the Convention may not be in force between it and a number of other parties. This is all very absurd but seems to be the result of the Opinion which we have more or less to accept for purposes of the Genocide Convention. Mr. Vallat did, I believe, also raise in a letter to Sir Eric Beckett the question whether, having objected to certain of the reservations which have been made, we should now press for a further question to be put to the Court, namely, whether these reservations are or are not regarded by the Court as being in accordance with the objects and purposes of the Convention, i.e., ask the Court itself to apply the criterion which it laid down and give a final ruling on the point. I cannot remember what became of this suggestion but I should like to see the relevant papers. It would certainly be a means of carrying the matter further but we are perhaps not in a very good position to press it since we have never yet become parties to the Convention and may well not do so as certain points of general interest are involved. However, some of the reservations concerned the Colonial clause in the Convention in which we have a general interest



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

93

and others concerned the disputes Article which provided for a reference of any disputes about the Convention to the International Court. I hope the above may form a basis of a brief on the subject, but I would be glad to have the Department’s comments and also to see the papers to which I have referred. (G.G. Fitzmaurice)

No. 231 Frank Newsam of the British Home Office Suggests a Way Forward Toward UK Accession to the Genocide Convention by Framing the Right to Grant Asylum as a Reservation, May 24, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/21 May 24, 1952 SECRET 959571 Genocide Convention Dear Strang, Soon after the Home Secretary took office I ascertained his general views on the Genocide Convention. They were, to put it shortly, that it would be wrong for us to decline to accede to the Convention on the ground that it would involve us in difficult legislation. He asked that a paper should be prepared for circulation to the Cabinet and there has been correspondence between our departments about the contents of the paper. When I saw this draft paper however it seemed to me that there was one most important matter which was tending to go by default – namely, whether we should abandon our traditional policy of granting political asylum. You will recall that when the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly the British delegate said that H.M. Government could not be taken as committed to changes in the law relating to political asylum. The draft paper suggests that we are prepared to throw overboard all our rights of political asylum. I asked the Home Secretary whether this was his intention and he said it was not; he thought that we should aim at accepting the principle of Article VII of the Convention by recognising that the political nature of the offence should not be an absolute bar to extradition for genocide, but asked that consideration should be given to retaining a discretion to the Home Secretary or the courts, or both, to refuse to surrender a fugitive. In many cases there would be no need to exercise this discretion – a person wanted for a crime of genocide which was in fact murder would no doubt usually be

94

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

surrendered – but if the discretion were retained, it would ensure that an unscrupulous foreign government could not take advantage of the provision about political offences for the purpose of furthering a political persecution of such a type that the handing over of the fugitive would shock public opinion in this country. I recognise that this proposal means that we should have to make a reservation to the Convention, as the provision about political offences in Article VII is absolute, and admits of no discretion. I know that the general policy of the Foreign Office is that we should not make reservations to Conventions of this kind, and I agree that in general such a course is undesirable. There is now the decision of the International Court, however, that reservations are permissible provided they are compatible with the purpose of the Convention, and we are disposed to think that the present case is one in which advantage should be taken of this decision and that Ministers should be asked for authority to prepare the necessary legislation to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention subject to a reservation on this point. The Home Secretary approves this suggestion, and unless there is some insuperable objection on the part of the Foreign Office, he would prefer that the matter of ratifying the Convention should be submitted to the Cabinet on this basis. Yours sincerely, Frank Newsam

No. 232 Australia Accepts Reservations of Hungary to the Genocide Conventions in the light of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, TAQ June 4, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/24 TAQ June 4, 1952 Hungary has now ratified the Genocide Convention subject to the same reservations as were entered some time ago by the U.S.S.R. and the other satellites. The SecretaryGeneral has asked Australia to state its attitude to the reservations. 2.  The reservations entered by Hungary relate to Article IX (settlement of disputes by reference to the International Court of Justice) and Article XII (application of the Convention to territories) and amount to non-acceptance of these articles. 3.  The submission of similar reservations by the U.S.S.R. and other satellites in 1950 led to the prolonged discussions upon the law regarding reservations which were concluded at the Sixth General Assembly. In the course of these discussions an advisory opinion upon the question of reservations to the Genocide Convention was obtained from the International Court. The General Assembly (with the concurrence of Australia) recommended that Member States “be guided” by the advisory opinion.



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

95

4.  The advisory opinion says that each contracting state in appraising a reservation by a state seeking to accede should apply to the test of its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention; if the reservation is considered compatible, the appraising state should not regard it as preventing the entry into force of the Convention between the reserving state and itself and vice versa. The opinion goes on that a state may, nevertheless object to it and arrange with the reserving state that the Convention should enter into force between them except for the clauses affected by the reservation. 5.  Before these discussions were commenced in the General Assembly, Australia informed the Secretary-General that she did not accept the reservations made by the U.S.S.R. and the other satellites and would not regard as valid any ratification or accession made subject to them. 6.  Apart from the need to indicate an attitude to the reservations of Hungary, it seems that the attitude taken by Australia to the reservations made by the U.S.S.R. etc. should now be reviewed in the light of the advisory opinion of the Court and the General Assembly’s recommendation. These two questions go together and will be so treated. 7.  Australia can either act in accordance with the Assembly’s recommendation in which case the attitude previously adopted will probably have to be modified or not do so in which case that attitude can be maintained. It seems that for reasons of general policy action in accordance with the recommendation should be taken, particularly in connection with what is primarily a technical issue. 8.  It is necessary then to apply the compatibility test to the reservations made by the U.S.S.R. and the satellites. It appears that these reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention which is to liberate mankind from the “odious scourge” of genocide and that Australia should not regard the reservations as preventing the entry into force of the Convention between itself and the U.S.S.R. etc. 9.  The question now arises whether Australia should accept the reservations or object to them with the result that Articles IX and XII of the Convention will not enter into force between Australia and the U.S.S.R. etc. There would not seem to be any reason to depart form the attitude of objection previously expressed and it is suggested that this attitude should be maintained. 10.  The conclusion is reached in this way that the Secretary-General should be informed that: (a)  Australia does not regard the reservations of Hungary as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention although she objects to them and cannot accept them. Hence the Convention, with the exception of Articles IX and XII, can be regarded as having entered into force between Australia and Hungary; and (b)  Australia has revised the attitude she previously took to similar reservations made by the U.S.S.R. etc. in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court and the recommendation of the General Assembly and now wishes to adopt the same position as is expressed in (a) above with regard to these reservations.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

96

No. 233 Gerald Fitzmaurice of the British Foreign Office Comments on Australian Paper regarding Reservations to the Genocide Convention, June 9, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/24 June 9, 1952 COMMENT ON AUSTRALIAN PAPER ON THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION While the attitude now taken up by the Australian Government is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate one, it hardly seems necessary for it to make any statement at all. It would seem that unless Australia were to follow up her original objections to these reservations by an explicit statement that she did not regard them as compatible with the objects of the Convention, and consequently did not regard the countries concerned as being parties, she would in any case be held simply to have objected to the reservations but not to the point of refusing to regard these countries as parties. There is all the less need to make any statement in that these countries will all, in any event, regard themselves as being parties to the Convention because their reservations have been accepted, or at any rate not objected to, by a number of other parties. This would be the case even if Australia were to say that she did not regard these countries as parties. That, of course, is the absurdity which results from the whole position created by the opinion of the Court. A further reason, so far as we are concerned, for Australia not stating in terms that she does not regard these reservations as incompatible is that we are inclined to think that the reservation on the compulsory submission of disputes about the Convention to the Court is an essential term of the Convention. It was certainly so regarded when the Convention was being drafted. The effect of a reservation on it by these countries is to create a one-sided position in as much as, although they are precisely the countries who are most likely to be guilty of committing genocide, it will be impossible to take them to the Court if they do. It is true that they, equally, will not be able to take any other State to the Court, but then no other State is likely to be guilty of a breach of the Convention. In fact, their inability to take other States to the Court will make no difference whatsoever to these countries. All they want is the status of being parties to the Genocide Convention without any danger of being taken before the Court if they break it. That, again is another of the unfortunate results of the Court’s opinion, namely, that it makes this sort of situation possible. We would, therefore, very much prefer that Australia did not definitely say that in her view this reservation was compatible with the objects of the Convention. It would also be better if nothing further was said about the other reservation which related to the Colonial article of the Convention. The reservations on this point were not, strictly speaking, reservations at all, but merely declarations that the countries concerned considered that the Convention ought automatically to be applicable to all dependent territories. However, the effect of the relevant Article simply is that they are not so applicable, and no so-called reservation on the point can make the Convention applicable to these territories. For Australia to say that she did not regard this



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

97

reservation as being incompatible with the Convention would be to go a considerable way towards endorsing the general Soviet attitude on colonial articles, which has been the cause of much trouble to all of us, including Australia. Finally, coming to the second part of Australia’s proposed statement, namely, that although she does not regard the reservations as being incompatible, she, nevertheless, still objects to them and will not regard the articles concerned as being applicable as between herself and the reserving countries, that, too, we think unnecessary, and on one point at least possibly objectionable. If Australia says nothing it will go without saying that her objections are maintained (since they will not have been withdrawn) and in consequence that even if these countries are parties to the Convention they cannot plead either of the articles involved as against Australia. There is, consequently, no need to say anything at all about it. But, further, for Australia to say that she regards the Convention as being in force between herself and these countries, with the exception of the two articles involved, might give a misleading impression as regards the colonial article. For it might suggest that vis-à-vis these countries, Australia renounced the benefits of the colonial article. (Sgd.) G. G. Fitzmaurice

No. 234 Cecil C. Parrott of the British Foreign Office Seeks a Compromise Position with the Home Office on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, June 10, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/21 June 10, 1952 GENOCIDE The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948. The United Kingdom delegate voted in favour with the reservation that H.M.G. could not without further examination be taken as committed to changes in British law, in particular that relating to political asylum. Since 1948, there has been continuing Parliamentary pressure on the Secretary of State to ratify the Convention after it had come into force to accede to it. The last question was answered by the Minister of State on the 19th May.1 2.  During the same period the Foreign Office and the Home Office have sought to agree whether H.M.G. should accede or not and, since the Conservative Party took office, I have been working on a draft Cabinet Paper seeking authority for a Bill to be prepared enabling H.M.G. to fulfil in the United Kingdom the obligations which they would have accepted by acceding to the Convention, in order that a final decision for or against accession could be made, when the difficulty of passing the Bill could be assessed. See doc. nos. 192, 196.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

98

3.  Sir Frank Newsam’s letter of the 24th May to Sir William Strang comments on the latest draft Cabinet Paper and suggests that, in the light of the Opinion of the International Court on reservations to the Genocide Convention, H.M.G. could accede to the Convention with a reservation retaining discretion to the Home Secretary or the Courts or both to refuse to surrender a fugitive accused of genocide, if to surrender him would be incompatible with British law and practice relating to political asylum.1 4.  The Home Office proposal is objectionable both because it goes against H.M.G.’s general policy with regard to reservations to multilateral Conventions and because the reservation suggested might not be covered by the International Court’s Opinion, which laid down that reservations to the Genocide Convention could be made only if they were compatible with its purpose. 5.  The Legal Advisers views are set out in Mr. Fitzmaurice’s minute of the 28th May, with which Sir Eric Beckett concurs. Mr. Fitzmaurice has suggested that even if H.M.G. acceded to the Convention without a reservation it would still be possible to refuse extradition, if the Courts or the Home Secretary held that the charge was preferred for a political reason. Since we would presumably not wish to grant asylum to someone who had, according to the evidence, been properly charged with genocide, Mr. Fitzmaurice’s interpretation of the obligations imposed by the Convention may well help us to reach agreement with the Home Office, at least on the terms of a reference to the Cabinet. I submit a draft reply to Sir Frank Newsam which has been cleared with Mr. Fitzmaurice. [Signed] C. C. Parrott

No. 235 William Strang of the British Foreign Office Disagrees with Frank Newsam and the Home Office That the United Kingdom Should Accede to the Genocide Convention with a reservation regarding the Right to Political Asylum, June 11, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/21 June 11, 1952 CONFIDENTIAL [Frank Newsam] Your letter of the 24th May about the draft Cabinet Paper on the Genocide Convention (which I am sorry not to have been able to answer earlier) came a little as a surprise, since we believed you shared our view that, despite the ruling of the International Court, it would be undesirable for Her Majesty’s Government to accede to the Convention with any sort of reservation.2 See doc. no. 231. See doc. no. 231.

1 2



The Issue of Reservations to the Genocide Convention, 1949–52

99

It has been our consistent policy to maintain that, in the absence of any specific provisions in a Convention with regard to reservations, States cannot become parties to it if they wish to make reservations not acceptable to some other parties. This is a principle which I am sure the Home Office, who are much affected by International Conventions, would not wish to see disregarded. Even if, owing to the ruling of the International Court, we can regard the case of the Genocide Convention as a special one, we fear that a reservation by Her Majesty’s Government designed to preserve their discretion to grant asylum to political refugees may lead to difficulties. Even under the Opinion of the Court, only those reservations are authorized which are compatible with the objects and purposes of the Convention. It is left to each party to decide for itself as to the compatibility of reservations made by other States, and we think that some of the parties to the Convention (e.g. Israel) might well maintain that a reservation affecting Article VII of the Convention was not compatible with the objects of the Convention, a major purpose of which is to brand Genocide as a crime which nothing, and certainly not political motives, can excuse. It might also be maintained that since Genocide is by its very nature largely a political crime, a reservation of the right of political asylum would be destructive of the whole obligation to extradite contained in Article VII and that paragraph 1 of this Article was expressly drafted to prevent this. It could further be pointed out that we have ourselves objected to reservations by other States which are certainly not more drastic and perhaps less so than the one you now propose. Thus, if we accede, and yet at the same time append a reservation which is open to challenge, we shall undermine the stand we have taken both against unagreed reservations in general and against certain reservations to the Genocide Convention in particular. Our own view, if we have correctly understood what you want to achieve, is that no reservation is necessary. As Genocide is undoubtedly a revolting crime you would not presumably wish to grant asylum in this country to someone who appeared prima facie to have been guilty of it, or at any rate to be properly charged with it. You would, however, wish to retain discretion to refuse extradition, should you have cause to believe that the motive behind the request for this was political. It is, I believe, generally understood that the authorities of a country of refuge are not bound to grant extradition if they are not convinced of the bona fides of the charge. We do not believe that this generally accepted principle is affected by the terms of Article VII of the Genocide Convention, and the Foreign Office would be quite prepared to support you in an interpretation of this provision which would enable you to refuse to hand over an individual if it appeared that the motive of the request was political and not a bona fide charge of Genocide. We might to some extent place our attitude on the point on record in the course of drafting and passing any necessary Genocide Bill. The language of the Bill might also be framed with an eye to it. William Strang

100

IX

Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59 (nos. 236–279)

The vexed question of enforcement reappeared as soon as the Genocide Convention had been signed in December 1948. In the West, this issue was framed as to whether or not the Soviet Union and its satellites could be formally indicted for genocide before the United Nations. Communist countries were already exposed in early 1949, through an UN inquiry into forced labor cosponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union swiftly reacted by promising to counter the “smear campaign” (doc. 236). The public campaign to condemn the USSR as a genocidal regime picked up the following year. Ethnic organizations of East European descent in the United States—primarily Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Polish—led the way (docs. 237–38, 244–45, 261). From the US perspective, however, putting forward a charge of genocide posed a series of problem. As the State Department pointed out in December 1950, the United States had not yet ratified the convention. Besides, it was not at all clear whether such a direct attack on the USSR would be political expedient (doc. 238). The United Kingdom regarded Romania’s accession to the Genocide Convention, in October 1950, as a cynical act of propaganda. Yet an internal inquiry as to whether the present persecution of ethnic minorities in Romania constituted genocide had rendered a negative answer (docs. 239, 241–42). The analysis was done by the Information Research Department (IRD)—a counterpropaganda unit within the Foreign Office. IRD’s Robert Conquest proved the most vocal in pushing for a longterm policy that would see the Soviet deportation of Muslim minorities such as the Chechens and the Crimean Tatars designated as genocide. Conquest saw it as the best possible way to counter Soviet claims of mistreatment of colonial peoples by the British. On the level of detail, the question was which word carried more weight, genocide or forced labor; should the focus rather be on the plight of the Baltic peoples; and if it was an effective propaganda tool altogether (doc. 240). In the fall of 1951 the IRD was ready to “develop Soviet genocide as an anti-Communist propaganda theme.” The IRD emphasized that it was using genocide merely as a “convenient label” not a legal term (doc. 248). The Dutch Government indirectly agreed that “totalitarian states” (read: the USSR) bore responsibility for the most heinous crimes. The Genocide Convention as such, however, was hollow due to the omission of political groups from its wording and the improbable scenario of those states subjecting themselves to international justice. The Netherlands, in the words of its Foreign Minister, was hesitant to ratify the convention for the fear of countercharges of genocide by totalitarian states (doc. 243).

102

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Potential countercharges by the Soviet Union might indeed militate against charging Moscow with genocide in the United Nations, wrote James Rosenberg to Raphael Lemkin in the summer of 1951 (doc. 246). Lemkin, however, had already made up his mind on this issue. On the subject of “Soviet genocide,” he worked most closely with the Lithuanian American Council. Lemkin helped the council to produce a temporary exhibition, “Genocide in Lithuania” and partook in its lobbying campaign with the US government, the services for which he was reimbursed (docs. 247, 264). Among other émigré organizations actively trying to indict the Soviet Union for genocide were the Hungarian National Council (docs. 249–50). The Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom both provided a measured response. Eleanor Roosevelt, acting head of the US delegation to the Sixth General Assembly, came to disappoint the representatives of the six ethnic organizations who had in November 1951 written to the US State Secretary. The delegation was in no position to place a charge of genocide on the agenda, or even to press it hard in debate, due to the fact that the United States was not a party to the convention (doc. 251). The Foreign Office expressed a similar sentiment with regard to the United Kingdom, adding that prospective UK accession to the Genocide Convention would not “substantially affect world opinion” anyway (doc. 252). Lemkin’s attempt to link genocide “behind the Iron Curtain” to the question of UK accession, predictably, fell on deaf ears (doc. 257). The pressure mounted though, especially in the United States. On January 11, 1952, over one hundred Republican Congressmen—acting on behest of twelve million American citizens of East European origin—requested an immediate investigation of “Soviet genocide” by the UN General Assembly. By so doing, America would purportedly give hope to the suppressed peoples and sustain their will to resist the Soviets (doc. 253). The State Department enumerated several reasons why it thought it would not be useful, either in terms of direct assistance to the victims of repression or in terms of propaganda. Without definitive proof and/or universal support in the General Assembly, the United States could at best hope for a watereddown resolution, unlikely to lessen the pressure on Communist countries. In the worst-case scenario, the Soviet bloc may countercharge the United States “that we are guilty of genocide against negroes” (docs. 254, 258). The State Department urged Lithuanian émigrés to modify their rather unsophisticated message (docs. 255, 259) before it would even consider following up on that message (doc. 256). Still dealing with the émigrés directly proved easier than with Congressman Charles Kersten, who professed to represent their interests. The State Department tried to convince the congressman that it was doing all possible—sans filing a charge of genocide—to “force the Soviet Union to desist from gross violations of human rights in areas under its control” (doc. 260). This answer did not satisfy Kersten, who argued that mass deportations and forced labor camps had gone far beyond individual human rights and their protection. By the same token, he contested the idea that the evidence of genocide was hard to come by. Since the Soviet practice of forced labor amounted to genocide, reasoned Kersten, why could not a body similar to an Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor be established to specifically investigate genocide (doc. 262)? As of May 1952, the State Department still preferred using the expressions like “systematic



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

103

and barbarous violations of human rights by the Soviet Union” when explaining to Kersten why it would have invited accusations of hypocrisy had the United States decided to charge the USSR with genocide without first ratifying the treaty (doc. 263). In the winter of 1953 the US government briefly reconsidered its earlier position regarding charging the Soviet Union with genocide. That change of heart was mainly due to the vicious anti-Semitic campaign unleashed by Joseph Stalin. Referring to the recent trial of top party officials in Prague and the so-called Doctors’ Plot in Moscow, Lemkin made a case that Communist authorities were specifically targeting Jews (doc. 265). The Christian Science Monitor echoed Lemkin’s sentiment in proposing to invoke the Genocide Convention. The least such an action could do, speculated the newspaper, “would be to blast open Red pretentions to racial impartiality and high humanitarianism” (doc. 267). In early February 1953 the newly established International Press Service within the State Department—an equivalent of the British IRD—inquired with Lemkin if he could contribute an article for worldwide distribution affirming the facts that may help convict Russia and its satellites of genocide (doc. 266). One month later Stalin died, which effectively terminated the efforts to indict the Soviet Union for genocide. The final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor, the discussion of which had been postponed until April 1954, fell short of outright condemnation of the Soviet bloc (doc. 268). To everyone’s surprise, On May 3, 1954, the Soviet Union submitted a letter of ratification of the Genocide Convention. Soviet ratification was regarded in the West as a slap in the face—an example of Communist propaganda that meant to embarrass the United States and delude world public opinion (doc. 269). It was not very far from how the Soviets saw it. An article in the preeminent Soviet law journal, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo in December 1954, bluntly attributed the Genocide Convention to the persistent Soviet efforts in the United Nations in 1946–48 (doc. 270). Those provisions of the convention the article spoke approvingly of were reportedly due to the “correct, scientific definition of genocide” that had been offered by the Soviet delegations. Those provisions that the USSR had rejected—ensconced in Soviet reservations to Articles IX and XII—however, should be blamed on the “imperialist bloc’s treaty making practice.” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo dwelled on the link between genocide on the one hand and fascism and Nazi racial theories on the other, explaining along the way what the USSR sought to, but ultimately failed, get covered—discrimination against “Negroes” and specifically lynching in the United States. As for the Soviet Union, the existing Constitution and the Penal Code made any such persecution impossible. With the Soviet Union having now ratified the Genocide Convention, and the United States expressly refused to, the former held the latter accountable for racial discrimination and genocide. The attempts to indict the Soviet Union for genocide continued also after the death of Stalin. Thus, in June 1954 Free Europe Committee—an anticommunist organization established by the CIA—sought Lemkin’s expert advice on that matter (doc. 271). Lemkin himself was at the time preoccupied with a German law on ratification of the Genocide Convention, about to be approved by the Bundestag. If introduced in the

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

104

West German Penal Code in the present form, warned Lemkin, the law would fail to cover the expulsion from Eastern Europe of up to twelve million ethnic Germans at the end of the Second World War. A proposal presently submitted to the Bundestag sought to extend protection under the Genocide Convention also to political groups. According to Lemkin, that would amount to “establishing an international protection for the Communist Party” (doc. 272). Estonian and Lithuanian émigré lawyers shared Lemkin’s apprehension that the German law on ratification did not cover deportations and forced labor (doc. 273). However sympathetic, the State Department stood its ground: placing an item on genocide on the General Assembly agenda was out of question (doc. 274). As of summer 1954, the United States had no intention of ratifying the Genocide Convention. Reopening the discussion on the concept of genocide, with particular reference to the Soviet Union, not only “would be a waste of time” but also contained the “danger of embarrassment to the United States” (doc. 275). During the second half of the 1950s two specific crises revived the allegations of Communist genocide: Hungary in 1956 and Tibet in 1959. In the former case, Cuba introduced a UN resolution that qualified the Soviet maltreatment of the Hungarian people as genocide. Lemkin hailed the November 4, 1956 resolution, which he believed would help to “dramatize” the situation of the East European nations under the Soviet yoke (doc. 276). He advanced a circular argument, according to which the “Genocide Convention is an appropriate legal instrument to deal with this matter, because it defies well this typical Soviet crime .  .  .” (doc. 277). In June 1959 the CIA quoted from a recent report by the International Commission of Jurists—the Western response to the Soviet-sponsored International Association of Democratic Lawyers—which stated that the Chinese Communists over the period of nine years had committed systematic genocide in an attempt to destroy the Tibetan people. The CIA predicted that the issue of genocide would make it to the United Nations (doc. 278). An Indian member of the International Commission of Jurists claimed a prima facie evidence that Communist authorities had “attempted to destroy the national, ethnic, and religious basis of the Tibetan society” (doc. 279).

No. 236 The Soviet Communist Party Propaganda Department Reacts to the US Proposal to Launch an Investigation of Forced Labor in the Soviet Union, March 9, 1949 AVP RF, 06/11/23/23 March 9, 1949 To Comrade V. M. Molotov In view of a provocative American proposal in the UN Social [and Economic] Council to investigate the working conditions in Soviet corrective labor camps, the press and the radio in the US have recently intensified a smear campaign regarding



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

105

“forced labor” in the USSR and in countries of people’s democracy. Newspapers, and especially programs of the New York radio station The Voice of America, disseminate all sorts of fabrications about the conditions in Soviet corrective camps and concoct [inspiriruiutsia] the stories of the traitors to the motherland who escaped from the USSR.1 It may be wise [tselesoobrazno] to counter this American propaganda campaign by exposing its subtleties in the Soviet press. I am attaching a [draft] article by A. Leontiev, “Slanderous Attack by the Slave Owners,” with the request to print it in Pravda.2 D. Shepilov

No. 237 President of the Lithuanian American Council Alerts Dean Acheson to a Soviet Conspiracy to Thwart US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 31, 1950 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/10-3150) October 31, 1950 Telegram Hon. Dean Acheson Secretary of State The million Americans of Lithuanian descent are greatly perturbed by developments reported from Lake Success concerning the threatened delay of Genocide Convention coming into force. Soviet Union is the only active genocidist in the world today and should not be enabled to block Genocide Convention becoming effective and bringing relief to Christians and Baltic peoples, and ultimate retribution to Russian criminals of whom Vyshinsky is one. He was active supervisor of mass murders in Latvia. Nationwide Lithuanian American Council appeals to you as the head of the American delegation to alert various American representatives and to block threats to Genocide Convention by moving to reconsider any resolution that may have been slipped in by agents of the genocidist conspiracy. Lithuanian American Council Leonard Simutis, President Pius Grigaitis, Secretary

The Voice of America is a US government-funded news outlet with the headquarters in Washington, DC. The Voice of America began broadcasting to the Soviet Union in 1947. 2 Draft article not in the file. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

106

No. 238 The US State Department Sees No Political Benefit in Indicting the Soviet Union for Genocide in the United Nations, November 6, 1950 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/11-650) November 6, 1950 Department of State Memorandum of Conversation RESTRICTED Subject: Accusation of Genocide in the Ukrainian Against the USSR Participants: Colonel John Hinkle, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Henry Copies to:

Mrs. Raynor – EUR Mr. Cates – UNE Mr. Player – P Mr. Holder – RA Mr. Kohler – VOA

Colonel Hinkle, who is representing the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America as a Public Relations Consultant, called on me today.1 He desired to discuss informally and in a preliminary fashion the desire or the Committee to present to the United Nations an accusation that the Soviet Government has committed the crime of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Colonel Hinkle assured me that the organization and its President Lev E. Dobriansky, are of good repute and without fascist or anti-Semitic tinge.2 He also mentioned that Stephen Jerema, a prominent New York attorney, is connected with the organization.3 The Committee hopes to persuade the State Department that the American Government should present this charge to the UN. Colonel Hinkle added that the Committee has already been in touch with Mr. William Player of the P area with regard to this matter and that Mr. Player had indicated doubts regarding the willingness of the Department to present the case to the UN.4

Colonel John Vincent Hinkel (1906–86) was a Washington-based public relations consultant and newspaperman. 2 Lev E. Dobriansky (1918–2008), professor of economics at Georgetown University and prominent anticommunist activist. 3 Stephen J. Jarema (1905–1988), a member of New York State Assembly who was actively involved in the Ukrainian-American community. 4 “P area” refers to the State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs. 1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

107

I pointed out to Colonel Hinkle that the United States has not yet ratified the Genocide Convention and also expressed doubts regarding the political desirability at the present time of the United States’ initiating such a direct attack on the USSR. I suggested that it would be more suitable for the organization to present its own accusation to the UN. Colonel Hinkle stated that he understood our point of view and asked if he could bring Professor Dobriansky in to call on me in order to hear himself our views on this subject. I stated that I should be glad to see Professor Dobriansky at any time. Colonel Hinkle also mentioned that the Committee believes the VOA Ukrainian broadcasts to be too weak in attacking the USSR. Professor Dobriansky had been in touch with Mr. Kohler on this subject. L. Randolph Higgs

No. 239 British Legation in Bucharest Considers Romania’s Accession to the Genocide Convention a Cynical Gesture, December 5, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88601/UP252/87 No. 229 (1732/27/50) December 5, 1950 Sir [Ernest Bevin], I have the honour to report that on 11th October, 1950, the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly by Decree No. 236 adhered to the Convention for the Prevention and Repression of the Crime of Genocide passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9th, 1948. 2.  As Roumania is not a member of the United Nations its “adherence” is little more than propaganda. In view of present conditions in Roumania where certain classes are being doomed to slow starvation, the adherence of the Roumanian Government to the Genocide Convention must also be regarded as an exceedingly cynical gesture. I have the honour to be, With the highest respect, Sir, Your obedient Servant, W[alter]. Roberts

108

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 240 The Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Discusses the Propaganda Benefits of Using the Word Genocide with regard to Soviet Deportations, December 12–18, 1950 NA, F.O. 1110/421/PR66/2/G51 I.R.D. Genocide Publicity Policy1 MINUTES Secret December 12, 1950

Genocide

It was suggested that the word “genocide” is unsuitable for our propaganda. I think this is probably possibly true. It is more suited to legal arguments and to speeches connecting Soviet practice with the provisions of the United Nations’ Charter and of the Genocide Convention, than to the man in the street. I think it would be better not to concentrate on any particular word; we might normally use the phrase “destruction of nations” when we want an abstract term. 2.  I am sure that our main task is to see that the case of Chechens and Crimeans is known everywhere and we have not so far succeeded in this. I think the best way of bringing it really to public notice would be a speech by a senior member of the Government, which we should be allowed to draft, and which would not merely describe the fate of these people, but hammer home the idea that no-one should be allowed to forget, and that the word “Chechen” should be in everyone’s mind – that is to say, some expression which the newspapers would carry as a main headline. This should be followed up by seeing that all Ministers, etc., whenever occasion arises, should have the Chechens ready at their finger-tips and use them. Another approach might be to get the Arab states or other suitable sponsors to raise the Chechen question in the United States. It might be difficult to get an Arab, or Turkey, Pakistan or Indonesia to go all out on such an issue, at present (though perhaps Libya, in due course, might do something?). Faute de mieux I am sure the Yugoslavs would be willing to lead the charge if they could be reasonably sure of the others being forced to follow them – they could, of course, put up a Bosnian Muslim to do the operation. 3.  This does not amount to much I am afraid. Yet I am sure that it is necessary to put this thing over as by far the most effective disrupter of the legend of the fine Soviet national policy, which still persists in most places. (G.R.A. Conquest) * * * Information Research Department (IRD) was a Foreign Office covert unit established in 1948  with the purpose of countering Soviet propaganda.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

109

December 14, 1950 I am not yet convinced that it is (a) practicable (b) even desirable to concentrate on the Chechens, of whom few people have even heard. I think you might make Genocide a household word given the impolitic [?] of a ministerial statement. I can think of nothing better as a name. I suggest however that if it is agreed that we shall pursue this theme it will need a full scale operation to launch and exploit it (of our forced labour operation) and it is really a scheme for this which needs to be worked out next. P. Wilkinson * * * December 15, 1950 I think Mr. Conquest’s first sentences require some refinement. I would go no further than to say that I think that genocide is at the present moment a bad word for propaganda because a very high proportion of people throughout the world have no idea what it means: once, by means of speeches and articles, the people have been taught the meaning of genocide, and taught to link it in their minds with “race murder” or the “destruction of nations,” it is by no means a bad word, having the advantage of novelty and eight letters – which will fit into most headlines. 2.  Our procedure should be first to write a really good brief for a speech by some Cabinet minister on a suitable occasion, or by Sir Gladwyn Jebb, at United Nations. This speech, as well as, of course, containing facts, should contain as many headline definitions of genocide as the Department can agree. Secondly, we should prepare for release just before, at the same time, and soon after the speech is made, both articles and material for writers of articles, for diplomatic correspondents and others. 3. The carrying out of this campaign is, from the mechanical point of view, comparatively simple, and I do not see, if we have an initial success, why it should not “snowball”, just as forced labour did. 4.  What is a very much more formidable task is the collection of material for the various briefs. This, in my view, will take a considerable time, and it is for consideration by Mr. Peck and Mr. Murray whether such time can be given. Reference to the brief we wrote for Mrs. Castle about a year ago on this subject shows that, although evidence exists about the fate of the Chechens, it is in very short form: many of those details which in the public mind carry conviction are lacking, and there is, as far as I know, an almost complete absence of any of those personal stories which journalists on popular papers like. 5.  From discussions that I have had with Mr. Stacey, I believe there are now available defectors who can fill these gaps, but – as well all know – the obtaining of statements, the checking of them, and the redrafting of them into other forms takes time. L. Sheridan * * *

110

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

December 18, 1950 I do not think there is any point in pursuing this theme. “Forced Labour” rang a bell because the ordinary person could imagine it happening to him as an individual and it is going on all the time. The Chechens, I understand, (although I have never heard of them until I joined the Department) were ruthlessly punished for alleged collaboration with the enemy in time of war. If this points any moral for anyone it is that Soviet satellites and subject races would be well advised not to co-operate with the enemies of the Soviet Union in another war, and I see no point in distributing material which could point to this conclusion. 2.  The Chechens seem to be only one, and that a comparatively minor, manifestation of a much bigger fact about Soviet policy, that the Kremlin is not in the least concerned with the interests or wellbeing of subject races. The conclusion which I think we ought to ram home to Communist sympathisers everywhere is that the new order which they are seeking to establish is apt to be highly disagreeable, if not disastrous, to themselves. There is plenty of evidence on an individual, national, and racial basis, to show that small nations and races have no chance when swallowed up in the Soviet Empire, and that Communists are far better off burrowing away as conspirators in a free society than they ever would be as established functionaries in the Soviet system. But I am sure that genocide as such, and the fate of the Chechens in particular, will arouse little interest. (J.H. Peck) * * * SECRET December 18, 1950 The Genocide Theme I am sure that this is a most important subject, not in that it exposes the USSR as having committed an atrocious crime in general, so much as that it is by itself a sharp and complete answer to Communist “colonialism” propaganda. 2.  It is quite true that the Chechens are unknown even by name to most people. But surely this is rather a challenge to us to fill the gap than an objection. 3. Though we should not forget or omit the Baltic nations, I think we should concentrate on the Chechens, etc. because: a. As Asiatics and coloured peoples they have more appeal to the “colonialism” audience. b. The action taken against them is far more complete than in the case of the Baltic States, where, after all, the bulk of the people remain in its old land and where some of our more recent reports indicate that deportations have practically ceased and conditions are improving. c. The case of the Balts is not evidentially so clear cut. Our propaganda can only assert what has happened and can easily be denied. The Baltic nations retain their official autonomy and their Republics still exist. In the case of the Chechens, etc. we need only quote official Soviet admissions.



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

111

4.  Our object, which need only be defined to indicate the magnitude of the task, must, I think, be: a. To see, as far as possible, that every literate African or South East Asian has read the facts and b. to create a position such that wherever a Communist anywhere in the world starts on colonialism theme, someone in his audience is sure to shout: “What about the Chechens?” 5.  I would envisage action on something like the following lines: a campaign would be laid on throughout the world and be set off, when ready, by a speech if possible by the Prime Minister, for which we would draft the relevant passages. Such a campaign would naturally include the laying on at all posts of background articles, and if it were at all possible the shortness and simplicity of the really essential matter suggests that leaflets and posters (by which I mean non-pictorial posters presenting a brief argument such as are used so successfully by the French Communist Party), could carry the whole message. This might be difficult to arrange, but conceivably could be done by contacting suitable persons in parties opposed to Communism in the relevant areas – the throwing of leaflets at meetings even when no-one reads them, is always good news value. In the case of India and Pakistan where such methods would doubtless be impossible, perhaps Information Officers could sent out hundreds of thousands of copies of the Prime Minister’s speech to T. U. secretaries, etc. I would not wish to elaborate on these methods, as Mr. Sheridan is better qualified to talk about them than I am. 6.  Such pamphlets, leaflets, etc. would contain merely the text of the Soviet decree exiling the Chechens, a reference to the other nations which have disappeared and two or three sentences making the required points: a. That on the Soviet showing these peoples welcomed the Nazis, of whom they knew nothing except that they were hostile to Soviet rule. After 20 years of Soviettype “free development” and “autonomy” that was sufficient. b. That to blame an entire nation for anything at all is practically Fascist racialism. c. That the penalty imposed shows the completely inhumane attitude to backward peoples. d. The circumstances of the deportation (as from Tokaev?).1 e. An exhortation to answer Communist agitation about colonialism with “What about the Chechens?” 7.  I suggest that the framework for the necessary speech should be something as follows: a. We are always having to listen to Communist attacks on our colonial system. The allegations against us have been exposed ad nauseam. Today I want to demonstrate the hypocrisy of any Communist claim to have a right to criticise us on any colonial matter. Grigory Tokaev was a Red Army colonel who in the latter summer of 1948 defected to the West. Beside the wealth of information that Tokaev provided to the British intelligence in his capacity as an aeronautical engineer, he also proved a major asset for the IRD. An ethnic Ossetian from the North Caucasus, Tokaev condemned the Soviet regime for colonial enslavement of ethnic minorities. His revelations provided ammunition for a comprehensive attack on the Soviet forced labor system that the British launched in the United Nations in October 1948.

1

112

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

b. I am going to stick to facts and to Soviet documents. c. It is plain that the Soviet Union does not care in the least about subject races. The Baltic nations have been invaded contrary to treaty, decimated, decapitated by mass deportations, and reduced to the status of Soviet provinces. The Mohammedan and Buddhist peoples of the Crimea and North Caucasus have been deported entire to Siberia. d. I shall now read you the text of the Soviet law deporting the Chechens… e. If this means anything it means that the whole of these nations was suffering from such oppression under the Soviet regime that they welcomed the Germans purely because they were anti-Soviet. f. A description of the events. Adding something like: this is as if we were to deport the whole population of Jamaica to the deserts of British Somaliland, followed by remarks about inhumanity. g. I ask everyone, and especially Africans and Asiatics who may listen to Soviet propaganda, when they hear a Communist prating about the freedom of colonial nations to tell him to remember the Chechens. I think such a speech if made in a really hammering style could easily break even into the main headlines of the Daily Express.1 R. Conquest

No. 241 British Foreign Office Officials Discuss whether or Not the Present Persecution of Minorities in Romania Qualifies as Genocide, December 15, 1950–January 12, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/88601/UP252/87 Genocide Convention Refer to Roumania’s “adherence” to the Genocide Convention2 MINUTES December 15, 1950 Doubtless it is “a cynical gesture” but I do not see that the fact that Roumania is not a member of the United Nations is relevant. Non-member states of the U.N. are allowed to “accede” to the Genocide Convention and then become parties to it in just the same way as members. Of course, in the case of Roumania, we are not prepared to accept their accession as valid because of the reservations which they made at the time of accession. D.F. Duncan

The minutes are followed by a factual 9-page-long report “The Dispersal and Destruction of Small Nations by the Soviet Government” produced by the IRD, likely by Conquest. 2 See doc. no. 239. 1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

113

* * * December 15, 1950 I think H.M. Minister means that recent events in Roumania verge on genocidal acts – hence the cynicism of their signature. P.H. [Peter Hope] * * * [No date] But class (as opposed to racial) extermination is not, I take it, genocide. I.R.D. may like to see this. R. Brash * * * January 1, 1951 We are most interested in genocide, but only, for course, where there is earlier information or a handle to which propaganda about earlier information can be attached (as in this case, if the Romanians had practiced genocide). 2.  As Mr. Brash says, class-extermination has nothing to do with genocide. But it might be worth asking Bucharest about (earlier) elimination of the Swabians and Saxons, and I seem to have heard something about persecution of the Dobruja Tatars.1 R. Conquest * * * [No date] I think we might write to Bucharest R. Branch * * * January 8, 1951 It may be worth while giving the definition of Genocide as defined by the Convention. Genocide means any of certain acts “committed with intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or political group, on grounds of the national or racial origin, religious belief, or political opinion of its members” Class extermination is not specifically mentioned but it is pretty near Genocide. D.F. Duncan Among Germanic people who had settled in the territory of nowadays Romania were Saxons in the 12th century (mainly in Transylvania) and Swabians in the 17th and 18th centuries (in Satu Mare and Banat regions). Unlike their ethnic kin in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia after 1945, Transylvania Saxons and Danube Swabians were not expelled but resettled within Romania. The Tatars in Dobruja region of Romania trace their history to Crimea. Further Tatar refugees arrived in Dobruja from Nazi-occupied Crimea, which served as a pretext for their subsequent persecution by communist authorities.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

114

* * * January 12, 1951 I doubt if there is any elimination of Swabians ras [?]: The Tartars, however, might just be worth talking about. R. Conquest

No. 242 Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Sees No Evidence of Genocide in Romania, TAQ January 13, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/88601/UP252/87 CONFIDENTIAL January 1951 Dear Chancery [Bucharest], We were interested to see from your despatch No. 229 of the 5th December that Roumania had adhered to the Genocide Convention of 1948.1 We have in fact no recent evidence of any genocidal activity within Roumania and we should be very glad of any facts which may have come your way in the last year. There have been various statements, particularly by Tito the Yugoslavs, about the maltreatment of the Yugoslav minority in Roumania. and Perhaps too the such Swabian and Saxon groups as remain are undergoing persecution still undergo hardship. Yours ever, I.R.D.

No. 243 The Dutch Government Hesitates to Ratify the Genocide Convention due to the Omission of Political Groups, Apprehensive of Propaganda by “Totalitarian States,” July 4, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/38 July 4, 1951

See doc. no. 238.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

115

An extract from a speech made by Mr. Stikker, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the Upper House on the 4th of July.1 Mr. Van de Kieft has asked for further information regarding the reasons as a result of which the Government did not ratify the treaty in regard to the prevention and punishment of genocide. The principal reason for the Government’s hesitation in this matter is that, in the opinion of the Government, this treaty shows a serious hiatus, namely, that the definition of the offence does not make any mention of “political genocide”, that is, the extermination of political groups. In the discussions on this treaty the Netherlands delegation pleaded very strongly in favour of including political genocide in the definition. In the opinion of the Government the treaty loses much of its value by the non-inclusion of political genocide, because we have in past years, and particularly in the Second World War, been witnesses of this form of genocide, consisting in the extermination of certain political parties, measures against political persons as such, etc. Another reason why the Government does not expect much result from this treaty is the following. It is to be anticipated that the worst offences of this kind will be committed by totalitarian States, as we experienced during the years of the Hitler regime. This means that the principal offenders will go unpunished. One can hardly imagine that totalitarian States would be willing to apply a convention of this kind to their subjects, a fact that is already finding expression in various reserves with respect to the authority of the International Court of Justice. They would be able, however, on the ground of this treaty to launch actions and propaganda against the policy of other countries that are far less guilty in the matter of genocide than the accusers themselves. The treaty would thus have little effect where it is most needed and would be abused for purposes of propaganda where it is needed least. The standpoint of the Government is not yet decided and what our attitude will ultimately be is a matter for consideration.2

No. 244 Polish American Congress Urges US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 11, 1951 AJA, 60/2/12, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives July 11, 1951

Dirk Stikker (1897–1979), Foreign Minister of the Netherlands from 1948 to 1952. David Duncan of the Foreign Office on August 22 commented on Stikker’s speech as follows: “I doubt very much if we, and particularly the H.O., would be very anxious to see the definition of the offence expanded to include ‘political Genocide’. With regard to paragraph 4 the reasons given here are much the same as our own though this is no indicator that the Dutch are troubled with the same questions on the extradition clause as we are.”

1 2

116

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

To US Senators James Duff, Alexander Smith, Brien McMahon, Robert Taft, Everett Dirksen, Henry Cabot Lodge The Genocide Convention desperately needs your help. The Americans of Polish origin are vitally interested in immediate ratification of the Genocide Convention because the Soviet authorities are practicing genocide on the Polish people, especially by destroying intellectuals, professionals, and clergymen. By striking at the brains of the Polish people they hope to destroy the body. The Polish American Congress has testified through its director, Judge Blair Gunter, at the Senate hearings in support of ratification of the Genocide Convention.1 Now the convention must be reported on favorably from the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. The enclosed memo of the Polish American Congress shows that the Soviet Union is fighting the Genocide Convention in the United Nations. Instead of having a separate Genocide Convention the Soviet Union would prefer to have a so-called Code of Offenses, which would outlaw the activities of the anti-Soviet Polish and other Liberation movements.2 It would be of the greatest help if you would kindly undertake to: 1. make a statement on the floor along the lines explained in the enclosed memo 2. call upon your friends to work for ratification of the Genocide Convention 3. denounce the Soviet efforts to curb our activities through a UN “Draft Code” 4. propose that the Genocide Convention be ratified eventually with such reservations or understandings, which meet the objections of the American Bar Association, as has been proposed by the Senate Subcommittee on Genocide. Sincerely Yours, Charles Rozmarek, President Polish American Congress

No. 245 A Polish American Organization Supports the Claim of Greek Children as Victims of Communist Genocide, July 27, 1951 AJA, 60/1/11, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives Blair F. Gunther (1903–66), judge on the appellate court of Pittsburgh who served as chairman of the political committee of the Polish American Committee and a member of the American Committee for the Investigation of the Katyn Massacre (est. 1949). 2 See undated Charles Rozmarek’s letter to Leonard Hall, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, in the same file. President Rozmarek requested Hall’s assistance in making the US delegation to the United Nations remove the draft code from the General assembly’s agenda. According to Rozmarek, the draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind threatened to outlaw organizations such as Free Europe Committee or Radio Free Europe, which were advancing the cause of anticommunist Poles behind the Iron Curtain. Rozmarek stated that Polish Americans were ready to make this an election issue. On the draft Code, see doc. nos. 288– 289, 291–292. 1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

117

July 27, 1951 Warren Austin US Mission to the United Nations Dear Mr. Austin, We have been approached by the Greek Youth Organization to help them in getting support for bringing up case of 28,000 Greek children under the terms of Genocide Convention. We consider that is of the greatest importance to expose the communists stealing of children now, because the Soviet Union and its satellites are stealing the children in order to bring them up as communists who will help in the future to communize Europe. Sincerely Yours, Felicia Kulakowski, President Polish Women’s Alliance of America

No. 246 James Rosenberg of the US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention Discusses with Raphael Lemkin Pros and Cons of Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide before the United Nations, July 30, 1951 NYPL, ZL-273/1 July 30, 1951 Dear Dr. Lemkin, Today’s Times article (page 4) “Russia eliminates 7 minority groups” prompts the letter.1 What would you think of a petition by the Genocide Committee addressed to the President and US Senate asking that the U.S.A. call on the United Nations to investigate the charges of genocide by the USSR? The preparation of such a petition would involve considerable labor, also it might encourage a counter action for propaganda purpose by the USSR charging genocide by the USA of Negros (false as such a charge might be). Perhaps we might send a petition only to the Senate of the US for action in reverse course. Such a petition could cite the facts recorded in today’s Times. That might be a way to bring forward Senate action. I incline to the latter course. But await your opinion.

I hope you’re feeling [illegible]

Yours, J. Rosenberg

Cf. “Russia Eliminates 7 Minority Groups: 1,300,000 Have Been Banished or Liquidated in Last Few Years, Evidence Shows,” New York Times, July 30, 1951.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

118

No. 247 Lithuanian American Council Relies on Raphael Lemkin in Formulating the “Soviet Genocide” Thesis, Defrays His Expenses, October 18  and December 29, 1951; May 16  and June 2, 1952; September 22, 1954 AJA, 60/1/7, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives October 18, 1951 Lithuanian American Council, Inc. Prof. R. Lemkin Henry Hudson Hotel New York, N.Y. Dear Professor: This morning I remitted by telegraph $100,00 to your account at the Hamilton National Bank. Wishing you best success in your unceasing struggle for the cause of freedom and justice. Sincerely yours, Dr. P. Grigaitis Executive Secretary * * * Lithuanian America Council, Inc. December 29, 1951 Prof. R. Lemkin Henry Hudson Hotel New York, N.Y. Dear Professor: Members of the Executive Board of the Council will go to Washington, D.C. and stay there from Jan. 13 until Jan. 16. As one of the important objects on this trip will be to discuss what further action is to be taken on genocide problem, we would very much appreciate your assistance. Therefore, we request you, if you are not prevented by other engagements, to join us in Washington during our stay there. The Council will pay your travel, hotel and other expenses. We are trying to make hotel reservations for ourselves and for you, too, beginning Jan. 13. Wishing you a happy and successful New Year, I remain, Yours cordially, Dr. Pius Grigaitis Executive Secretary



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

119

* * * Lithuanian American Council, Inc. May 16, 1952 Prof. R. Lemkin 240 West 102nd Street Apt. 61 New York City, N.Y. Dear Professor: Please find enclosed a check for $600 as advance payment for your work on the booklet “Genocide in Lithuania”.1 We have advised the branches of the Lithuanian American Council and other organizations throughout the country to send telegrams and adopt resolutions referring prompt ratification of the Genocide Convention by the U.S. Senate. Best wishes and many thanks for everything you have done and will do on behalf of suffering Lithuanian and other peoples. Sincerely yours, Dr. Pius Grigaitis Executive Secretary * * * Lithuanian American Council, Inc. June 2, 1952 Prof. R. Lemkin 240 West 102nd Street New York City, N.Y. Dear Professor: The outline of the brochure dealing with genocide in Lithuania was discussed by the members of the Executive Board at their recent meeting. I am glad to inform you that we all gratefully agreed to the proposed outline of the pamphlet. Though there is no special chapter in the draft provided for the part of Lithuanians in the fight against Soviet-managed genocide, we hope that the efforts of the Lithuanian Americans and especially of the Lithuanian American Council on behalf of the Genocide Convention will be duly and thoroughly reviewed in the booklet. Best wishes and regards. Sincerely yours, Dr. Pius Grigaitis Executive Secretary * * * The pamphlet “A Look Behind the Iron Curtain: Exhibit on Genocide in Lithuania” was prepared in conjunction with the exhibition that opened in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 17, 1951.

1

120

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2 Lithuanian American Council, Inc.

September 22, 1954 Prof. Raphael Lemkin 504 West 112 Street New York City, N.Y. Dear Professor: This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of September 19 which I submitted for consideration of the Executive Board of our Council meeting yesterday. I am glad to inform you that the Executive Board, in full support of the campaign against the Draft Code of Offenses, agreed to contribute $500 for that purpose. Further, the Executive Board approved your using the telephone and wire facilities of the Information Centre up to the amount of $50. A check drawn in your name and for the amount indicated, is enclosed herein. The Council also reimbursed Mr. Simutis for $30 which you borrowed from him. Wishing you best success in your untiring efforts for the cause of freedom and justice for the communist victims, I am, Sincerely yours, Dr. Pius Grigaitis Executive Secretary

No. 248 The Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office Aims to Develop “Soviet Genocide” as a Means of Anti-Communist Propaganda, November 24, 1951 NA, F.O. 1110/421 (PR 66/8/G) SECRET November 24, 1951 Dear Chancery,

SOVIET GENOCIDE

We enclose with this letter a brief memorandum on Soviet genocide. This is a theme which has been mentioned on several occasions in sessions of the United Nations, and was referred to by Mr. Corley Smith in a speech on the 10th August at the 13th Session of the Economic and Social Council at Geneva in the summer of this year. His speech had a limited propaganda success. 2.  We hope in the course of the next few months to develop Soviet genocide as an anti-Communist propaganda theme, since our evidence suggests that it may prove to be one on which the Soviet Union are almost as vulnerable as they were on forced labour.



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

121

3.  The attached memorandum defines genocide, with examples from recent history and is forwarded in order to put you in the picture in case our operations develop quickly and we require you to take supporting action. Yours ever, Information Research Department * * * SECRET SOVIET GENOCIDE The term ‘Genocide’ came into use during the recent war to describe the “murder of nations”, especially the Jews, by the Nazis. After the War a Genocide Convention was prepared in the United Nations. It expressly forbids a number of measures designed to destroy nations in whole or in part, either physically (by mass murder or by preventing reproduction by breaking up families) or by preventing the perpetuation of their cultural and other characteristics. A copy of the relevant article – Article II – of the Genocide Convention is attached. (The Convention was unanimously adopted at the Third Session of the United Nations General Assembly and entered into force after 20 states had deposited their instruments of ratification or accession. 28 states had ratified or acceded by the 25th July, 1951. His Majesty’s Government voted for the Convention, but have not yet acceded pending consideration of how the Convention might affect our domestic law, with particular reference to the right of political asylum.) 2.  We are now using the term to describe Soviet actions towards certain nations within the U.S.S.R. which have been subject to practices of this nature. It should be noted, however, that the word “Genocide” is merely a convenient label, and we would not normally wish to be involved in an argument as to whether a given action against a smaller nation was “really” genocide: in each case we would concentrate on the unpleasantness of the facts. 3.  Briefly, the actions we are dealing with are the following: (a)  During the war the ‘autonomous’ Republics and Regions of most of the smaller nations in the U.S.S.R. which had been reached or approached by the German Armies were dissolved, and their populations deported to Central Asia and Siberia. The nations affected were the Volga Germans, the Crimean Tartars, the Chechens and Ingushes, the Kalmyks, the Karachas and the Balkars.1 The text of the decree abolishing the Crimean and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republics was published in “Izvestiya” on 26th June, 1946. Some publicity was also given by Soviet sources to the deportation of the Volga Germans. We have information on the decree abolishing the Kalmyk Republic. In these and the other cases mentioned the national names of the autonomous republics and regions have disappeared from the official Soviet maps and the names of the peoples have been erased from the Soviet Encyclopaedia’s list of peoples inhabiting the U.S.S.R. Our information is that the survivors of the nations

The proper spelling is Karachays.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

122

concerned are now working on forced labour projects in circumstances which ensure their rapid extinction as separate peoples. (b) After the war the Greek and Turkish populations of the Crimea and the Caucasus, who had been settled there long before the Russian annexation, were deported. A similar fate is believed to have overtaken the Persian minority. (c)  In Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, while a large part of the original population remains and ‘Union Republics’ are still in existence, up to a third of the inhabitants have been executed or deported to Siberia and to the Artic parts of European Russia, and there has been a large influx of Russians. The deportees include practically the entire cultural, religious and political core of the nations.

No. 249 A Hungarian Émigré Organization in the United States Requests UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Invoke Genocide Convention in respect to Deportations in Hungary, November 28, 1951 NA, F. O. 371/95709/UP254/44 Genocide Convention Attaches telegram from Hungarian National Council in New York to the Prime Minister appealing for help regarding the Genocide Convention MINUTES December 6, 1951 The ratification of the Convention on Genocide awaits a cabinet-decision to reconcile the conflicting F.O. and H.O. views.1 2.  Do you think that we should send any reply to this please? Royce Southern Dept. * * * December 8, 1951 Any reply should of course be sent via New York and not direct from here. The Hungarian National Committee is highly reputable, and we do of course abhor all the deportations which have taken place in Hungary. But whether you can say we shall ratify the convention, I don’t see what reply could usefully be sent. M.B. [ineligible] * * * See doc. no. 191.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

123

December 18, 1951 I hope that an encouraging reply can be sent. Could I see it before it goes?1 N.J.A. Cheetham * * * November 28, 1951 Western Union Cablegram Hon. Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill: Hungarian nation [is in] mortal danger though deportations. [We] appeal [for] your help for invoking Genocide Convention.2 Your ratification [of the] convention will mobilize humanitarian forces throughout the world to stop a new crime which you deplored in broadcast August 1941 as being nameless. Owing [to] your inspiration a name was given to the crime and a treaty adopted carrying this name.3 Msgr. Bela Varga, President Hungarian National Council, formerly President Parliament

No. 250 Bela Varga of the Hungarian National Council Appeals to the President of Panama to Invoke Genocide Convention with respect to Ongoing Deportations in Hungary, December 5, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/12-551) December 5, 1951 CONFIDENTIAL FOREIGN SERVICE DESPATCH From: Embassy, Panamá To: The Department of State, Washington Subject: ALLEGED HUNGARIAN APPEAL FOR “INVOCATION” BY PRESIDENT AROSEMENA OF GENOCIDE CONVENTION

See doc. no. 252. A total of fifty-four heads of state received the cable, differently worded depends on whether the country in question had or had not ratified/acceded to the convention. 3 The reference to Churchill’s speech of August 24, 1941, which he delivered live on BBC shortly after meeting with President Roosevelt to discuss the Atlantic Charter, betrays the hand of Lemkin. Lemkin had often evoked Churchill’s dictum of a “crime without a name” when narrating how he came up with the hybrid word genocide. Lemkin likely edited the text of the cable—one of many such documents produced by East European émigrés in the United States. 1 2

124

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

The Embassy has been informed by G-2, United States Army Caribbean, that President Alcibíades AROSEMENA received the following cable from New York on November 28 signed by Bela VARGA, President of the Hungarian National Council and former President of the Hungarian Parliament: “Hungarian nation [is] mortally in danger through deportations. [We] appeal [to] Your Excellency [to] invoke [the] Genocide Convention Paris to save Hungary.” The above information was given a B-2 evaluation by G-2 (source: usually reliable; content: probably true). For the Chargé d’Affaires, a.i.: G. Wallace LaRue Second Secretary of Embassy

No. 251 Eleanor Roosevelt Relates to East-European Émigré Organizations That the US Delegation at the UN General Assembly is in No Position to Place a Charge of Genocide against the Soviet Union on the Agenda, December 5, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 December 5, 1951 UNITED STATES DELEGATION TO THE SIXTH REGULAR SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PARIS, FRANCE To: Mr. Andrew Valucheck Czechoslovak National Council of America Cc: Mr. Charles Rozmarek Polish American Congress of Chicago Dr. Pius Grigaitis American Lithuanian National Council Mr. Aloysius Falusy Hungarian American Federation Mr. Peter L. Bell Order of Ahepa American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association Rev. Conrad Klemmer Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Houston, Teaneck and Patterson Gentlemen: As the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation at the Sixth General Assembly of the UN, I wish to reply to your joint cable of November 24, addressed to the Secretary of State suggesting that the U.S. Delegation present a new item on the



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

125

Assembly Agenda regarding deportations, persecutions and other violations of human rights in the countries behind the Iron Curtain.1 First let me assure you that the U.S. Delegation is maintaining an active interest in the violations of human rights by the Soviet Union and its puppet governments. At the same time, our Delegation is taking the leadership in the positive work of setting standards for the safeguarding of human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human rights and the drafting of a Covenant on Human rights. We are exposing the assaults of police states against fundamental freedoms and human rights in consideration of such questions as the refugee problem, the IRS, the violation of treaty agreements in Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria, slave labor camps and treatment of prisoners of war. May I also draw your attention to the following statement from the address of the Secretary of State to the General Assembly on November 8: “Millions of persons now work as slaves in forced labor camps, and tens of thousands of persons are being compelled to leave their homes by mass deportations….The hopes of the civilized world that the mass permutations of the Hitler regime would never be repeated have proved to be in vain….Culture and religion have been made the special victims of this tyranny, scientists and scholars, artists and churchmen – all are forced to conform to the single dogma of the all-powerful state….These calculated denials of basic human rights are a matter of concern to the world community.” A copy of the full text of that speech is enclosed. Thank you for your suggestion concerning additional measures which might be proposed. These views will be brought to the attention of officers of the Delegation. However, our Delegation is instructed by the Department of State on policy matters. I should like to point out, in conclusion, that it is virtually impossible for our Delegation to place a charge of genocide on the Agenda or even to press it hard in debate, in view of the fact that the United States is not a party to the Genocide Convention. As soon as the Senate commits to the ratification of that Convention, our delegation in the United Nations bodies will be in a much better position to take action as appropriate on the subject. Although it is not our present intention under instructions from the Department of State to introduce a new item on the Agenda on this subject, we are taking advantage of appropriate opportunities to speak about it. The enclosed text of our speech on the item introduced by Yugoslavia serves as an illustration.

Enclosures: Press Releases 1315, 1382

Document not in the file.

1

Very sincerely yours, (Mrs.) Franklin D. Roosevelt

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

126

No. 252 Peter Hope of the British Foreign Office on behalf of UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill Proposes a NonCommittal Reply to Bela Varga, December 18, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/47 December 18, 1951 To H. A. Hobson, Esq., His Majesty’s Consul General, New York I enclose a copy of a telegram which the Prime Minister received from the Hungarian National Council about the Genocide Convention and the forcible expulsion of Hungarians from their homes.1 I shall be grateful if you will arrange for a reply on the following lines to be transmitted to Monseigneur Bela Varga. Mr. Churchill has asked me to thank you for your telegram of the 28th November about the ratification of the Genocide Convention. His Majesty’s Government agree that every effort should be made to mobilise humanitarian forces throughout the world to prevent the crime of genocide. They doubt, however, whether in itself their ratification of the Genocide Convention would substantially affect world opinion. The Convention raises certain difficult problems with regard to United Kingdom National law and before ratifying His Majesty’s Government must carefully consider the consequences. Mr. Churchill is sure you will understand that the many cares which have weighed upon the Government since he took Office have not yet allowed them to reach a final conclusion on this matter. (C.P. Hope)

No. 253 Republican Congressmen Urge US Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Launch an Investigation of “Soviet Genocide,” January 13, 1952 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives January 13, 1952 Office of Congressman Charles Kersten Republican Congressman Demand Expose of Soviet Genocide On January 11, 1952, more than 100 Republican Congressmen urged Secretary of State Dean Acheson to seek to arrange for an immediate investigation of Soviet genocide by the UN Assembly. In a letter to Mr. Acheson, the Congressmen reminded him that on November 24, 1951 representatives of some 12 million American citizens See doc. no. 249.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

127

of East-European descent urged Mr. Acheson to try to place an investigation of Soviet Genocide on the agenda of the UN Assembly. The Republican Congressmen asserted that Acheson has not yet responded to this appeal. “Ever since the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, they have been engaged in genocidal acts against their subjugated peoples”, said Congressman Kersten of Wisconsin, spokesman for the Republican Congressmen. “The Soviets have followed a systematic plan of annihilation of the peoples they feared so greatly. The slaughter of the Polish Army Officers at Katyn; of thousands of Ukrainians at Vinnitsa; the present mass deportation of Hungarians; and the forced replacement of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian husbands and fathers with men who have been imported from behind the Urals, are only some of the examples of Soviet genocide.”1 “We have been altogether too timid in our actions in the UN”, said Kersten. “We are continually apologizing and defending ourselves against false charges but make no effort to proffer any charges ourselves. To date the record of the UN shows a multitude of the false charges made by the Soviet Union against the US, but virtually none of the true charges which the US could levy against the Soviet Union. If an archeologist, 10,000 years hence, digs through the UN ruins, and succeed in translating the hieroglyphics, he would reasonably but erroneously conclude that in the 20th century the United States was a most reprehensible nation and the Soviet Union a most exemplary one.” * * * To the Honorable Dean G. Acheson Secretary of State, US Department of State On November 24, 1951, representatives of some 12 million American citizens of Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian descent urged you to seek to place on the agenda of the UN Assembly an investigation of Soviet genocide perpetrated on their friends and kin by the communist rulers. To our knowledge they have received no response to their appeal. We fully share the anxiety of our fellow citizens when their brethren are being massacred by the thousands and when millions of them are being thrown into slowdeath forced labor camps. The silence of death and agony has descended upon the many captive peoples, i.e., Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Bulgarians, Ruthenians, Slovaks, Jews, Rumanians, Armenians, Belorussians, East and Volga Germans, Crimean Tartars, people of the Caucasus, Chinese and Koreans, and the Greek children abducted by the Communists. We are horrified by the Communists’ continuous destruction of Protestants, Catholic, Jewish, and other religious groups. Mass executions carried out by the NKVD in the Ukrainian city of Vinnitsa in 1937–41 claimed the lives of some 9,439 people, overwhelmingly ethnic Ukrainians. German occupation authorities in 1943 exhumed the corpses, making it into a prime example of Judeobolshevik savagery. Throughout the Cold War, both Vinnitsa and Katyn remained hot-button issues for the Soviets, who had shifted the blame on the Germans. On mass executions at Vinnitsa and their geopolitical significance see Amir Weiner, Making Sense of War: The Second World War and the Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), passim. The repeated reference as to the intentional replacement of Baltic males with Soviet “Asiatic” males cannot be corroborated.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

128

The silence of the UN and of US State Department indicates an appalling indifference toward international crime which has been formally condemned in the Genocide Convention of the UN on January 12, 1951. We, the representatives of the American people, however, refuse to be silent parties to this international crime. To give voice to the plight of these victims of genocide is to give hope to those suppressed peoples and to give power to their resistance. Keeping these peoples alive is the best guarantee of peace, because the Soviet tyrants will be afraid to start a war while so many non-Russian people remain alive under their subjugation. The First anniversary of the Genocide Convention of the UN, January 12, 1952, is a fitting time to begin a campaign to expose Soviet genocide. We hope and pray that the conscience of the American people and of the free world may rise in protest against those who have transformed a great part of the world into a cemetery of nations. We urge you in conformity with basic law and morality, our fundamental American traditions and in the best interests of mankind, to seek to arrange for an immediate investigation of Soviet genocide by the United Nations Assembly. Signed by 116 Republican Congressmen

No. 254 The US State Department Considers Counterproductive Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide before the UN General Assembly, January 14, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1952–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/1-1452) January 14, 1952 CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION To: The Secretary1 From: UNA – Mr. Sanders Subject:  Letter from Republican Congressmen Urging Immediate Investigation of Soviet Genocide by the United Nations General Assembly The press on January 13 reported that a letter signed by over one hundred Republican members of the House of Representatives had gone forward asking you to lodge charges of genocide against the Soviet Union before the United Nations General Assembly. A copy of the letter is attached. The letter is dated January 11 and was received in the Department today. It refers to an earlier communication of November 24, 1951 on this subject. We are unable to identify this communication. It may have some connection with a memorandum entitled “Human Freedom is Being Crushed” (copy attached) presented Dean G. Acheson (1893–1971), US Secretary of State from 1949 to 1953.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

129

to the Department about that time and forwarded to our United Nations Delegation in Paris.1 Organizations speaking for refugees from behind the Iron Curtain and for Americans of Eastern European descent have in recent months been urging that we raise in the United Nations various Soviet violations of Soviet fundamental human rights, including mass deportations and genocide. Prior to the opening of this session of the General Assembly, we considered very carefully whether we should put an item on the agenda on this subject. The basic question which had to be answered was whether such action would on balance be useful, either in terms of assistance to those suffering from Soviet repression or in terms of free-world propaganda. We came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to place an item on the Assembly’s agenda on this subject, but that instead we should on every appropriate occasion attack the Soviets in the speeches of our representatives. The reasoning which led to this conclusion is outlined in the attached letter from Mr. Hickerson to Mr. Joseph C. Grew. Some of the argumentation in the letter is repeated in the following paragraphs. One important factor which restrained us from presenting an agenda item and seeking a condemnatory resolution was the reluctance of the General Assembly to take such action without overwhelmingly convincing proof of the allegations. While we have a considerable body of material at hand, much of it is outdated and cannot, because of restraints within the Iron Curtain, be convincingly verified. To compile the evidence effectively is a difficult research job which we are pursuing within the limitations of our financial and personnel resources. We are gathering affidavits as rapidly as we can, but have not yet reached the stage where we would be able to support with maximum effectiveness broad charges of the character or type desired. By way of illustration, it took the General Assembly three successive sessions to deal with the case involving violations of human rights by Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, and one year after beginning to collect our evidence regarding these violations, we have ready only a single volume of evidence dealing with violations of freedom of the press, publication and expression in Rumania. Despite this basic difficulty, we consulted with other key delegations before the General Assembly met in order to obtain their views. Although this information must be used with caution, we discovered a general lack of enthusiasm and in some cases outright reluctance to have a separate item on Soviet and satellite violations of human rights placed on the agenda. It seemed to us that to proceed with a formal agenda item would be unwise in the absence of unqualified support by free delegations. A resolution passed by an unimpressive vote or so watered down to be unsatisfactory in its terms might actually lessen the pressure on the Communists to halt their abuses. Moreover, the indiscriminate introduction of charges of human rights violations into the General Assembly would open the door to countercharges against many other countries, some of which would infringe upon the domestic jurisdiction of the countries concerned. For example, the Soviets might charge the United Nations that we are guilty of genocide against negroes. (For your information only the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist front organization, has published and distributed in Paris a pamphlet entitled “We Charge Genocide” which makes this point against us. This Document not in the file.

1

130

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

should not be mentioned publicly, since it is our policy to ignore the pamphlet to keep it from gaining publicity.)1 An additional factor militating against the introduction of charges of Soviet genocide in the General Assembly is the failure of the United States Senate to act upon the Genocide Convention. The Convention has been before the Senate since 1949. Moreover, the Soviets have not ratified the Convention and legally are not bound by it, although they can be charged with violations of human rights generally. The letter from the congressmen refers to Soviet forced labor practices. Under our leadership the Economic and Social Council in the Spring of 1951 set up an Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor. This Committee is now carrying on its investigation and we are cooperating with it.2 It should be stressed that we are utilizing every opportunity to refer to Soviet repression in our speeches in the General Assembly. You made a specific reference to forced labor and Hungarian deportations in your keynote speech on November 8. Congressman Mansfield has attacked the Soviets on the same grounds in his speeches on Soviet charges that the Mutual Security Act has an aggressive purpose. Mrs. Roosevelt has referred to Soviet abuses in the debates in the Assembly’s Social Committee. A reply to the letter from the Republican Congressmen will be prepared as soon as possible. WILLIAM SANDERS Enclosures: 1. Letter of January 11, 1952 to Secretary, signed by over one hundred congressmen 2. Letter of October 12, 1951 to Mr. Joseph C. Grew from Mr. John D. Hickerson 3. Pamphlet, “Human Freedom Is Being Crushed”

No. 255 Birute Kemezaite of Chicago Urges Eleanor Roosevelt to Apply the Genocide Convention to Soviet Russia, January 15, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 January 15, 1952 Franklin D. Roosevelt, USA Delegate Hotel Astoria, 131 Avenue des Champs Elysees Paris (8) France Madam: Mass destruction of human beings because of nationality, race, or religion has been an abominable evil since the beginning of recorded history. But the tactics and On the CRC’s campaign to indict the United States for genocide see doc. nos. 315–354. See doc. no. 268.

1 2



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

131

dimensions which the modern genocide adopted in our own days overshadow the most horrible examples of the past. Soviet Russia, spurred by her vicious ambition to conquer the world, is applying a policy of unscrupulous destruction against people which she thinks might stand in her way to future expansion of world communism. The Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and many other nations are presently the principal victims of the Soviet-managed genocide, not counting millions of Russian people opposing communist totalitarianism. Who is going to protect them? How can we go on living with clear conscience without lifting a finger to stop the most horrible of all crimes known in the past, or at least branding it legally and publicly as a crime? It is my deepest conviction that The United Nations Organization should do something about it. Therefore, I am writing to you, as a humanitarian and United Nations delegate, with the request to use your influence and do all in your power that 1)  the question of the Soviet policy of genocide be put on the agenda of the present U.N. General Assembly; 2)  the Genocide Convention, which is now an international law, be applied to Soviet Russia; 3)  an international commission be formed for investigation of conditions in the Soviet-dominated countries; and 4)  all necessary measures be taken to put a stop to the mass extermination of people by the Kremlin masters. A clear and determined stand by the United Nations Organization against Soviet crimes would arouse the freedom loving people of the world and bring about the downfall of international communism. Assuring you of my sincere appreciation for whatever favorable consideration you may accord this action, I remain, Madam, Respectfully yours, Birute Kemezaite

No. 256 The Lithuanian American Council Urges the United States to Charge the Soviet Union with Genocide before the UN General Assembly, January 15, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/1-1552) January 15, 1952 DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation UNCLASSIFIED Subject:

Lithuania and Soviet Genocide

132

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Participants: The Under Secretary J.E.W.1 Congressman Daniel J. Flood of Pennsylvania Mr. Leonard Simutis, President of the Lithuanian American Council and Editor of DRAUGAS (“Friend”) Dr. Puis Grigaitis, Secretary of the Lithuanian American Council and Editor of NAUJIENAS (“News”) Mr. Michael Vaidyla, Treasurer of the Lithuanian American Council and Editor of SANDARA (“Alliance”) Miss Mary Kizis, Director of the Lithuanian American Information Center, New York City Mr. Allan – EE2 The officers of the Lithuanian American Council, accompanied by Congressman Flood, visited me at their request to express their appreciation of the fact that the United States does not recognize the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union and to urge that the United States charge the Soviet Union, in the General Assembly of the United Nations, with the crime of genocide. Dr. Grigaitis said that the Lithuanian American Council is planning to write to the Secretary on the subject of genocide. He showed me the draft of a letter to the Secretary and, stating that his organization does not want to embarrass the Department, he asked if I would read the draft letter and comment upon it. I assured Dr. Grigaitis and the others that the Secretary would be pleased to receive a letter from the Lithuanian American Council, whether or not it might be considered “embarrassing”. After reading the letter, I said that it appeared proper and useful. It was suggested, however, that, if the letter were to be published, the Lithuanian American Council might wish to reconsider the mention made in it of the present agitation in Paris in which the United States is being accused of practicing genocide against American negroes, and that it might be prudent to avoid publicizing a maneuver such as this which might detract from the attention given to well-founded accusations of genocide against the Soviet Union.3 Congressman Flood commented in support of this point and the other visitors said they would consider it. Dr. Grigaitis then produced a copy of a pamphlet, “Antidote to Barbarism”, by Ashley Montague, published by The Community Relations Service, 386 Fourth Avenue, New York City. The pamphlet contains pictures of negroes and alleges that “persecution” of negroes in the United States falls within the meaning of the word genocide.4 It was agreed that this is a deplorable and malicious interpretation of the word. Mr. Simutis, Mr. Vaidyla and Miss Kizis, in leaving, stressed the importance they attached to the fact that they were able to obtain this appointment. They said that this James E. Webb (1906–92), US Under Secretary of State from 1949 to 1952. Likely Ward P. Allen of the Office of European Affairs and adviser to the US delegation to the UN General Assembly. Allen is probably also the one who prepared the document. 3 See doc. no. 254. 4 The actual article, which appeared on August 19, 1950, did not contain such a statement. Head of the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University, Montagu was the chief author of the scientific definition of race unveiled by the UNESCO in October 1950. The article featured a symbolic illustration of the significance of the Genocide Convention and carried a photo of a black man surrounded by white youths with the following caption: “USA race riot victim, 1949.” 1 2



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

133

sign of the United States’ friendship for Lithuania would encourage Lithuanians still in their homeland and that they earnestly hoped that mention of the meeting would be made over VOA. In supporting this proposal, Congressman Flood stated that he had advised Mr. Barrett by telephone of this meeting. I indicated that I did not think VOA publicity would be out of place.

No. 257 Raphael Lemkin Requests British Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe to Help Ensure UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, Invokes Genocide in Hungary and the Baltic, January 17, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/9 January 17, 1952 Sir David [Maxwell Fyfe], It gives me great pleasure to communicate with you again. I am sorry that it is a letter in connection with “business” – but from our common work in Nurnberg I remember how interested you are in the problem of genocide. As you know, the genocide convention has been ratified already by 31 nations which have deposited the documents of ratification. Egypt, Brazil, Nicaragua and Peru are on the way to deposit the documents of ratification. The success of the convention is overwhelming. It will never be complete, however, until the United Kingdom has ratified it. I understand that the Home Office is studying the matter of ratification and that the provisions of the convention dealing with asylum are raising some difficulties.1 May I draw your attention to the opinion of the International Court of Justice which was now accepted by the General Assembly in Paris which permit your government to introduce a reservation to this effect. We need badly the humanitarian leadership of Great Britain in the matter of the genocide convention. We need it especially now when we hear of genocide being perpetrated in Hungary, in the Baltic states and in other countries behind the Iron Curtain. This is the reason why I have asked especially the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Bela Varga, former president of the Parliament of Hungary and now president of the Hungarian National Council to discuss this matter with you. I will be most grateful if you could spare some time to listen to the story of a proud and noble nation faced with genocide. With my best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year I am, Very sincerely yours, (Sgd) Raphael Lemkin Yale University New Haven, Conn Cf. doc. nos. 187, 191, 193.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

134

No. 258 The US State Department Considers whether or Not to File Formal Charges of Genocide against the Soviet Union, January 28, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/1-2852) January 28, 1952 Activities of our United Nations Representatives in Paris on Genocide THE PROBLEM Representative Daniel J. Flood, Democrat from the 11th District of Pennsylvania and a member of the Appropriations Committee, has an appointment with you on January 29 at 10:15 A. M. to discuss the activities of our representatives in the United Nations General Assembly at Paris on the Genocide Convention. While we are uncertain as to just what the Congressman may have in mind, we assume that he is concerned with the question why the United States has not lodged charges of genocide or other human rights violations against the Soviet Union in the United Nations. He may incidentally be interested in the status of the Genocide Convention. BACKGROUND 1.  Organizations speaking for refugees from behind the Iron Curtain and for Americans of Eastern European descent, have for some time been urging that the United States raise in the United Nations various Soviet violations of fundamental human rights, including genocide and mass deportations. Prior to the opening of the current Assembly session, we considered very carefully whether we should submit an item for the Assembly’s agenda on this subject. We reluctantly concluded that it would not be desirable to place the matter formally before the Assembly, but that instead we should on every appropriate occasion attack the Soviets in the speeches of our representatives. This procedure was initiated in your opening speech in the general debate, when you referred critically to the recent mass deportations in Hungary, and to Soviet forced labor practices as it has been followed up in speeches by other members of the delegation on every appropriate occasion. For example, Congressman Mansfield has attacked the Soviets for such practices in his speeches on Soviet charges that the Mutual Security Act has an aggressive purpose. Likewise Mrs. Roosevelt has referred caustically to Soviet abuses in the human rights discussions in the Social Committee. 2.  Members of Congress have recently shown interest in the efforts of various organizations to induce the Department to make formal charges in the United Nations, directed against the USSR and the Soviet satellites, of genocide against Baltic and Eastern European peoples. On January 11 one hundred and twelve Republican Congressmen addressed a letter to you on this subject (copy attached). RECOMMENDATION Assuming that this is the problem which Mr. Flood will raise with you, it is recommended that you explain the position of the United States along the lines set forth below.



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

135

DISCUSSION 1.  The United States, not having ratified the Genocide Convention, is not in a good position to charge its violation by the USSR. The United States Government has no doubt that the Soviet Union is guilty of genocide as it is defined in the Genocide Convention. However, there are almost insuperable obstacles to our proceeding against the Soviets under that Convention. Foremost is the fact that the United States is not yet a party to it. Article 8 of the Convention provides that “any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide.” The Convention has been before the Senate since June 1949 with a recommendation for its approval from the President and the Department of State, but unfortunately the Senate has not yet given its approval. The result is a matter of real embarrassment to us. Moreover, the Soviets have not ratified the Convention and thus are not legally bound by it. 2.  In addition, at present it would not be possible to obtain the general support of United Nations members for a resolution condemning the USSR; failure to obtain an overwhelming vote would be regarded as a propaganda victory for the Soviets. A major obstacle to bringing such charges at this time is the need of securing unqualified support from a large majority of friendly countries in the United Nations for our action. Otherwise we would risk having a resolution adopted by an unimpressive vote or so watered down as to be unsatisfactory in its terms. In these circumstances the result might actually be to lessen the moral pressure on the Soviets to halt their abuses. We have sounded out other delegations on this type of case and their reaction is at best spotty. Partly, this reluctance to proceed against the Soviets is due to the fear of some states that the broad-scale introduction of human rights violations in the General Assembly would open the door to embarrassing countercharges against many other countries for violations of human rights. Another important factor in the reluctance of other members relates to the question of proof. There is always reluctance to have the General Assembly adopt a condemnatory resolution without overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the allegations. We have a considerable body of material at hand. Unfortunately, some of it deals with events which took place long ago, and much of it cannot be convincingly verified because of restraints within the Iron Curtain. We are gathering affidavits to help us to build up a strong case as rapidly as we can which would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the charges are true and that this is not a mere propaganda attack on the USSR. 3. The United States is taking other available steps to expose the deplorable practices of the Soviets. On every appropriate occasion, within the United Nations and elsewhere, we are emphasizing our anger and disgust over the systematic violations of human rights behind the Iron Curtain. We have repeatedly condemned the barbarous practices of mass extermination and deportation in Eastern Europe. In accordance with a General Assembly resolution of November 1950 we are submitting to the Secretary-General of the United Nations detailed evidence of the violations of human rights in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania. Wherever we find that we can, as we did in this case of this violation of the Treaties of Peace by these three countries, obtain strong General Assembly support for action, we will not hesitate to press for it.

136

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Note: It is possible that the question of our policy toward the Draft Code of Offenses Against the Peace and Security of Mankind may be raised. This code was formulated last summer by the International Law Commission of the UN. Our Delegation is reserving judgment until the code has been further studied. The Department is all holding up its views until the Delegation returns to this country. On reason for our reluctance, which we have not made public, is that certain of its provisions may limit us in supporting refugee groups from Eastern Europe.

No. 259 The Lithuanian American Council Makes a Connection between the Desired Liberation of Lithuania and US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, February 15, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 February 15, 1952 LITHUANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT The Hon. E.A. Gross U.S. Delegation Hotel Astoria 131, Avenue des Champs Elysee Paris 18, France Dear Sir: It was unanimously voted, after due deliberation, at the observance of the 34th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence by the People of Lithuania, held under the auspices of Lithuanian American Council on the 10th day of February 1952, at St. Anthony’s Hall in the City of Ansonia WHEREAS, the people of Lithuania, one of the first victims of the Stalin-Hitler conspiracy, have been forcibly deprived of the exercise of their sovereignty, and of the basic rights of individual, religious, political, social, cultural, and economic liberty, and are subjected to inhuman policy of oppression, terror, murder and mass deportations to Siberia and other parts of vast Soviet territory; WHEREAS, the freedom-loving Lithuanian nation is strongly opposed to any alien domination and continues to resist enslavement with an ardent desire to regain freedom and independence; WHEREAS, because of their manifest and unmistakable attitude towards international communism, the people in Lithuania, backed by their kinsmen in the free world represent a reliable outpost in the present defense line of the free nations against communist aggression;



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

137

WHEREAS, the eyes of the unfortunate are set on the United States of America which always has been looked upon as the strongest champion of the oppressed; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this meeting appeal to the President, Secretary of State and members of the U.S. Senate with the request to do everything possible 1. that the Genocide Convention which represents the most powerful legal instrument for preventing the Crime of Genocide, be immediately ratified by the United States Senate, thus demonstrating to the world that this country not only professes but also stands for humanitarian ideals; 2. that the ratification of the Genocide Convention be thereafter implemented by energetic and unceasing efforts of the U.S. Government within the United Nations to enlighten the world regarding the barbaric practices of the Soviets against enslaved peoples and to take all steps that this horrible crime be stopped. 3. that the liberation of Lithuania and other Russian occupied countries be included in the program of the American foreign policy; and 4. that the existing underground movements behind the Iron Curtain be given direct and effective assistance in their unequal life-and-death struggle for freedom and independence; be it further RESOLVED, that this meeting expresses its gratitude to the Government of the United States for its ever growing initiative in supporting the cause of free Lithuania and for its favorable attitude towards the suffering Lithuanian nation; and be it finally; RESOLVED, that we, the Lithuanian Americans of the City of Ansonia reaffirm our adherence to the American democracy and pledge our wholehearted support of the Government in its efforts to stop communist aggression and to secure an international peace founded on principles of freedom and justice for all the peoples on the earth. Sincerely yours, Chairman [signature illegible] Secretary Olga Savitskas

No. 260 The US State Department Responds to Congressman Charles J. Kersten, Outlines the Arguments against Indicting the Soviet Union for Genocide, February 19, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/1-1152) February 19, 1952 My dear Mr. Kersten: In accordance with the Department’s letter of January 16, acknowledging your letter of January 11, I am writing to give you further information with respect to our position on the question of pressing charges of genocide against the U.S.S.R. in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Your letter refers to a request of November 24, 1951 to the Secretary from some 12 million American citizens of Polish, Ukrainian, Greek,

138

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian, Latvian, and Esthonian descent urging that the United States seek to place on the agenda of the Central Assembly an investigation of Soviet genocide perpetrated against various Eastern European peoples. In endorsing this request, you suggest that the first anniversary of the effective date of the Genocide Convention would be a fitting occasion upon which to arrange for an immediate investigation of Soviet genocide by the General Assembly.1 The request of November 24, to which you refer, was a cablegram to the Secretary of State, addressed to him in Paris, as head of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly. That cable was answered, on December 5, 1951, by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt as Acting Chairman of the Delegation. A copy of her reply is attached for your information.2 The Department of State has also received a number of communications from various organizations speaking for refugees from behind the Iron Curtain and for Americans of Eastern European descent urging that that the United States raise in the United Nations various Soviet violations of human rights, including mass deportations and genocide. As a result we shall continue to give serious consideration to the question whether we should formally bring this subject to the attention of the United Nations. One of the major difficulties involved in the problem is the fact that the United States is not a party to the Genocide Convention. Article VIII of the Convention provides: “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any other acts enumerated in Article III.” In your letter you mention that the Genocide Convention has come into force, however, the fact that the United States is not yet a party precludes the United States under the terms of the convention from invoking the convention in the United Nations. The Genocide Convention was submitted to the Senate in June 1949 with a favorable recommendation from the President and the Acting Secretary of State. In his letter of transmittal, President Truman urged the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification, and called attention to the leading part the United States had taken in the United Nations “in producing an effective international legal instrument outlawing the world-shocking crime of genocide…” In the hearings held on the Genocide Convention by a sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 1950, the Deputy Under Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, presented the Department’s views favoring ratification of the Convention. At that time, Mr. Rusk stated that it was “an inescapable fact that other nations of the world expect the United States to assert moral leadership in international affairs”, and noted various instances of the record of humanitarian diplomacy of the United States, including various diplomatic interventions on behalf of persecuted Christians and Jews in other countries. Mr. Rusk continued by observing: “And, prevailing international conditions make it imperative that the United States continue to play this role. We all know too well that millions of human beings are still subjected to the domination of ruthless totalitarian regimes, and that the spectre of genocide still haunts mankind. It should be made clear to such governments that the United States and other civilized countries do not condone such conduct now any more than in the past. Cf. doc. no. 253. See doc. no. 251.

1 2



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

139

The Department of State has always maintained a strong position in favor of ratification of the Genocide Convention. The principal opposition to the convention has been based upon legal grounds. It has been contended that there are constitutional objections to the convention, particularly in that it would transfer to the Federal Government criminal jurisdiction which the Constitution has vested in the several states. The Solicitor General of the United States and the Legal Adviser of this Department have testified several times in the Senate hearings to the effects that the Genocide Convention is clearly within the treaty power of the United States as it defines an international crime over which the Federal Government does have jurisdiction under Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the United States Constitution.1 The late Judge Robert Patterson, who was one of the numerous distinguished private citizens appearing in support of the convention, also testified to this effect. I welcome your interest in the Genocide Convention at this time. Our failure to ratify the convention keeps this Government from exerting its full moral influence to deter and prevent this deplorable crime. As the situation now stands, we cannot very well insist that other nations abide by principles to which we have not given our own endorsement as a Government. Apart from the obstacle created by our failure to ratify the Genocide Convention, there are certain other factors which were taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a formal agenda item on genocide or other Soviet violations of human rights, looking toward adoption of a condemnatory resolution, should be submitted for the Assembly’s agenda. One important factor relates to the question of proof. There is always reluctance to have the General Assembly adopt a condemnatory resolution without overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the allegations. We have a considerable body of material at hand. Unfortunately, however, some of it deals with events which took place long ago, and much of it cannot be convincingly verified because of restraints within the Iron Curtain. We are gathering affidavits and other evidence of Soviet violations of human rights as rapidly as we can to build up a strong case which would prove beyond peradventure of a doubt that the charges are true and that we are not engaging merely in a propaganda attack upon the U.S.S.R. Your letter refers to Soviet forced labor practices. Under the leadership of the United States the Economic and Social Council in the spring of 1951 set up an Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor which is currently carrying on an investigation of such practices. The United States is cooperating fully in its work, and we are hopeful that its report will expose conclusively the abominable practice of the Soviet Union in this regard.2 In the current Assembly session representatives of this Government have commented repeatedly and critically on Soviet violations of human rights. In his opening speech in the General Assembly on November 8, the Secretary of State discussed the recent mass deportations in Eastern Europe and other Soviet attempts to crush human freedom, pointing out that “these calculated denials of basic human rights are a matter of concern Philip B. Perlman (1890–1960), US Solicitor General from 1947 to 1952; Adrian S. Fisher (1914–83), Legal Adviser to the State Department from 1949 to 1953. 2 See doc. no. 268. 1

140

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

to the world community.” Mrs. Roosevelt, our representative in the Assembly’s Social Committee, has frequently attacked the flagrant Soviet suppression of human rights behind the Iron Curtain. Representative Mansfield, referring to the “tragic new wave of refugees” in connection with his exposition of the purposes of the Mutual Security Act, graphically described conditions in Eastern Europe in terms “of mass arrests, brutal liquidation of independent political parties, of forced labor without trial for political dissidence, of the denial of all civil rights, uprooting of thousands of families from their homes by forced deportations,” and noted also the complete disappearance of several so-called Autonomous Republics within the Soviet Union. Mr. John Sherman Cooper, speaking on the subject of Yugoslavia’s charges of hostile activities against it by the U.S.S.R. and its satellites, charged the Soviet Union with mass deportations, subversion of free institutions and the ruthless suppression of human rights in Eastern Europe. The United States will continue to avail itself of every appropriate opportunity, within the United Nations and elsewhere, to indicate its anger and disgust over the systematic violations of human rights and the barbarous practices of mass extermination and deportation in Eastern Europe. We have sought to do everything which, on balance, can be considered useful and constructive, both in terms of assistance to those now suffering from Soviet tyranny and in making absolutely clear our unequivocal opposition to these abominable practices of the Soviet Union. The Department of State is following this subject closely, and, whenever the occasion offers, will take such positive action in the United Nations and elsewhere as will best serve our objectives of seeking to force the Soviet Union to desist from gross violations of human rights in areas under its control. Sincerely yours, For the Acting Secretary of State: Jack K. McFall Assistant Secretary

No. 261 The Polish American Congress Insists in a Telegram to US President Dwight Eisenhower That the Katyn Massacre Qualifies as Genocide, Urges US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 30, 1952 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives [Undated memorandum] TAQ March 30, 1952 For Release 31 March – Morning Francis Wasetter, Attorney, President Downstate NYC Division of Polish American Congress sent today, March 30, a telegram signed by National President of Polish



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

141

American Congress, four National Vice-Presidents and nine State Presidents of the same organization. Text of Telegram: “President Dwight Eisenhower, The disclosure of the Congressional Select Committee for the investigation of the Katyn massacre clearly indicates the criminal intent of Soviet rulers to destroy the Polish nation by eliminating the flower of Polish intelligentsia.1 Apparently this was a blueprint to be applied to other captive nations in the future. The wave of genocide now applied in the area between the Elbe River and the Pacific including China and Korea clearly indicates that total or partial destruction of nations as well as the elimination of religious groups is used as a technique for the extension of Communism without resorting to a global shooting war. Genocide is more detrimental to our Christian civilization than war itself because a nation defeated in war might be reconstructed whereas there is no point of return from genocide. Cognizant of your personal leadership in the world today and of our country’s devotion to the ideals of humanitarian democracy the undersigned appeal to you, Mr. President, to urge the Senate of the US to ratify the Genocide Convention so that it may be used as a valid legal instrument in the struggle for the survival of nations and religious groups in these dark hours of mankind’s history.”

No. 262 US Senator Charles Kersten Urges a UN Investigation of “Soviet Genocide” in a Letter to Dean Acheson, April 11, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/4-1152) April 11, 1952

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

Honorable Dean G. Acheson Secretary of State U.S. Department of State Washington 25, D.C. My dear Mr. Secretary: In a letter to you of January 11, 1952, I and a number of other Congressmen urged you to seek to arrange for an immediate investigation of Soviet Genocide by the United

Cf. “The Katyn Forest Massacre: Final Report of the Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation of the Facts, Evidence and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre pursuant to H. Res. 390 and H. Res. 539, Eighty-second Congress, a resolution to authorize the investigation of the mass murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk, Russia” (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1952).

1

142

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Nations Assembly. The reply of Mr. Jack F. McFall, Assistant Secretary of State, dated February 19, 1952, raises a few more points.1 Mr. McFall suggests that the failure of the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention created an “obstacle” to our urging of such an investigation. From Mr. McFall’s statements I conclude that there is some confusion of thought within the State Department on the nature of Genocide. Genocide is and always has been a serious crime endangering international peace and security. It was such a crime before the adoption of the Genocide Convention and before the existence of the United Nations itself. Moreover the mass phenomenon of genocide which can and is being perpetrated through the media of select liquidations and extensive deportations to slow-death labor camps, is, especially where it involves the insidious destruction of nations, both logically and actually distinguishable from the normal issue of individual human rights, and therefore should not be confused with the latter. Independent of the Genocide Convention, the United Nations Charter provides various procedures which can be used to investigate and expose this heinous crime which so violently rents the already torn fabric of world peace. Mr. McFall in his letter has already suggested one course of action by referring to the fact that under the leadership of the United States, the United Nations Economic and Security Council set up an Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor. Could not a similar committee be set up to investigate genocide, which as a separate general circumstance is effected through the practice of forced labor? Article 11, Section 2, of the United Nations Charter provides that the General Assembly may discuss questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. This section further provides that such questions can be brought before it not only by any member of the United Nations, but by any State, whether a member of the United Nations or not. Could not then the United States bring up the question of genocide under the provisions of this section? Again Section 3 of Article 11 provides “The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security”. Here too is a provision under which the U.N. General Assembly could act. Furthermore, Article 13, Section 1 provides “The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of…assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Note the language here is mandatory not merely permissive. Thus, under this section the U.N. General Assembly is derelict in its specific duties if it fails to initiate a study of genocide, which in the Soviet case strikes at the very base of national existence itself. And finally Article 10 of the United Nations Charter provides “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matter within the scope of the present charter” and Article 14 provides that the General Assembly may recommend measures “for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations

See doc. nos. 253, 260.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

143

resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” The above cited sections of the United Nations Charter provide more than sufficient machinery to investigate and expose Soviet Genocide. Mr. McFall raises the question of proof of Soviet acts of genocide. The purpose of having an investigation by the United Nations of Soviet Genocide is to develop still more proof of the crimes. We did not suggest in our letter to you that the General Assembly adopt a condemnatory resolution before it had “overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the allegations.” I am sure that with the thousands of refugees who have escaped Soviet terrorism and are now in the free world, that there would be superabundance of testimony available for any investigatory body which the United Nations might create. Mr. McFall also states that the State Department has a considerable body of evidence of Soviet Genocide but “unfortunately” some of it deals with events which took place long ago. This is not unfortunate. The fact that some of these acts took place long ago actually strengthens the case against Soviet Genocide in showing it to be a permanent Soviet policy and not a casual, passing occurrence. If, however, our government is reluctant to request the creation of such an investigatory body in the United Nations before it can “prove beyond peradventure of a doubt that the charges are true” then perhaps it would be advisable to create a Congressional Committee to investigate Soviet Genocide. I would be glad to urge the creation of such a Committee. Sincerely yours, Charles J. Kersten

No. 263 Assistant US State Secretary Jack K. McFall Argues in His Reply to Charles Kersten That without Ratifying the Genocide Convention the United States Will Not be Able to Formally Charge the Soviet Union with Genocide, May 19, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/4-1152) [May 19, 1952] In reply refer to L/UNA 340.1-AJ/4-1152 My dear Mr. Kersten: In accordance with the Department’s letter of April 17 acknowledging your letter of April 11, I am writing to give you our further views with respect to the possibility of having the United Nations General Assembly investigate Soviet genocide.1

See doc. no. 262.

1

144

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

In my letter of February 19, 1952 I outlined the major problems which would arise if the United States were to press charges of genocide against the Soviet Union in the United Nations.1 These problems would exist even if the charges were pressed in the General Assembly without any reference to the Genocide Convention and if an investigation were sought by procedures unrelated to the Convention. It is our view that initiating an investigation in the General Assembly without regard to the Genocide Convention would greatly increase the difficulties of obtaining satisfactory action. It would impair the broad support which must be obtained if the moral judgment of the United Nations is to have its full effect. The Members of the United Nations will be aware of the fact that the problem of genocide was fully considered at two regular sessions of the General Assembly – in 1946 and again in 1948. After studied consideration of the problem over a period of two years, it was the unanimous decision of the General Assembly that the adoption of the Genocide Convention would pave the way for more effective action against this international crime. This Convention has now been in force legally for almost sixteen months. Thirty-six states, more than half the Membership of the United Nations, are now parties to the Convention. Under these circumstances, we believe that the failure of the United States to ratify the Convention would constitute a serious obstacle, from a political standpoint, to our urging that the United Nations investigate any case of genocide as such. If we were to bring a charge of genocide in the United Nations, as things now stand, we would be very definitely open to the counter-charge of hypocrisy, i.e., that we expect other nations to live up to principles of conduct that we are not ourselves willing to endorse by ratifying the instrument which the United Nations has formulated to meet this problem. In addition, this action would serve to highlight the fact that almost three and a half years after the Convention was approved and sixteen months after it came into force due to ratifications by other countries, the United States has still taken no action. As I stated on February 19, 1952, the Department of State intends to do everything it can within the United Nations, and outside it, to express the revulsion of the United States at the systematic and barbarous violations of human rights by the Soviet Union, and to do everything possible to assist the victims of Soviet tyranny. But I do not think, for the reasons stated above, that this Government can under present circumstances, with any effectiveness, raise charges of genocide against the Soviet Union. Sincerely yours, For the Secretary of State: Jack K. McFall Assistant Secretary

See doc. no. 260.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

145

No. 264 East European Émigré Organizations Replace Jewish Organizations as Raphael Lemkin’s Main Sponsors, 1951–1952 AJA, 60/2/20, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives Raphael Lemkin Report on Income Tax Audit Changes for the Year ended 12.1951 Gross Income:

$ 5675.00

Littauer Foundation American Jewish Congress Pandick Press, Inc. Lithuanian American National Council

$ 2925.00 $ 1000.00 $ 1000.00 $ 750.00

* * * Raphael Lemkin U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for calendar year 1952 Gross Income: Lithuanian American National Council (including   Lithuanian American Information Center) Ukrainian Congress Council of America Free Europe Committee Yeshiva University

$ 2025.00 $ 1150.00 $ 400.00 $ 275.00 $ 200.00

No. 265 Raphael Lemkin Makes a Case That the Persecution of Jews in Communist Bloc Countries Constitutes Genocide, TPQ January 28, 1953 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives [Undated memorandum] TPQ January 28, 1953 The UN Genocide Convention must be applied to the tragic events behind the Iron Curtain for the following reasons: 1.  Under the Genocide Convention there is a duty not only to punish for genocide, but first of all to prevent genocide. From the present communist campaign it becomes clear that the action is directed against the Jews as Jews (as specified in the indictment

146

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

of the trials) in the entire area under communist control.1 Although Genocide affects now parts of the Jewish people, there is a danger that under the influence of Soviet propaganda, which assumed the dimensions and techniques applied by Streicher and Goebbels, the action will spread rapidly so as to cause the destruction of the entire Jewry.2 The communist campaign is facilitated by the pogrom tradition in the areas involved which have developed and matured throughout centuries. The Russian soil is saturated with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Jews and the local population can be easily aroused to participate now in a large scale genocide action. 2.  The Convention is in force since January 12, 1951 between Israel on the one hand and Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria on the other hand, these countries being among the 40 which ratified the Genocide Convention. 3.  The Soviet Union has voted for the Genocide Convention at the Paris Assembly of the United Nations, signed it in 1949, but has not ratified. Genocide is now an international crime and no country for moral or political reasons would dare to challenge world opinion by claiming that it is at liberty to practice genocide because it did not ratify the convention. Such a country could claim only that it is not practicing genocide. 4.  The Soviet Union can also be declared guilty of inciting the satellite states to commit genocide, according to article three of the Genocide Convention. 5.  Czechoslovakia must be declared guilty of violating article two of the Genocide Convention through the following acts: a. by murdering innocent Jews through the artificially staged Prague trial; b. by inflicting serious mental harm on these Jews through administration of drugs for the purpose of extorting confessions – a device used in the case of Cardinal Mindszenty and in other Soviet purge trials, like the Doctors Case in Moscow;3 c. by inciting to Genocide through placing posters on public buildings reading “Hang the Jews” (See New York Times, 28 January 1953, col. 1.)4

Lemkin refers to a public trial of the fourteen leaders of the Czech Communist Party staged in Prague in November 1952. Eleven of the suspects were Jewish, among them head of the party Rudolf Slánský. Known as a professed Stalinist and anti-Zionist, Slánský and his codefendants confessed to an alleged Israeli-American conspiracy to assassinate the president of Czechoslovakia and to restore capitalism in the country. Eleven defendants, including Slánský, were sentenced to death and three to life imprisonment. 2 Julius Streicher (1885–1946) was the founder and publisher of the anti-Semitic Nazi newspaper, der Stürmer; Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945) served as Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. 3 Cardinal József Mindszenty (1892–1975) was Roman Catholic primate of Hungary who opposed the imposition of Communism. His arrest and subsequent trial, in February 1949, on bogus charges of treason and espionage made Mindszenty a cause célèbre for the anticommunist movement. Mindszenty’s unnatural expression during the trial prompted rumors that he had been drugged. On Mindszenty’s trial see Susan L. Carruthers, Cold War Captives: Imprisonment, Escape, and Brainwashing (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009), 115–16, 137–39, 143–44, 148. In January 1953 Pravda announced the arrest of a group of physicians charged with hatching a plot to poison top Soviet leaders, including Stalin. The Doctors’ Plot had lain dormant since 1951 and was intricately connected to the Soviet Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee case. Only the death of Stalin two months later spared the lives of the falsely accused. The doctors were tortured under investigation, though no evidence as to the use of drugs for the purpose of extorting confessions had come to light. See Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov, Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors, 1948–1953 (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 107, 221–24. 4 “Satellite Terror Reported,” New York Times, January 28, 1953. 1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

147

6.  Romania is guilty of having destroyed thousands of Jewish lives through deportations for drainage work at the Danube shores where Jews have been compelled to work in water up to the belt; this resulted in death.1 7.  Hungary is guilty of having deported thousands of Jews to eastern Hungary and Siberia in such destructive conditions that thousands died and thousands lost their minds from mental torture and have committed suicide.2 8.  The Genocide Convention is the only legal instrument available for the protection of Jews and other nationality and religious groups. The United Nations have been working for several years on a Draft Covenant on Human Rights, but this work is not finished yet. The UN Charter cannot be applied because it does not contain any juridical specification of rights. The Declaration of Human Rights has no binding legal force. A recent court decision in California stated that the human rights provisions of the UN Charter do not apply in the United States.3 9.  The United States has signed the Genocide Convention, but not ratified yet. America has never repudiated her signature on an international treaty. There is a glorious American tradition in helping Jews peoples in distress.4 It can be expected that if any country will bring up the case of Jewish communist persecutions under the Genocide Convention, the United States and other nations will lend support to such action. 10.  The present action against the Jews is not an isolate phenomenon. The Russians have already exterminated one third of the population of the three Baltic states as well as the entire Moslem population of the Crimea.5 Other nations under Soviet control equally are subject to genocide. The nations in Europe, Asia, Africa and other parts of the world should understand that totalitarian regimes either of the brown or red taint are committing genocide in the furtherance of the principle of enforced uniformity. All present and prospective victims of Soviet genocide should therefore unite for the protection of their existence under the guidance of the free world. The communists should be stopped catering to the peoples of Asia and Africa by showing to the world that they liquidate peoples after having established control over them. 11.  Consequently, the case of the communist genocide campaign against the Jews and other victimized peoples must be introduced in the United Nations according to Articles 1, 2, 3, and 8 of the Genocide Convention

Another draft of the memorandum (AJA, 60/4/7) contained an extra section, which reads as follows: “The use of the words ‘Soviet anti-Semitism’ is incorrect. Anti-Semitism is an attitude based on prejudice; when destruction starts, it is already genocide. Anti-Semitism exists also in some democratic countries and it would be wrong to put Russia on same level with these countries.” 2 The evidence as to Lemkin’s claim regarding the destruction of Hungarian Jews is spurious. 3 Lemkin refers to the 1952 Fujii v. California court case. On the significance of Fujii v. California with respect to US ratification of the Genocide Convention see doc. nos. 203, 260, 294. 4 Another draft of the memorandum (AJA, 60/4/7) contains an extra sentence: “During the Rumanian and Tsarist pogroms, President Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft intervened on behalf of the Jews and President Taft even denounced a trade agreement with the Tsar in 1912 because of the pogroms.” 5 The total number of people banished from the Soviet-occupied Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia since 1940 is estimated at over 200 thousand, or ca. 10 percent of the entire adult Baltic population. Soviet authorities on May 17–18, 1944 deported the entire Crimean Tatar population of 191,014 on the pretext of collaboration with the Nazis. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

148

No. 266 International Press Service of the US State Department Shows Interest in Lemkin’s Efforts to Indict the Soviet Union for Genocide, January 26  and February 9, 1953 AJA, 60/2/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives January 26, 1953 Dear Professor Lemkin: The International Press Service of the State Department Information Program has followed with interest your work on behalf of outlawing the crime of genocide.1 In a recent news dispatch, we noted that you believe “all the facts are there to convict Russia and her satellites of the crime of genocide.” The International Press Service would be very interested in presenting these facts for publication abroad. Would you consider writing such an article for us? Sincerely Yours, Elizabeth Heppner International Press Service * * * February 9, 1953 Dear Mrs. Heppner, Your letter of 26 January concerning an article on genocide reached me only today because of my travels. May I ask for more details concerning this article, namely how many words should this article contain, are scientific footnotes necessary and are you paying a fee? [Raphael Lemkin]

No. 267 Editorial in the Christian Science Monitor Urges to Invoke the Genocide Convention in the face of Soviet Anti-Semitism, February 10, 1953 Editorial, “Moscow and Jewry,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 10, 1953 A great deal is being said about adopting a more positive policy toward Soviet Russia. In responsible terms this refers not to military aggression but to a moral, Information Press Service was established in 1953 as part of the US propaganda operation. The service generated a variety of textual and visual material for dissemination through US foreign posts.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

149

psychological, and diplomatic offensive. One useful weapon in such an offensive may be the UN Genocide Convention. The Soviet Union and the US have both signed the convention, though neither has ratified it as yet. Forty other countries (including several behind the Iron Curtain) already have ratified it, and it has been in force among them for some time. Under the convention there is a duty not only to punish for genocide, but to prevent this crime of attempted extinction of whole racial, religious, or cultural groups. Moscow has clearly embarked on an anti-Semitic course whose end cannot be foreseen. Whether the intention is to appeal thereby to the Arabs, to many Germans, or relieve internal strains by invoking ancient hates against a convenient minority, the fact remains that officially fostered anti-Semitism threatens the eventual safety of every Jew behind the Iron Curtain. Why should not the genocide convention be invoked against this criminal development in the Communist world? The least such an action could do would be to blast open Red pretensions to racial impartiality and high humanitarianism. Though the tragic shadow of old pogroms might still hang over the Jews of eastern Europe, Moscow would have to face the condemnation of mobilized world opinion if it persisted in the course mapped out so savagely by Hitler.

No. 268 The US State Department Evaluates the Final Report of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor, with reference to the Soviet Union, September 9, 1953 NARA, DoS General Records, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Position Papers Maintained by the Executive Director, 1945–74, 59/82D211/28 September 9, 1953

(Subject to final clearance)

POSITION PAPER Eighth Regular Session of the General Assembly CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION SD/A/C.3/174/Rev.1 EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF FORCED LABOR THE PROBLEM The United States requested inclusion of this item in the agenda in order to focus world attention upon the extensive systems of forced labor which the Communist regimes have imposed, for political and economic purposes, upon their peoples. The existence of such systems of forced labor in the Communist world stands out as the major conclusion of the comprehensive report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor

150

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

which was set up in 1951 by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). The item as proposed by the United States is not likely to prove popular since such countries as the United Kingdom and France, in a desire to avoid acrimonious debate at a time of apparent Soviet peace overtures, took the initiative at the last session of ECOSOC to postpone any discussion of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to the 17th Session of ECOSOC in April 1954. UNITED STATES POSITION 1.  The United States Delegation should make every effort, by way of preliminary consultations to assure the participation of other delegations in the debate on the ground that the United Nations should not condone or side-step this most flagrant example of the complete negation of human rights in certain parts of the contemporary world. 2.  The United States should indicate its firm opposition to the existence of forced labor anywhere in the world and point up the most important conclusion of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee which confirms the existence in the USSR and its Satellites of most extensive systems of forced labor for both political and economic purposes so serious as to “threaten fundamental human rights and jeopardize the freedom and status of workers in contravention of the obligations and provisions of the Charter.” (para. 561) 3.  In its argumentation the United States Delegation should put heavy reliance upon the conclusions of the ILO-UN Committee and should commend the Committee, and particularly its Indian Chairman, for their fearless objectivity and impartiality.1 At the same time the delegation should point out that additional work needs to be done both as regards the collection of additional information (the report does not extend to forced labor in Communist China of which there is considerable evidence) and any further steps to be taken by the United Nations to combat the evil. 4.  The United States Delegation should submit, preferably in conjunction with other representative delegations, a resolution along the lines set forth in Annex I. This resolution provides for a commendation of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee; an expression of the importance which the General Assembly attaches to the immediate abolition of all systems of forced labor, whether for political or economic purposes; an invitation to ECOSOC and the ILO to formulate as a matter of urgency appropriate proposals to this end; and, finally, as alternatives either an appeal to all governments concerned to re-examine their laws and administrative practices which are conducive to the establishment of forced labor systems for political purposes, or, as a second alternative, for a request for a reply on the part of all those countries which have not yet seen fit to offer substantive comments in reply to the Ad Hoc Committee’s request for such comments and observations on the allegations made against them.

Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar (1887–1976), Indian statesman and chairman of a three-person ad hoc Committee on Forced Labor, 1951–53.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

151

COMMENT 1. Recommendations 1 and 2 are self-explanatory. 2. With regard to recommendation 3, a heavy reliance on the report which is probably the best documented and most carefully worded report ever published by the United Nations will undermine the efforts of the Soviet representatives who can be anticipated to attempt brushing aside the whole issue as a propaganda move on the part of the United States. It will also make it more difficult for other delegations to evade taking a stand. 3. The proposed resolution deliberately falls short of outright condemnation of the USSR and the Satellites. It would be very difficult to get large and representative support for such a condemnation. Besides, such a condemnation would make it more difficult to keep the issue alive and before the UN and the ILO since such a condemnation represents the most extreme and ultimate action the General Assembly can be expected to take. By contrast the resolution as proposed would keep the issue before the UN and the ILO and might, by way of ECOSOC and ILO action, result in extending the life of the Ad Hoc Committee and hence lead to additional reports. As to the alternative paragraphs in the resolution, the first would be in line with a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee itself (para. 552). However, it relates only to forced labor for political purposes without mentioning forced labor for economic purposes which, in all probability, has become increasingly more important in the USSR. The second alternative therefore would appear preferable and is more likely to command general support. It would serve to show up the bad faith of the USSR and the Satellites since they are not likely to respond to requests for substantive observations on the allegations made against them. In this context the “reply” to the Ad Hoc Committee made by the USSR is significant: “The Delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations presents its compliments to the United Nations Secretariat and herewith returns, unexamined, the documents attached to the Secretariat’s letter of 22 November 1952, since these documents contain slanderous fabrications concerning the Soviet Union.” 4. A more detailed paper on allegations against other countries will be at the disposal of the United States spokesman on the item. The other countries can be expected to take care of themselves. The suggestion in paragraphs 542 and 547 of the report concerning the potentiality of forced labor under vagrancy laws in the United States can easily be rebutted by pointing out that the Committee neither received nor reported any evidence that forced labor exists in the United States under these laws and the affirmation that it does not in fact exist.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

152

No. 269 Bernard H. Trager of NCRAC Conveys to US President Dwight D. Eisenhower That US Non-Ratification Benefits Communist Propaganda, May 6, 1954 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 May 6, 1954 Hon. Dwight D. Eisenhower President of the United States The White House Washington, D.C. The recent action of the Soviet Union in ratifying the Genocide Convention serves to underscore once again the failure of the United States to ratify this treaty which is designed to prevent the mass destruction of any racial or religious group. We are under no illusions as to the sincerity of the Soviet Union in ratifying this treaty. Having itself been guilty of resorting to genocide in its treatment of various ethnic groups, including the cultural genocide that has extirpated virtually all organs and institutions of Jewish culture and religion behind the Iron Curtain, the Soviet Union has undoubtedly taken this step primarily for the purpose of embarrassing the United States and deluding world public opinion. For this reason our failure to ratify this important Convention, which we originally helped steer through the United Nations and which is now formally in effect and bears the signature of forty-three nations of the world, exposes us not only to Communist propaganda, but to the legitimate doubts of our friends throughout the world who look to us for affirmative moral leadership. We respectfully request, therefore, that you use your good offices on behalf of Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention. This message conveys the joint views of the American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, United Synagogue of America and thirty-one regional, state, county and local Jewish councils in the Southwest, Connecticut, Indiana and Minnesota, in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, in Camden County and in Essex County, New Jersey, and in the cities of Akron, Baltimore, Boston, Bridgeport, Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Elizabeth, Hartford, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New Haven, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Rochester, St. Louis, Sand Diego, San Francisco, Washington and Youngstown, all of which are affiliated in the National Community Relations Advisory Council. Respectfully yours, BERNARD H. TRAGER Chairman, National Community Relations Advisory Council



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

153

No. 270 A Soviet Scholar of International Law Reflects on the Genocide Convention following Soviet Ratification of the Treaty in May 1954 S. Volodin, “Konventsia o preduprezhdenii prestuplenia genotsida i nakazanii za nego,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 7 (December 1954): 125–28 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide S. Volodin1 On March 18, 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.* This convention aims to prevent the beastly acts of group destruction [istreblenie narodov]. Genocide is one of the gravest crimes against humanity. The very term genocide, which can be translated as “killing off the human race” or “extermination of peoples,” vividly reflects the horrendous nature of this atrocity [zlodeianie], which aims to destroy specific population groups on racial, ethnic, or religious motives. Genocide reached horrific proportions over the course of aggression by German fascism. Fascism-Nazism turned genocide into a state policy. Fascist ringleaders explicitly stated their intention to exterminate millions of people belonging to the “lower race,” first and foremost Slavic peoples. According to an incomplete statistics, German fascists executed, poisoned, and tortured to death over 12 million civilians – women, the elderly, and children. The verdict in the case of major German war criminals stipulates that fascist ringleaders carried out “preconceived and systematic destruction of peoples,” that is, genocide. In the postwar period, under the influence of worldwide democratic forces – first and foremost in the countries that had experienced the horrors of fascist aggression – the United Nations took the initiative to fight genocidal crimes internationally. On December 11, 1946 the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution that declared genocide a crime against the spirit and the goals of the United Nations, and laid out plans to draft a special convention to outlaw that crime. With the active participation of the Soviet delegation, which sought to make the draft convention a viable international document, the United Nations prepared, and on December 9, 1948 passed, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The convention contains a number of clauses pertinent to the fight against genocidal crimes, and is on the whole a progressive international document. It incorporates 2

It was not possible to establish the author’s first name or professional affiliation. * The letter of ratification was delivered to the UN Secretariat on May 3, 1954. In the case of the USSR, the convention came into force on that particular date. For the text of the convention see Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR 12, 1954, p. 244. 1

154

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

several Soviet proposals on genocide* – a result of the persistent efforts of the Soviet representatives in the UN. The convention pronounces genocide “…a crime that violates the norms of international law” (preamble) that should be punished regardless of whether or not it was committed in times of peace or in times of war. (Art. I). The convention explicates genocide as “…acts carried out for the purpose of destroying in whole or in part a certain national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such,” namely by killing off members of that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately creating the conditions of life that lead to death of the members of that group, [devising] measures to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children from one population group to another (Art. II). The abovementioned definition by and large follows that correct, scientific definition of genocide that was put forward in the Soviet proposals submitted to the UN. That definition rightfully pointed out that genocide is directed at a population group as such and, consequently, the destruction of individuals is just the means by which this cannibalistic goal is achieved. Yet it would be erroneous to think that, in order to recognize certain acts as genocidal, the criminal must destroy the persecuted group entirely or that the criminal should commit his crimes en masse. Art. II of the convention provides a counterpoint against such an interpretation, which, as was stated earlier, regards the listed acts as genocidal whether or not they were carried out with the purpose of destroying the persecuted group “in full or in part.” This aspect requires additional emphasis, since already during the adoption of the convention, the American representative Gross, when speaking at the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, tried to subvert the notion of genocide by stating that, supposedly, genocide “…unlike typical [acts of] murder (homicide), that is, the destruction of individuals…is a wholesale destruction of human groups.” To follow the American representative’s logic, lynching and similar reprisals [carried out] on racist motives do not amount to genocide, since the number of victims does not reach hundreds of thousands or millions. An important element of the convention is that it provides for the punishment of the conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement, and the attempt to commit or partake in genocidal acts (Art. III), but also apportions accountability for genocide to all guilty parties, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, officials, or private individuals (Art. IV). In the course of drafting the convention, the US representatives, attempted to narrow the scope of those articles, by means of casuistry. When, on the insistence of the Soviet representative, [a clause] banning the direct public incitement to commit genocide was added to Art. III, the American representative voted against. It is of great importance that the convention obliges all state parties to incorporate into their legislation effective measures toward the punishment of those guilty of genocide and of other criminal offences listed in the convention (Art. V). This provision was included in the convention as part of the Soviet proposal, which correctly emphasizes that the prevention and punishment of genocide should be enforced by 1

* See Proposals of the Soviet delegation on genocide in Pravda, May 1, 1948.



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

155

way of domestic legislation, and not by some abstract “international criminal law” and “international criminal justice,” which the American diplomats in the UN have been making so much noise about of late. With regard to the Soviet Union, one cannot fail to notice that the very nature of the Soviet socialist order rules out [the possibility of] any persecution of individuals or population groups on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. Soviet legislation cuts short any attempt to directly or indirectly curtail rights on the basis of race or ethnicity, as well as to preach racial and ethnic superiority or hatred and contempt (Art. 123 of the Soviet Constitution; Art. 59(VII) of the Penal Code of the Russian SFSR). The convention stipulates that cases of genocide should be considered by competent courts of the state in the territory of which the act was committed or “…by the international penal tribunal that may have jurisdiction with respect to those Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction” (Art. VI). The former clause is undoubtedly an established norm of international law; the latter clause, however vaguely formulated, provides for the possibility of creating – upon special interstate agreement – extraordinary international courts in the vein of Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals that would deal with specific cases of genocide. Art. VII of the convention outlines the responsibility of the state-parties to the convention to extradite individuals who committed genocide and who [subsequently] fled to another country. Furthermore, the [act of] extradition should proceed in accordance with the legislation and the agreements ascribed to by the participating state. Obviously, the criminal who commits genocide cannot claim the right of asylum and cannot be regarded as a political émigré. The Soviet representatives in the UN fully shared in this opinion. Art. VIII of the convention stipulates the right of parties to the convention to demand that the UN, in accordance with its Statute, adopt necessary measures for the prevention and punishment of genocidal acts. This important provision in the convention was also supported by the Soviet delegation in the UN. In sum, the major provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide constitute a significant contribution to international law and may assist in the fight against genocidal crimes, given the fact that they [the provisions] can be applied in real time. At the same time, the convention – as has been pointed out by Soviet delegates – contains significant shortcomings that no doubt reduce its effectiveness. These shortcomings become apparent in light of certain indisputable historical facts. Hitlerite crimes were made possible due to the yearlong racial propaganda and [the advancement of] “theories” of the supremacy of “higher races.” However, when drafting the convention on the prevention of genocide, the Imperialist bloc in the UN has succeeded in omitting the reference to the organic link between genocide [on the one hand] and fascism-Nazism and racist “theories” [on the other]. In 1948, when the General Assembly considered the draft convention, the US representative voted even against the reference in the preamble, according to which crimes analogous to those stipulated in the convention were dealt with at the Nuremberg trial.

156

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

During the drafting, the US Government steadfastly worked toward the omission of [the reference to] “ethno-cultural genocide” (i.e., measures and acts targeting ethnic culture and language) from [the wording of] the convention. This particular form of genocide encompasses a substantial part of the cannibalistic exploits of the Hitlerites, who during the attack on the Soviet Union destroyed cultural monuments, desecrated historic sites, and destroyed and pillaged libraries, theaters, and museums in the attempt to wipe off the face of the earth the rich culture of our country. When advocating for the banning of ethno-cultural genocide, the representative of Belorussian SSR rightfully argued at the session of the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948: “I represent here a country that [understands] ethno-cultural genocide not just as a matter of legal theory, as do the representatives of certain countries that have not experienced the tragedy caused by genocide committed by fascists during the Second World War…” The omission of this particular form of genocide from the convention, therefore, is one of its substantial shortcomings. Due to the resistance of the American-English bloc, the convention does not include a ban on genocide propaganda. It was unjustified when the Soviet proposal that obliged parties to the convention to disband those organizations that fuel racial, ethnic, and religious hatred and [call] for genocide (thus stamping them out of existence) was rejected. Due to the objections of the delegates of the imperialist states, the convention does not consider such criminal acts as preparations for and attempts to commit genocide, even though the original draft did contain such provisions. One does not fail to notice that the convention contains articles reminiscent of the imperialist bloc’s treaty-making practice. Art. IX [provides for] the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court [of Justice] over the interpretation, application, and execution of the convention, while Art. XII – the so-called colonial clause – enables the imperialists to avoid extending the convention to their colonies and dependent territories, where the suppression of peoples’ rights continues unhindered. These two articles undoubtedly reduce the effectiveness of the Genocide Convention; the Soviet Union filed reservations to these articles when [first] signing and [then] ratifying the convention. Back in 1948, during the debates on the draft convention in the General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee, the imperialistic voting machine rejected the proposal of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR to extend the convention to colonial and dependent countries. The convention’s shortcomings are a direct result of the states in the “majority” in the UN rejecting, on selfish grounds, the Soviet proposals that are meant to make this document more effective. Taking into account the convention’s overall positive impact, the Soviet Union, and also the Ukrainian SSR and the Belorussian SSR, signed and [later] ratified it, while making reservations to Art. IX and XII. Other countries of the democratic camp – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria – also ratified or adhered to the convention, having made analogous reservations to Art. IX and XII. The convention came into force, as stipulated, on January 12, 1951 and by now has over 40 parties.



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

157

The imperialist bloc, under the pretext of the “inadmissibility” of filing reservations to multilateral international treaties, tried to exclude the USSR from those among the parties to the convention. However, the request for an advisory opinion of the International Court [of Justice] on that matter rendered a negative answer and thus ruined their plans.* As was mentioned earlier, already during the [process of] drafting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide in the UN – as it started taking shape as a real document – the American-English bloc began distancing from it. The governments of England and the Union of South Africa did not sign the convention; the American Government signed, but did not ratify, the convention, and, according to recent official statements, is not planning to do so. Speaking in May 1954 in the US Senate, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wiley explicitly stated that the United States is not going to ratify the convention. Wiley printed in the ‘Congressional Records’ bulletin a letter by Assistant Secretary of State Morton, who emphasized that the convention is not binding for the United States.** In November 1953, one of the leading bourgeois American newspapers, ‘The New York Times’, wrote that the Senate’s opposition to ratification is caused by the fear that the convention “…could be used to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States, for example, in the case of discrimination against Negroes.”*** While remaining outside the [purview of] convention [neuchastie], the US and a few other states still bear the responsibility for various acts of discrimination, racism, and genocide. By now the convention’s provisions, to which the majority of world states are parties, have become an established part of international law. 1

2

3

No. 271 John Frazer of the Free Europe Committee Seeks out Raphael Lemkin’s Expert Opinion on Potential Indictment of the Soviet Union for Genocide, June 18, 1954 AJA, 60/1/5, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives As you know, the Division of Exile Relations of the Free Europe Committee is presently very much concerned with this matter in anticipation of possible action to be taken in the UN. In this connection we have asked various national groups of jurists to prepare statements concerning the genocide that has been practiced by the Soviet Union in the countries in Eastern Europe. We have reached the point at which it would be very helpful to have the benefit of your expert advice. Would you, therefore, be good enough to examine the enclosed

*  For more on this issue see the article by S. Borisov, “The Sovereign Right of State Parties to Multilateral Treaties to File Reservations” (Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 4, 1952). **   Pravda, May 21, 1954. *** New York Times, November 8, 1953.

158

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

statements, prepared by the Polish and Hungarian Jurists respectively, in order that we may discuss them with you early next week?1

No. 272 Raphael Lemkin Claims That the German Law on Ratification of the Genocide Convention, if Passed in the Present Form, Would Fail to Protect Millions of Ethnic German Who Had Been Expelled From Eastern Europe, TAQ July 8, 1954 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives [Undated memorandum] TAQ July 8, 1954 In connection with the final discussion of the German Law on Ratification of the Genocide Convention in the Bundestag, scheduled for 8 July 1954, Professor Lemkin issued a warning to the Bundestag that the proposed German ratification law changes the convention to such an extent that for all practical purposes not the victims of genocide but rather the criminals will be protected. Lemkin pointed out: 1.  If ratified as proposed by the German Law, the Genocide Convention will fail to protect some 12 million German expellees, because the German ratification Law requires that the expellees or deportees must be faced with actual annihilation before the Convention can be invoked. The German Law omits such acts as weakening of the body through hunger, disease, overwork and other pernicious influences harmful to health which occur in expulsions, in slave labor or concentration camp. Those who remain alive cannot be protected according to the German Law. 2.  A proposal is also submitted to the Bundestag to extend equal protection to political groups to the same extent as to national, racial, ethnic and religious groups already protected by the Convention. The German Bundestag overlooks the fact, Dr. Lemkin pointed out, that the concept of national groups is large enough so as to include also political groups, especially those who identify themselves with the aims and purposes of their nations. Only those political groups are not covered by the concept of national groups which reject the concept of a nation and are subjecting their own nation to international control of the Communist Party. In this sense, the German proposal would tend to establish an international protection for the Communist Party.

Document not in the file.

1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

159

No. 273 Estonian and Lithuanians Émigré Lawyers Insist That the Draft German Ratification Law Does Not Cover Slave Labor Camps and/or Deportations, TAQ July 8, 1954 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives TAQ July 8, 1954 Press Release The Association of Free Jurists of Estonia and Lithuania cabled Chancellor Adenauer and Bundestag President Ehlers to the effect that the draft of the German law which introduces the Genocide invention into the German Penal Code is so worded that it does not cover slave labor camps or deportations. Deportations and slave labor camps are treated in the part of the Genocide Convention which deals with deliberate creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, in German “körperliche Zerstörung” of the group. By physical destruction the Genocide Convention means causing deterioration of health and general weakening of the body. But the German law instead of physical destruction – körperliche Zerstörung – introduces the term annihilation “Vernichtung” which means death. In such conditions Germany could invoke internationally Genocide Convention only when it can be proven that inmates of slave labor camps or the deportees are dying out, which is not always the case. Killing is covered by a paragraph of the Genocide Convention. The Legal Committee of the Bundestag has submitted already the ratification to the plenary session of the Bundestag which will vote upon it any day.1

No. 274 US Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Rules out Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide in the UN General Assembly July 19, 1954 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/7-1954) July 19, 1954 INCOMING TELEGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONFIDENTIAL FROM: UNE, New York To: Secretary of State No: 50, July 19, 8 p.m. The Bundestag passed the Law on Ratification of the Genocide Convention on August 9, 1954.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

160

Re charges of genocide against USSR Question of having an item on genocide (reference A-406, June 30, 1954) placed on agenda of ninth GA discussed with Ambassador Lodge last Friday. Such action seems to him to be out of the question. The US has not ratified and has no plans for ratifying the convention and such an item would put US right on the spot. Wadsworth

No. 275 US State Secretary John Foster Dulles Notifies the US Delegation to the United Nations of the Decision Not to Advance Formal Charges of Genocide against the Soviet Union, July 30, 1954 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/7-1954) July 30, 1954 CONFIDENTIAL No: Subject: Reference: To:

A-34 July 30, 1954 Re charges of genocide against the USSR USUN #50, July 19, 1954 and Dept. A-406, June 30, 1954 USUN, New York, New York

The Department continues sympathetic to efforts to expose in the UN Soviet persecution of minority groups.1 However, the Department has concluded that a separate item on genocide in the Ninth General Assembly would be objectionable, and that evidence gathered by the Committee for Free Europe can probably be utilized, and to better advantage, in connection with other items. USUN should inform the Committee immediately of this decision, indicating our strong opposition to further encouragement of a genocide item as well as our hope that the Committee will cooperate along other lines. The reasons for this decision are set forth below. In addition to the danger of embarrassment to the United States, noted in earlier communications, the wording for the item suggested in the conversation July 12 between Mr. Pedersen of USUN and Mr. Merrill, (reported by USUN in a memorandum typed July 16), “Review of the Working of the Genocide Convention” is particularly undesirable since it would not limit debate to charges against the Soviet and would encourage propaganda against any and all parties to the Convention.2 Furthermore, it would center attention on the provisions of the Convention. The suggested wording indicates that any discussion of the concept of genocide at this point will probably lead to extended consideration of the Convention text. This would be a waste of time. The objective sought by the United States is the elimination of such governmental practices as mass-murder and persecution on grounds of race, religion and political Words missing in the original. Document not in the file.

1 2



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

161

belief. In our opinion, effective protection against such crimes is more likely to result from a new approach, free from the connotations of genocide. The importance of keeping substantive considerations to the fore was emphasized by Secretary Dulles on April 6, 1953, during the Hearings on the Bricker Amendment. The Secretary made the following statement in answer to a question from Senator Bricker: “I have some doubt as to whether in view of the events that have intervened, the genocide treaty is going to accomplish the purposes which were in the minds of those who drafted it. The Soviet Union and its satellites have either refused to ratify or ratified it with serious reservations. I believe that the solution of the problem which is envisaged by the treaty could better be reconsidered at a later date. I would not press at the moment for its ratification.” (Hearings on S.J. Res. 1 and 43, p. 886) (Underlines added.) Evidence gathered by the Committee for Free Europe on forced labor, human rights, self-determination, communist imperialism, and other matters, may provide effective support for plans to exploit communist vulnerabilities during the Ninth General Assembly. The Committee should be encouraged to make information concerning such materials available to the Department and USUN for consideration as to its possible use in relation to other items on the agenda. DULLES

No. 276 Raphael Lemkin Hails the Cuban Resolution That Qualified the Soviet Suppression of the Hungarian Revolution as “Genocide,” TPQ November 4, 1956 AJA, 60/4/7, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives [Undated memorandum] TPQ November 4, 1956 In connection with the discussion by the last General Assembly of the UN of the case of Hungary, the delegation of Cuba introduced a resolution which qualified the Soviet treatment of the Hungarian people as the crime of genocide.1 The Cuban Delegate Dr. Emilio Núñez Portuondo pointed out that some 65,000 Hungarians have been killed and many young people deported to Russia.2 He stressed with great emphasis, that this The UN General Assembly held an Emergency Special Session on Hungary on November 4–10, 1956. That was only the second such session convened by the Security Council, pursuant to the November 1950 “Uniting for Peace” resolution. 2 According to contemporary estimates, 229 Hungarians were executed and 22,000 others sentenced to prison in the wake of the 1956 uprising. As part of the “campaign of vengeance,” some 13,000 landed in internment camps without legal procedure. The deportation of young insurgents into the Soviet Union was shortly rescinded upon request of the newly installed Hungarian Communist leader, who deemed it counterproductive. For numbers, see Paul Lendavai, One Day That Shook the Communist World: The 1956 Hungarian Uprising and Its Legacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 185, 214–24. 1

162

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

is not the first time that the Soviet Union has been practicing genocide. He quoted nobody else but Khrushchev himself as having accused Stalin at the session of the Politburo on the 24th of January 1965 – of the crime of genocide, perpetrated by him on the following groups: the Crimean Tartars, the Kalmyks, and the North Caucasian national groups – the Balkars, Chechens, and Ingush.1 The Cuban resolution was adopted by more than a 2/3 majority of the Assembly and referred to the UN special investigation Committee on Hungary, which at the present time is conducting hearings in Geneva. It is premature to judge the findings of this Committee. However, the situation of some hundred million Central Europeans who were taken over by the Soviet Union at the end of the WWII became dramatized and brought to the attention of the world under the terms of the UN Genocide Convention.

No. 277 Raphael Lemkin Supports the Cuban Resolution Charging the Soviet Union with Genocide in Hungary, December 4, 1956 AJA, 60/2/2, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives December 4, 1956 To the Editor of the New York Times I sincerely regret the criticism expressed by Arthur Krock in his column on November 22, 1956, in regard to the Cuban resolution invoking the Genocide Convention in the United Nations, in connection with the tragic events in Hungary.2 Krock apparently agrees with the Cuban delegation that Genocide is taking place in Hungary.3 However, he thinks that the Soviet Union and the satellites have removed all the responsibility for Genocide by having ratified the convention with reservations, in particular to Article IX of the Convention which deals with the competence of the International Court of Justice. I think I have proved through my actions my suspicions of the intensions of the Soviet Union, but the Cuban resolution had been introduced according to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention which permits bringing up cases of genocide in all organs of the United Nations. To this Article the Soviet Union has

The said nationalities were deported in their entirety by Soviet authorities in the period between December 1943 and June 1944—804,000 people in total. For numbers, see Pavel Polian, Against Their Will: The History and Geography of Forced Migrations in the USSR (Budapest: CEU Press, 2004). Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev did not use the word genocide in his famous speech that he delivered at the Communist Party Congress on February 25, 1956. 2 UN resolution 1127(XI) of November 21, 1956 evoked the “principles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in particular article II (c) and (e), to which Hungary and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are parties,” in the demand to promptly withdraw Soviet forces from Hungary and to cease the deportation of Hungarian citizens. 3 Arthur Krock, “Soviet Russia’s Part in the Genocide Treaty,” New York Times, November 22, 1956. 1



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

163

not made any reservations, and our international legal claim to preserve life of the Hungarian nation remains unchallenged. The Genocide Convention is an appropriate legal instrument to deal with this matter, because it defines well this typical Soviet crime, and it permits us to protect some hundred millions of captive people who are subject now to gradual destruction, especially where those parts of the people who provide national cohesion are being removed. [Raphael Lemkin]

No. 278 The International Commission of Jurists Charges Communist China with Genocide in Tibet, June 1959 NARA, CIA-RDP78-02771 R000300440002-6 June 1959 [CIA Report] GENOCIDE, COMMUNISM AND TIBET SUMMARY The systematic destruction of racial, national and religious groups as a matter of national policy is recognized today as the crime of genocide under international law. This new legal concept has been given international currency and validity through the UN-sponsored Convention on Genocide, which has been ratified by 58 countries. Part I of this report, Genocide: A Legal Concept of Inhumanity, undertakes to show the development of this concept as a reaction to the Nazi excesses in Europe and to outline the basic principles of the Genocide Convention. The report then presents details of the genocidal activities carried out by the Nazis as well as those perpetrated by the Soviet Communists against the Poles, the Baltic peoples, and various national minority groups in the Soviet Union. A final section discusses the recent genocide measures of the Communist Chinese in Tibet, as detailed in a report issued by the International Commission of Jurists. Part II of the report, China Incorporates Tibet, briefly surveys Tibetan-Chinese relations up to the establishment of the Chinese Communist regime and then outlines in detail the systematic attempts of the Chinese Communists to destroy Tibetan autonomy and religious and cultural values. Communist promises to the Tibetans and the violations of those promises are shown. Finally, the series of killings and other atrocities which led to the International Commission’s finding of a “clear pattern of genocide” are examined in some detail.1

Part II of the report not in the file.

1

164

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Genocide and the United Nations To date the United Nations has not taken any action on charges of genocide either on the basis of the 1946 General Assembly resolution or of the Convention itself. Charges made by Pakistan against India in 1948 concerning “mass destruction of Muslims in a pre-arranged program of genocide” in East Punjab in connection with the Kashmir dispute were never substantiated.1 In 1952 various Communist front organizations, notably the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, charged that the United States, by its alleged use of bacteriological warfare in North Korea and Northeast China, was guilty of genocide.2 The charge was so obviously spurious and motivated by propaganda aims that the UN refused to demean itself by taking cognizance of it. It appears that this situation may now be changing and that the UN will shortly be called upon to take its first action under the Convention on Genocide. On 5 June 1959, the International Commission of Jurists, a non-governmental organization representing 35,000 lawyers in 53 countries and enjoying consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, issued a report which asserted that during the past nine years the Chinese Communists had committed systematically the “crime of genocide” in an attempt to destroy the Tibetan people. The Commission declared that it would “initiate such action as envisaged by the Genocide Convention of 1948 and by the Charter of the United Nations for suppression of these (Chinese) acts…” Prepared by Shri Purshottam Trikamdas, senior advocate of the India Supreme Court and former secretary to Mohandas K. Gandhi, the report asserts that the Chinese Communists have followed a “systematic policy of killing, imprisonment and deportation of those opposed to the regime.” Trikamdas estimated that at least 65,000 Tibetans had been killed and that of the 200,000 drafted since 1950 for forced labor in a road-building program, about one-fourth have died from cold weather, hunger and fatigue. In presenting a summary of the report at a news conference in Geneva, Trikamdas declared that there was a “prima facie case that on the part of the Chinese there has been an attempt to destroy the national, ethnical, racial and religious group of Tibetans by killing members of the group and by causing serious bodily and mental harm.” Trikamdas stated categorically that “these acts constitute the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention.” The Tibetans have thus joined those other peoples – Chechens, Poles, Crimean Tatars – who have felt the brutal hand of Communism. As the Commission’s report states, the Communist action in Tibet “reminds one of the brutal suppression in Hungary.” Mr. Trikamdas expressed it equally well when he declared that a “practically independent country is being turned by force into a province of China…”

Cf. doc. nos. 45–47, 70, 169. See doc. nos. 311, 313.

1 2



Indicting Communist Countries for Genocide, 1949–59

165

No. 279 The Dalai Lama Seeks a UN Investigation of Genocide in Tibet, as Ascertained by the International Commission of Jurists, July 6, 1959 NARA, CIA-RDP78-03061AO00100010017-3 July 6, 1959 [CIA] SECRET Bi-Weekly Propaganda Guidance Number 17 100.  Charge of Genocide Against Communist China The Communist Chinese have been charged with the crime of genocide for the brutal slaying of 65,000 Tibetans who opposed Communist rule. The indictment was made by Dr. Purshottam Trikamdas, an Indian member of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). The Commission is a non-governmental organization with consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council and is comprised of 35,000 lawyers from 53 nations. In his summary report Dr. Trikamdas stated the Chinese Communists followed a systematic policy of killing, imprisonment and deportation. There is also a prima facie case that the Chinese Communists have attempted to destroy the national, ethnic and religious basis of Tibetan society. These acts constitute the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention of the United Nations of 1948 and are, additionally, a violation of human rights. The ICJ has called upon the United Nations and jurists throughout the world to help the Tibetan people in their struggle for freedom and justice. A detailed 50-page report is to be published and distributed by the ICJ in July. The Dalai Lama on 20 June charged the Chinese Communists with the intention to completely absorb and liquidate the Tibetan race. He asked that an impartial investigating body be sent to Tibet to learn the facts of the Chinese Communist invasion to be presented to the United Nations for judgment. Plans are presently being made to form a body under the aegis of the ICJ and an Indian organization concerned with the Tibetan issue.1

On July 24, 1959, the ICJ pleaded for a UN investigation of Chinese conduct in Tibet, including the “supreme crime of attempted genocide.” The commission’s 1960 report, which was mainly based on refugee testimonies, concluded that the Chinese had committed genocide in an attempt to destroy the Tibetans as a religious group. At the same time, the commission did not find the sufficient proof that the acts of destruction targeted the Tibetans as a racial, ethnic, or national group.

1

166

X

The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles, Draft Covenants on Human Rights, and/or the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1949–54 (nos. 280–299)

Raphael Lemkin had used a plethora of arguments in support of US ratification of the Genocide Convention. One of his tactics was to negatively compare the Genocide Convention to the draft Covenant on Human Rights and the draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind—both documents in preparation by the United Nations. The Soviet Union was dismissive of both the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (doc. 280). The Foreign Ministry regarded the latter as a hypocritical document covering up the “reactionary . . . policy of the Anglo-America bloc.” Hence the USSR abstained from the final vote on the declaration in December 1948. Yet it voted in favor of the Genocide Convention the same month, purportedly in order to prevent the hostile Western bloc from destroying it. Lemkin peddled a conspiracy theory, according to which the Soviets still attempted to kill the genocide treaty by means of sawing confusion between the convention and the declaration. Assisted by fellow travelers, they deliberately blended human rights and the issue of civil rights in the American South (doc. 281). Officials in the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division displayed little enthusiasm for the Genocide Convention, which they believed was a “retrograde step as compared with the so-called Nuremberg principles” (doc. 282). They reacted with dismay to an attempt to draw a wedge between the convention and the declaration in the United States, refusing to assist in a campaign in support of the former for the fear of undercutting the latter (docs. 283–84). Neither did they appreciate Lemkin’s criticism of a pamphlet on genocide produced by the UN Secretariat in the fall of 1949 (doc. 285). Lemkin, meanwhile, continued lobbying with the US government against the proposed Covenant on Human Rights (doc. 293). He went as far as to insist, sometime in mid-1950, that a subtle reference to lynching in one of the covenant’s draft provisions might hurt the “chances of the Democratic Party in certain districts where sensitivities in this respect are high.” When building a case for the Genocide

168

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Convention, Lemkin said it was a more powerful instrument of propaganda against Russia than the concept of human rights, also in the context of the Korean War (doc. 287). Beginning in 1951, Lemkin was fighting on three fronts, against the covenant, the Nuremberg judgment, and the draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind. All three documents Lemkin interpreted as a means to impose a Communist World Order. The Soviet Union was the only nation that could presently be indicted for genocide, Lemkin argued (doc. 288). In his critique Lemkin did not spare the United Kingdom either (doc. 289). Lemkin acted through the British section of the World Jewish Congress to convey—in this particular case to the Archbishop of Canterbury—his fears of “strong forces” at work to destroy the Genocide Convention by incorporating parts thereof in the Covenant on Human Rights (doc. 290). A Ukrainian American mass rally at Cleveland, Ohio, in November 1951 demanded that the US government reject the proposed draft Code of Offenses and called on the United Nations to “investigate Soviet genocide.” The gathering maintained that the Code of Offenses, if adopted, would automatically outlaw US support for the national liberation movement, including the ongoing anti-Soviet insurgency in the western Ukraine (doc. 291). The Polish American Congress, for its part, protested against the “confusion of genocide perpetrated in Auschwitz, Dachau and Katyn and prison camps in Siberia and Korea, with the unfortunate occasional discrimination .  .  . in some free countries.” (doc. 296) Whether or not taking cues from Lemkin and his allies among the East European émigrés, the State Department had adopted a delaying tactics vis-à-vis the draft Code of Offenses (doc. 292). Lemkin’s suggestion to scuttle the Covenant on Human Rights, however, met strong opposition from the State Department. Assistant Secretary of State said his department was working toward favorable action by the US Senate on the Genocide Convention regardless of the outcome of negotiations on the covenant. As for Soviet attacks on the US human rights record, they would likely to continue also in the future (doc. 295). Finally, Lemkin made an argument that conflating the Nuremberg principles with the Genocide Convention might alienate West Germany. Lemkin said he was concerned that the German military, which are “naturally very critical of the Nuremberg trials,” might obstruct the plans for the country to join NATO (doc. 298). One of Lemkin’s supporters was trying to convince the latter that the danger to the genocide treaty was less than he had believed and that the probability of alienating West Germany by making the Nuremberg principles into international law was low (doc. 299). From the Soviet perspective, the Nuremberg Charter created a precedent which, among other things, invalidated the idea of an international criminal court (doc. 299).



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

169

No. 280 The Soviet Foreign Ministry Dismissive of the Recently Adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention (excerpt), February 2, 1949 AVP RF, 06/11/4/46 February 2, 1949 Secret Circular Letter of the Soviet Foreign Ministry Regarding the Outcomes of the First Part of the III Session of the UN General Assembly 9. In an attempt to cover up the reactionary nature of its policy, the AngloAmerican bloc (the United States delegation in particular) has been trying hard to get the so-called Human Rights Declaration adopted at the III session of the Assembly. They attached particular importance to the Declaration, by means of adopting which they sought to demonstrate its “democratic character” [demokratichnost] and thus to efface the reactionary onslaught [razgul reaktsii] and the crusade against the progressive democratic movement in the US, England, and other capitalist countries. The draft Declaration was filled with hypocritical statements about human rights and fundamental freedoms, and simultaneously was thoroughly purged [byli staratelno vytravleny] of the slightest reference to the urgent fight against the resurgence of fascism and of propaganda of a new war. It contained not a single word about legal protection and the guarantee of human rights and freedoms by state, or about the extension of human rights – as pronounced by the Declaration – to colonial and dependent populations. The USSR delegation strove to postpone the vote on the Human Rights Declaration until the IV session in order to, in the interim, prepare a genuinely democratic draft Declaration. Simultaneously, the Soviet delegation tried to amend the draft prepared by the Third Committee in order to address its significant shortcomings. In particular, the Soviet amendments addressed freedom of expression and the dissemination of democratic views and ideas; the right to continue the struggle against fascism in the field of ideology, politics, in both the state and public sphere; the right of citizens to participate in state governance regardless of their race, skin color, ethnicity, class, property ownership, social origin, language, religion, or gender; the right of each and every nation to self-determination; and the extension of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the population of non-self-governing territories, including colonies. The majority of [national delegations] at the Assembly accepted neither the suggestion to postpone the vote on the Declaration nor the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation, forcing the USSR delegation and other Slavic states to abstain from the vote on the draft Declaration. 10.  The General Assembly adopted the Genocide Convention – [outlawing] crimes that amount to the destruction of population groups on racial or ethnic grounds. Despite the strenuous efforts of the USSR delegation and other Slavic delegations to

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

170

improve the [text of the] draft Convention, the Convention still ended up less than satisfactory, as it omits a series of important issues that the Soviet delegation had sought to include. Hence was rejected the Soviet proposition highlighting the organic link between genocidal crimes [on the one hand] and fascism-Nazism and analogous racist “theories” preaching racial and ethnic hatred, the supremacy of so-called higher races, and the destruction of so-called lower races [on the other hand]. Neither found its way into the Convention the Soviet propositions to fight genocide in the cultural sphere (i.e., so-called ethno-cultural genocide) and to unconditionally extend the Convention to the colonies. Despite all these significant shortcomings, since the Convention intended to foil such dangerous crimes as genocide, the Soviet delegation voted in favor so as to prevent the Anglo-American bloc from destroying the Convention – something that the colonial power delegations, England in particular, sought to accomplish.

No. 281 Raphael Lemkin Contrasts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention in a Letter to Drew Pearson, June 15, 1949 AJHS, P-154/2/10 June 15, 1949 Mr. Drew Pearson 2820 Dumbarton Avenue Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Pearson: You may recall that you intervened once in the undercover fight over the genocide convention, with great effect on our State Department, and ultimately on the adoption of the Treaty by the United Nations assembly in Paris. The issue now is ratification, and the situation calls for another dose of public discussion. The convention has not yet been submitted to the Senate for ratification. Those who are trying to keep it bottled up in the State Department constitute as strange a collection of bedfellows as have ever been brought together. The fellow travelers of course are fighting it with every means at their disposal, for they know that a genocide treaty accepted as part of international law would be a powerful weapon for enquiring into the police methods of the Soviet Union and its satellites. While they do not dare oppose it openly, their technique now is to link genocide with the far more controversial human rights program, hoping thus to assure its defeat in the Senate. Thus it was no accident that a recent Methodist convention went on record as opposing the Atlantic Pact and urging prompt “ratification” of the Human Rights declaration, although the Human Rights declaration in its present form requires no congressional action. The convention made no reference to the pending genocide treaty. When one of the Bishops enquired about it, he was told that the matter was not urgent. Pella,



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

171

Ana Pauker’s highly paid representative in the United States, is still active among legal groups organizing this tactic of smothering genocide with human rights.1 The history of the convention brings out the nature and goal of Russian tactics. You may recall that in 1946, Cuba, India and Panama introduced a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly which declared that genocide, defined as the intentional destruction of national, religious and racial groups, is a punishable crime under international law, like piracy or the trade in women. The United States delegation (consisting at the time of Senators Connally and Vandenberg, John Foster Dulles, Senator Baer, Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, Charles Fahy and others) supported this resolution, and has not only actively cooperated with other nations in preparing an international treaty on genocide, but has also provided leadership and paved the way for such a treaty during three assemblies of the United Nations. Bitter opposition to the proposed convention was shown by the Soviet Union which obviously does not want to submit herself to international controls. Three Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have constantly stormed the Secretary General of the U. N. Trygve Lie with accusations that Russia is practicing genocide in their respective countries. Recently the N. Y. Times carried an appeal by Mr. Horn, Executive Secretary of the Estonian National Council in Stockholm, urging action on genocide because thousands of Estonians are being deported to Siberia for death.2 In the United Nations the Soviet attitude to genocide has been as follows: The Russians obviously did not dare say that they are opposed to declaring genocide an international crime. They tried to use tactics of confusion and delay, by (1) Confusing genocide with a project of codifying the law of Nuremberg, which involved a work of many years, and as to which no binding international treaty is envisaged. Accordingly, at the Assembly of 1947 the Soviet delegate moved a resolution which in effect destroyed the idea of a binding treaty on genocide and proposed to send genocide for codification together with Nuremberg Law. To that, the delegate of Norway, Seyersted, violently objected by saying that if we have not managed to reach an agreement in one year on one crime of genocide, how many years would it take us to agree on the many crimes involved in the Nuremberg Law.3 The Russian proposal was defeated. (2) Two months later, at the February session of the Economic and Social Council, the Soviet delegate tried another tactic. He knew that the project on Human Rights was a controversial issue for some delegates, and because of the identity of the Human Rights program with the Civil Rights issue in the United States, the Soviet delegate knew that the Southern Democrats would oppose an international Bill on Human Rights. The surest way for Russia to kill the genocide convention would be to confuse Ana Pauker (1893–1960) was a conspicuous member of Cominform and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania from 1947 to 1952. Pella’s association with Pauker and Communist Rumania (until 1948 he was listed on the law faculty of the University of Bucharest) proved a liability, which Lemkin was eager to exploit. 2 Arvo Horm (until 1935 Arnold Horn; 1913–96) was an Estonian émigré politician. See Horm’s article, “For Genocide Action: Policy of Mass Destruction of Baltic Nations Charged,” in New York Times, May 29, 1949. 3 Cf. doc. no. 124. 1

172

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

genocide with the larger controversial problem of Human Rights. Delegate Morozov moved accordingly in the Economic and Social Council to send the genocide issue to the Commission on Human Rights. The Russian game was discovered and rejected. In May, 1948, a new draft treaty on genocide was prepared under the Chairmanship of the United States delegate, John Maktos. All member nations of this commission voted for it with the exception of Russia, which opposed, with Poland abstaining. At the 1947 Assembly in Paris, Russia abstained on the genocide convention, but when all nations voted for it, she gave in at the last moment, and voted in favor.1 Russia was too isolated and could not stand an open accusation of not having joined other nations in fighting genocide. However, Russia did not give in. The fellow traveler organizations in the United States continue to fight it. On the ninth of April, 1949, twenty-nine international organizations met at Lake Success and adopted a resolution of participation in the international campaign to ratify the genocide convention, by the parliaments of the world. The only organizations which did not vote for this resolution were the well-known fellow traveler organizations, the Federation of Democratic Women and the Federation of Democratic Youth. However, the Soviet idea to kill the convention is recently gaining ground. By way of their usual channels, the Russians have spread a confusion between the genocide convention and the Human Rights issue, and a few American organizations have fallen inadvertently into the Russian trap, by sponsoring the inclusion of genocide in the controversial Human Rights program. It is certain that this confusion will kill the genocide convention, and Russia will finally win. It is interesting to know that because of this confusion, some American organizations which opposed the Human Rights program, but are in favor of the genocide convention are weakening the efforts of the State Department to proceed with quick ratification. On the other hand, some of the sincere supporters of the Human Rights program cooperate in this manoeuvre. They want to get a single convention including genocide and human rights. Thus they think the mass support for the idea of a genocide treaty could be used to help push a human rights program through a doubtful Senate. Motives of vanity and personal ambition play their normal and unsavory part as well. Some of the highly paid employees of pressure groups are in no hurry to get action which would terminate their present jobs. Frank Holman and other influential members of the American Bar Association take the same position for different reasons. They are old-fashioned isolationists, who oppose the development of international law, and are using the specter of nationalism to create fears that these steps in the growth of law would end an important part of American sovereignty. Meanwhile the country wide support for prompt ratification continues to grow, as the issue is discussed at legal meetings and before organizations of every type. Influential members of the Senate are deeply interested. But nothing can be done until the convention is submitted by the State Department. Acheson, Gross, Thorp and other high officials are sincerely interested in the treaty, but they are so busy with other things that the bottling-up process can be successfully organized. The author obviously meant the first part of the Third General Assembly in September–December 1948.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

173

If, as I assume, you agree that international law can grow only gradually, like the common law, from case to case; and that the genocide treaty, condemning the destruction of groups for religious, ethnic or national reasons, is a simple and desirable step in the development of a humane international law, then I am sure you will wish to check up on this situation, and print the results of your enquiry. The light of day is the weapon which makes democracy possible. I am enclosing a recent editorial in the Times asking the questions which need to be answered.1 With best wishes, Yours sincerely, [Raphael Lemkin]2

No. 282 Egon Schwelb of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division Skeptical about the Utility of the Genocide Convention, September 6, 1949  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 (4), Draft Convention on the Crime of Genocide – Comments from Individuals September 6, 1949 Dr. J. W. Brugel 65 Beautfort Park Beautfort Drive London, B.W.11, England Dear Friend, Thank you very much for your kindness in sending me a copy of “Europa-Archiv” containing on pages 2307 to 2312 your article on the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.3 The article is really admirable and gives the reader a reliable introduction into the problem. As I assume that you are interested in the further development of the subject, I herewith enclose a list of States which have signed the Convention by today, and a list of States which have ratified the Convention. You will probably have noticed that the provisional agenda of the fourth session of the General Assembly contains the following item: Invitations to be addressed “The Genocide Treaty,” New York Times, June 12, 1949. The letter to Drew Pearson is mistakenly attributed to Eugene V. Rostow, Yale University law professor and Lemkin’s well-wisher. From context, it is clear that the author of the letter was Lemkin. 3 J. W. Brügel, “Die Konvention zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung des Gruppenmords,” Europa-Archiv 14. vol. 4. (20 July 1949): 2307–11. See also Brügel, “The Crime of Genocide,” Central European Observer (London), October 17, 1947. 1 2

174

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

to Non-Member States to become parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide. I am also enclosing a popular booklet on the question of Genocide which the Department of Public Information of the United Nations Secretariat issued some weeks ago.1 I personally have never been particularly enthusiastic about the whole notion of Genocide, and of the idea of having a Convention drawn up for its prevention and punishment. In my private opinion, for so much as it is worth, the Convention, apart from the fact that it is very doubtful whether it will come into effect at all, is a retrograde step as compared with the so-called Nurnberg principles as laid down in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, as applied by the Nurnberg Tribunal, as adhered to by seventeen other Nations, and as affirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in two resolutions. If Hitler and his gang started all over again, he would be able to claim that he was not “constitutionally responsible ruler”, (Article IV of the Convention) and he would probably succeed with this plea because he would be arraigned before the Strafkammer of the Landgericht in Berlin (Article VI of the Convention). As far as the other Nazi criminals are concerned, they would be able to invoke in their defence that they had been acting under superior orders received from Hitler. They could claim that the Genocide Convention appears to recognize this defence because, as distinguished from Article 8 of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, it does not exclude this defence. The fact that no provision on the defence of superior orders is contained in the Genocide Convention is deliberate. A proposal to this effect was contained in the Secretariat’s draft; both the Ad Hoc Committee and the Sixth Committee voted down proposals for the insertion of the provision that the fact that the defendant acted pursuant to superiors shall not free him from responsibility. With renewed thanks for your kindness in sending me your article, I remain, Very sincerely yours, Egon Schwelb

No. 283 Egon Schwelb of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division Does Not Want to Jeopardize Efforts on behalf of the Covenant on Human Rights by Launching a Campaign in support of the Genocide Convention, January 6, 1950 UNA, SOA 318/2/01 A, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide January 6, 1950 Document not in the file.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

175

United Nations Interoffice Memorandum To: Mr. John P. Humphrey From: E. Schwelb Subject: Note from Mr. B. Cohen concerning an effective campaign to clarify the meaning of the Genocide Convention The gist of the article “The Genocide Convention” in the Catholic Review of the Week “America” of 7 Jan 1950 is the assertion that the Genocide Convention is something quite different from the Covenant on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is criticised that “ineptly” the Declaration and the Genocide Convention were linked in a Department of State publication. It is emphasised that while the human rights programme of the United Nations is for many Senators synonymous with the civil rights programme of President Truman, the Genocide Convention has nothing to do with either. A similar line, on a more scientific level, was recently taken by Professor Joseph L. Kunz of Toledo University in his note “The United Nations Convention on Genocide”, on page 738, et. seq. of the 1949 American Journal of International Law. The basic idea of Professor Kunz’s article which is also in favour of ratification by the American Senate is that “there is nothing revolutionary in the Convention”, that the Convention is “fairly old-fashioned and traditional”. It is stated that the “Convention is also entirely different from the proposed Covenant and Treaty of Implementation concerning Human Rights” and that it “does not make individuals subjects of international law, nor of international duties or international rights.” In my opinion, the considerable propaganda activities which are at present in progress in order to convince the Senate of the United States of the harmlessness of the Genocide Convention is permeated it seems by one theme – that while there are justifiable objections against the human rights instruments of the United Nations from the point of view of American sovereignty and from the point of view of certain peculiarities of the American political and social scene, nothing of the kind can be said of the Genocide Convention. This propaganda cannot fail to prejudice the chances of the human rights programme of the United Nations being endorsed by American public opinion and a United Nations Human Rights Covenant being eventually ratified. It is not for me, as an official of the Secretariat, to express an opinion on the question whether or not the adoption of the Convention on Genocide is or is not a progressive step. I think I may, however, express an opinion as to the value for the human rights programme of the United Nations of the Declaration and Covenant on the one hand and the Genocide Convention on the other. I do not think it is the duty of the United Nations Secretariat to support the campaign for the ratification of the Genocide Convention, a campaign which, as I have shown, is detrimental to the larger programme of the United Nations in the field of human rights.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

176

No. 284 John Humphrey, Director of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division, Shares the View That Launching a Campaign in support of the Genocide Convention May Prejudice Similar Efforts on behalf of the Covenant on Human Rights, January 9, 1950  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 A, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide January 9, 1950 Mr. Benjamin Cohen, Assistant Secretary-General, Department of Public Information John P. Humphrey, Director, Division of Human Rights Thank you for your note of 4 January in which you suggest that we study an effective campaign to clarify the meaning of the Genocide Convention. Your note was, I take it, inspired by an article in the Catholic Review, America of 7 January 1950. It is asserted in this article that the Genocide Convention is something quite different from the proposed International Covenant on Human Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The author states that, in a Department of State publication, the Declaration and the Genocide Convention were “inaptly” linked. It is emphasized that, while the programme of the United Nations is for many senators synonymous with the civil rights programme of President Truman, the Genocide Convention has nothing to do with either. A similar line on a more scientific level was recently taken by Professor Joseph L. Kunz of Toledo University in his note, “The United Nations Convention on Genocide”, on page 738, etc. of the October 1949 issue of the American Journal of International Law. The basic idea of Professor Kunz’ article, which is also in favour of ratification by the American Senate of the Genocide Convention, is that “there is nothing revolutionary in the Convention” and that the Convention is “fairly old-fashioned and traditional”. He says that the “Convention is also entirely different from the proposed Covenant and Treaty of Implementation concerning human rights” and that it “does not make individuals subjects of international law nor of international duties or international rights.” The considerable propaganda activities, the object of which is to convince the American Senate that the Genocide Convention is harmless, are permeated it seems by one theme: that, while there are justifiable objections against the human rights instruments of the United Nations from the point of view of American sovereignty and also of certain peculiarities in the American political and social system, nothing of the kind can be said of the Genocide Convention. I think that you will agree that propaganda of this character cannot but fail to prejudice the chances of the human rights programme of the United Nations being endorsed by American public opinion and, more particularly, the chances of the International



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

177

Covenant on Human Rights ever being ratified by the United States. It is for this reason that I think that we should be very careful before supporting any campaign for the ratification of the Genocide Convention, the effect of which might prove to be detrimental to our other and I think more important work. I am assuming that you will endorse this view. To come to your concrete suggestions, I can only say that I will be glad to discuss with you at any time the policy which the Secretariat should follow in the light of what I have said above. I return the copy of America.

No. 285 The UN Department of Public Information Looks into Raphael Lemkin’s Comments on a Pamphlet on Genocide Prepared by the United Nations, March 15, 1950  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 B, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide March 15, 1950 United Nations Interoffice Memorandum To: Mr. B. F. Sloan, Personal Assistant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Legal Department From. Sutherland Denlinger, Publication and periodical Services, DPI Subject: Pamphlet on Genocide I am attaching for the consideration of the Legal Department comments on the pamphlet on Genocide by Mr. Raphael Lemkin of the Law School, Yale University. Attached also you will find a copy of my memorandum to Mr. Wilder Foote, together with the draft of an interim reply to Mr. Lemkin for Mr. Cohen’s signature.1 I would be grateful if you would let me have the opinion of the Legal Department on Mr. Lemkin’s comments as quickly as possible. Would you please return Mr. Lemkin’s letter to me with the Legal Department’s comments so that I may pass it on to the Division of Human Rights for their consideration and comment.

Document not in the file.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

178

No. 286 The UN Legal Department Rejects Raphael Lemkin’s Criticism of a Pamphlet on Genocide Prepared by the United Nations, March 22, 1950  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 B, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide March 22, 1950 Mr. Sutherland Denlinger, Publication and Periodical Services, DPI Mr. B. Sloan, Legal Department Pamphlet on Genocide The legal Department does not desire to engage in a controversy with Mr. Lemkin concerning the points raised in his letter of 25 February 1950 which are theoretical and about which opinions may differ. I am informed that the pamphlet in question was not submitted to the Legal Department before publication and I believe it would be best to leave the question in charge of the departments which participated in its preparation. However, I would offer the following personal comments which I hope may be of interest: 1.  With regard to Mr. Lemkin’s first point, his suggestion that a “national, racial, ethnic or religious group” should be substituted for the plural would agree with Article 2 of the Convention. If a new edition of the pamphlet is contemplated, this change could be made without difficulty. But the point does not appear sufficiently important to be itself a reason for a new edition. 2.  Mr. Lemkin’s criticism that the opening statement of the pamphlet is incorrect is itself subject to considerable question. Mr. Lemkin, in his book “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” (1944), said that he coined the word “genocide” to “denote an old practice in its modern development”. Article 1 of the Convention does not purport to establish a new crime but to confirm that genocide is a crime under international law; Resolution 96(I) of the General Assembly of 11 December 1946 affirmed that genocide was a crime under international law. The point, at which the practice, to which Mr. Lemkin gave the name genocide, was recognized as an internationally criminal act, is not subject to exact definition. The contribution of the Convention as indicated in the pamphlet is not in the definition of a new crime but in the provisions for the prevention and punishment of an act which is confirmed as criminal. 3.  With regard to the third point concerning the relationship between the Nurnberg Principles and the Genocide Convention, I do not find that the fourth paragraph of the introduction to the pamphlet justifies the criticism which is made. As I read this paragraph, placed as it is in the introduction, it is my impression that it is not intended to be a legal analysis of the differences between genocide and the Nurnberg Principles. I do not read into it the implication which Mr. Lemkin criticizes.



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

179

I should again like to emphasize that these are my personal comments and [they] do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Legal Department. I am returning herewith the copy of Mr. Lemkin’s letter which you sent to our department.

No. 287 [Raphael Lemkin] Urges the US Government to Segregate between the Draft Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention [between July 31  and November 7, 1950] NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 [Between July 31 and November 7, 1950] THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE PROPOSED COVENANT ON HUMAN RIGHTS The Genocide Convention was approved with certain “understandings” or “reservations” by the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on April 12, 1950, but the Foreign Relations Committee has as yet taken no action. The McMahon subcommittee recommends understandings or reservations to make it clear that the crime of genocide does not occur in the United States. Indeed, genocide involves the intent to destroy all inhabitants of a country belonging to the same religion, race, or national origin, even if only a substantial portion thereof may be affected. (Example: The destruction of 1,200,000 Armenians out of a population of over 3,000,000.) As an international crime, genocide is within the scope of Article I of the Constitution, which gives to the Congress the right to define and punish international crimes. Despite this clear situation and the overwhelming support for the Convention coming from all walks of American life, such as all religious groups, the American Legion, General Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Labor groups, and so forth, ratification is being delayed. This attitude of the Senate is due to an artificially created confusion between the Genocide Convention and the proposed Covenant on Human Rights. Since the adoption of the Genocide Convention, a small but powerful group which is lobbying for the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights started a propaganda campaign to classify the Genocide Convention as a part of human rights. The Human Rights lobby knew that it would be difficult in the future to obtain ratification of the Human Rights Covenant when adopted because the Human Rights Covenant covers matters pertaining essentially to state rights and deals essentially with problems of racial equality. It was then conceived that “packaging” it together with the Genocide Convention might help in the future ratification of the Human Rights Covenant. This appeared especially useful to them since the California Court decision annulled this year a discrimination property law in California on the basis of the human rights provisions of the United Nations Charter, which further complicated the problems

180

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

of the Human Rights Covenant.1 Moreover, the human rights lobby saw to it that a provision was included in the Human Rights Covenant which essentially covers lynching, i.e., Article 3 of the future Covenant of Human Rights readers “to take life shall be a crime.” Under the influence of this type of propaganda, a segment of the American Bar Association repeated the same arguments confusing genocide with Human Rights. Since Human Rights is the international counterpart of civil rights, and since the Genocide Convention was artificially confused with Human Rights, a great deal of essential support has been removed from the Genocide Convention. This type of obstruction of the Genocide Convention is detrimental to American interests. Genocide is now being practiced by Russia on the Baltic and other nations behind the Iron Curtain. The Convention will be a powerful argument against Russia’s assertion that she is liberating the peoples of Asia, because it can be asserted that this “liberation” ultimately leads to liquidation, as was the case in the Baltic. The Genocide Convention is more powerful as a propaganda argument than the human rights concept because human rights are frequently overlooked in democracies. The Genocide Convention dealing with the most atrocious crime occurring in noncivilized societies has a different legal nature and different political significance especially in relation to Russia, and therefore it cannot and should not be confused with human rights. What should be done? (1)  The Undersecretary of State Webb should be informed of the reasons for the danger which has developed in regard to the Genocide Convention, with the request that these dangers be counteracted by asking the Public Relations Division of the Department of State to explain to the public the difference between the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant. (2)  Undersecretary Webb should instruct the American delegation at the United Nations Assembly that Article 3 of the Human Rights Covenant deals with lynching and its discussion during the present Assembly will hurt not only all the projects of this type sponsored by the United Nations but also the chances of the Democratic Party in certain districts where sensitivities in this respect are high. It should not be overlooked that, while discussing Article 3 of the proposed covenant on Human Rights, which was previously labeled as Article 5, the Russian delegate to the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Pavlow, illustrated the necessity to inserting an article protecting individual human life in order to fight internationally lynching in the United States. (3)  Senator Sparkman, who is a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations, should be specifically informed about the dangers implied in Article 3 of the Covenant on Human Rights and about the necessity to keep the Covenant on Human Rights separate from the Genocide Convention. (4)  Since the White House took a strong lead on genocide in connection with the appeal of the Korean Government to accelerate ratification of the Genocide Convention in order to protect the Christians in Korea, it is also necessary to inform

See doc. nos. 203, 260, 294.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

181

the White House of the necessity of avoiding any confusion between genocide and human rights.1 (5)  A public statement clarifying the real nature of genocide might be of great importance at this moment.

No. 288 Raphael Lemkin Alleges a Soviet Conspiracy to Subvert the Genocide Convention by means of a Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, TPQ April 12, 1951 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives [Undated memorandum] TPQ April 12, 1951 On January 12, 1951, the Genocide Convention came into force. The Soviet Union opposed in the United Nations the very idea of having a separate genocide convention and suggested already on November 10, 1947, that the UN Assembly go back on her decision of December 11, 1946 and that genocide should be treated in connection with the codification of the principles of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment as part of a future code of offenses. The Soviet proposal of November 20, 1947 to annul the genocide convention was defeated in the UN General Assembly. However, on April 12, 1951 the International Law Commission of the United Nations published a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which shows that the Soviet plans of November 20, 1947 might succeed now. The reasons for Soviet preference for the Nuremberg laws appear to be the following: Genocide was included in the Nuremberg indictment, but the Soviet judge and prosecutor in Nuremberg were opposed to the inclusion of the concept of destruction of nations in the Judgment of the Tribunal. The Russian point of view prevailed at that time and the Judgment of the Tribunal was limited to the enumeration of particular crimes, treated in an abstract way, without establishing a precedent that the destruction of a nation is an international crime. Moreover, since the Nuremberg judgment dealt also with war of aggression, the Soviet Union appeared to be interested in establishing legal guarantees for a Soviet World Order (Pax Sovietica) which would doom forever the fate of the subjugated peoples. The famous Vyshinsky speech in the United Nations of September 19, 1947 made a specific request to outlaw incitement to war, the use

See doc. nos. 300–301, 310.

1

182

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

of the atom bomb.1 Vyshinsky essentially advocated at that time the same principles, which were later repeated by the “Stockholm Peace Conference”.2 Since in the Assembly of 1947 the Soviets did not obtain satisfaction, they turned to the help of a technical and less conspicuous body of the United Nations – the International Law Commission.3 Their liaison man with this commission appeared to be Professor Vespasian V. Pella, President of the International Association of Criminal Law, who was listed in the Washington diplomatic lists up until November 1948 as Minister Plenipotentiary for the actual Romanian Government with special assignment as observer with the United Nations. As is to be seen from the enclosed document cover page, Pella prepared a basic memo for the International Law Commission.4 On the basis of this memo the International Law Commission prepared a draft of a code, which was published by the International Law Commission on April 12, 1951. A general analysis of this code follows: Article I, points 4 and 5 of this code tend to outlaw the activities of all anti-Soviet liberation movements. Any liberation movement or activities within the nations captured by the Soviets will fall within the definition of “civil strife” or, “creating a state of terror”. Article I, point 9 of the same draft code tries to establish a new concept of crimes against humanity independently of a war situation as it was required by the Nuremberg judgment and Charter. The words “before or during the war” have been omitted. Actually, before a war starts it is difficult to ascertain whether a nation is arming for defence or aggression. The actual wording of Article I, point 9 would create such a situation that a policeman would be held internationally responsible in time of peace for beating up a striking worker in an armament plant. The Soviet interest in such international provisions does not require further comment. Article I, point 8 (which contains the definition of genocide) represents a triumph for the Soviet delegation in the United Nations which has suggested on November 20, 1947 that a separate Genocide Convention is not necessary. The Soviet Union is the only nation which now could be indicted for Genocide. She is destroying the captured nations behind the Iron Curtain by killing off national and religious leaders, by breaking up families through deportations and exiles, by stealing children. The Soviet Union controls now some hundred million foreign peoples which are Western-minded, profoundly religious and adhere to the principles of democracy. They cannot assimilate and, therefore, they will have to be destroyed in part. Genocide Andrei Vyshinsky’s speech at the Second General Assembly outlined the Krelmlin’s view on the status of Soviet-Western relations. His frequent references to “warmongering” gave a moniker to the speech. 2 The Stockholm conference of March 1950 was part and parcel of the Soviet peace offensive—a massive propaganda campaign that traces its origin to a Cominform meeting in August of 1949. Stockholm Resolution of March 1950 demanded the prohibition of atomic weapons and strict international control of the atomic bomb. The campaign in support of the appeal proved a success, especially in France and Italy. The Soviet propaganda claimed that close to a quarter of the world’s population had eventually signed the Stockholm Resolution. 3 A permanent International Law Commission was established pursuant to a General Assembly resolution from November 1947. The commission held its first meeting in April 1949. See doc. nos. 24–25, 28, 31. 4 Document not in the file. 1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

183

thus appears to be a logical consequence of Soviet control of foreign populations, especially in Central and Northeastern Europe. The Soviet delegation hopes that if Genocide will be included in this draft code, nations will have an excuse for not ratifying the genocide convention. A considerable propaganda to this effect is carried out now by Vespasian V. Pella through the intermediary of an International Federation of Jurists and his Association of Criminal Law which gives him contracts in many countries. Article I page ii of the draft code contains also a provision on “warmongering”, according to Vyshinsky request of September 19, 1947 but also according to the Stockholm Peace proposals. In evaluating the draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind of April 12, 1951, one should remember that the Soviet Union, which acts in secrecy and by way of long range planned subversion will be in a more advantageous position as to the application of this code than the democracies, which adhere to the principle of free speech and open action. It is suggested: 1.  To approach the Military Staffs in England, France and also General Eisenhower with the suggestion that they request their governments that the UN document on the code of offences against the peace and security of mankind be submitted for their study before being submitted to the UN Assembly for action. 2.  To approach the Vatican in view of obtaining a statement from the Pope to the effect that His Holiness might endorse the ratification of the genocide convention and appeal to all freedom-loving nations on behalf of ratification. 3.  To give the widest publicity in the English and World Press to the genocide convention.

No. 289 Raphael Lemkin Circulates a Memorandum Critical of the UK Position on the Genocide Convention, the Draft Covenant on Human Rights, and the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, April 25, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/32 April 25, 1951 The situation regarding the Genocide Convention presents itself to date as follows: I.  The Convention entered formally into force on Jan. 12, 1951. The following nations have ratified the Convention: Australia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Israel, Liberia, Norway, Panama, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Ceylon, Costa Rica, Transjordan, Korea, Laos, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Vietnam, The Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Rumania. The last five have

184

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

ratified with reservations. According to the Convention, it can be revised at any time at the request of any of the contracting parties. II.  The problem of reservations pending in the International Court of Justice. After the Philippines and the other countries ratified the Convention with reservations, a movement was organized in the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1951 to make other governments object to the reservations. In July 1950 in the British House of Commons, the government was asked when it would ratify the Convention. The answer was given that the government was not satisfied with the terms of the Convention. Then, in the General Assembly of 1950, the British delegation succeeded in obtaining a resolution which requested the International Court of Justice to deliver an advisory opinion on the matter of reservations, specifically, in connection with the Genocide Convention. This resolution was quite unusual because seven other conventions of the United Nations, which were in a similar legal situation, were not sent to the International Court of Justice but to the International Law Commission. Hearings before the International Court of Justice started on April 10, 1951. An opinion has not yet been rendered. It is difficult to know what the decision will be. However, the following facts should be noted: a) In the second half of April 1951, the Canadian Jewish Congress asked the Honorable Lester Pearson, Minister of External Affairs, when Canada would ratify the Genocide Convention. The report of the Canadian Jewish Congress to the American Jewish Congress, received several days ago, reads as follows (quoting the answer of the Minister): “Canada has signed the Genocide Convention but has not ratified it. The Court of International Justice will soon decide if certain reservations nullify the Convention. In principle, apart from this, there is no reason why the Parliament can not be asked to ratify the Genocide Convention.” (end of quote) b) In the course of drafting the Genocide Convention, the British delegation, against objections of many delegations, succeeded in having included in Article 9 of the Genocide Convention a clause on the responsibility of states for the fulfillment of the Convention. The U.K. delegation also proposed that the International Court of Justice be given jurisdiction over the application of this clause. It is precisely this Article 9 which is now the chief cause of most of the reservations. c) In the last years of discussions, the United Kingdom delegation argued at different meetings and at different times that it would be important to include political groups or political parties as objects of protection in the Genocide Convention. On the other hand, the U.K. delegation has argued continually that the inclusion of political groups would make the entire matter highly controversial. The inference pointed to the futility of the entire project. (On one occasion, the delegate of Lebanon said plainly that the U.K. arguments on Genocide tended to confuse the issue.) d) When the International Court of Justice delivers its opinion, this will have to be confirmed by the next General Assembly of the United Nations. The immediate effect of having sent the Convention to the International Court of Justice was a stoppage of new ratifications. Moreover, several non-governmental organizations which have been cooperating in a plan to liquidate the Genocide Convention have also sponsored the plan of sending the Convention to the International Court of Justice. These groups have vested interests



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

185

in two other United Nations projects and they hope that by freezing the Genocide Convention they will have time to put through their plans by the next Assembly of the United Nations. III.  The Covenant on Human Rights The draft covenant on Human Rights carries several articles which through their general phraseology (and resulting vagueness) may be used as a substitute for the basic elements of the Genocide Convention. Part of Article 3 of the Human Rights Covenant reads: “1) Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. 2) To take life shall be a crime, save in the execution of a sentence of a court or in self-defense, or in the case of enforcement measures authorized by the Charter.” Article 4 says: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 2 of the Genocide Convention reads: “Genocide means any of the following acts undertaken with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial, or religious or ethnic group as such; a) killing members of the group; b) inflicting serious mental or physical harm on members of the group; c) imposing deliberately conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; d) preventing birth within the group; e) transfer of children from one human group to another.” The opponents of the Genocide Convention hope they can argue that the general provisions of the Human Rights Covenant as quoted above will cover the provisions of the Genocide Convention and therefore the Genocide Convention would not appear to be necessary. They also hope that they might succeed in putting in more specific provisions covering the elements of the Genocide Convention during the actual drafting of the Human Rights Covenant. IV.  The project of the International Code of Offenses A group of lawyers organized around the International Association for Penal Law hopes that they can “swallow up” the Genocide Convention in their project which codifies the Nuremberg Law. This project is now before the International Law Commission which opens its session in Geneva on May 15, 1951. They hope to cover some provisions of the Genocide Convention in their section on crimes against humanity. Conclusion It took five years to put the Genocide Convention into effect and all the years from 1933 were used to lay the groundwork. The Convention is urgently necessary at this grave period of history. The peoples of the world are entitled to know the conditions of conflict which threaten the Genocide Convention at this time. An attack against the Genocide Convention now constitutes an attack against international law, against the United Nations and against morality at large. [Raphael Lemkin]

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

186

No. 290 Eva Reading of the World Jewish Congress Conveys to the Archbishop of Canterbury Lemkin’s Perception of Threat to the Genocide Convention, May 11, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/32 May 11, 1951 Dear Archbishop [of Canterbury], When I was over in New York I saw Mr. Lemkin once or twice and he gave me a memorandum just before I left on the present situation as he sees it regarding the Genocide Convention.1 He was very anxious that I should draw your attention to certain dangers which he envisages in regard to the Genocide Convention. He is of the opinion that there are strong forces working at the present moment in order to destroy it as a Convention and to embody certain parts of it in the Human Rights Convention or under the International Law Commission. I am not sure whether he is not exaggerating the dangers, but I feel it is sufficiently important to draw your attention to his views and I know that he thinks that the various groups that have been working together with you should be made aware of the possible dangers which he foresees in order that they may be on their guard to protect the Convention as such. Yours sincerely, Eva Reading Marchioness of Reading

No. 291 The Ukrainian Anti-Soviet Mass Rally at Cleveland Denounces the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind as a Soviet Conspiracy, November 25, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/11-2651) [November 25, 1951] RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT THE UKRAINIAN ANTI-SOVIET MASS RALLY AT PUBLIC MUSIC HALL, CLEVELAND, WITH RESPECT TO SOVIET GENOCIDE AND THE PROPOSED U.N. CODE OF OFFENSES

See doc. no. 289.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

187

WHEREAS, the Soviet Union and her satellites are destroying nations and religious groups and are guilty of the crime of genocide; WHEREAS, world communism uses genocide in order to substitute the concept of a Soviet man and communist robots for the inspiring idea of free nations and Godabiding societies; WHEREAS, the Ukrainian nation is gravely affected by genocide in the form of direct killings, subjection to conditions of physical destruction, deadly deportations, breaking-up of families, and slave-labor conditions with a short life expectancy; WHEREAS, the Genocide Convention is the only binding international law available to meet this challenge and its implementation is necessary in order to stop barbarism in a world reverting to the jungle; NOW, THEREFORE, the Ukrainian Anti-Soviet Rally of November 25, 1951 resolves: 1. To urge the United States Government to speedily ratify the Genocide Convention of the United Nations, so as to have a legal guarantee that the crimes of genocide as perpetrated by the Soviet totalitarians and their apparatus of oppression, the MVD, MGB, the Politburo, the Communist Party and the Soviet General Staff, all of whom are engaged in the commission of crimes of genocide upon the non-Russian peoples, will be brought to justice. 2. To call upon the United Nations Assembly in Paris and all free delegations to investigate Soviet genocide and to brand the Soviet genocidists as common criminals according to the law. AND WHEREAS, the United Nations Assembly in Paris has received now for consideration a so-called Draft Code of Offenses Against Peace and Security of Mankind; WHEREAS, this Draft Code represents in legal terms a general implementation of the Vyshinsky war-mongering speech of 1947 and tries to sanction Soviet territorial acquisitions and enslavement of free peoples; WHEREAS, the above Draft outlaws the national liberation movement and would declare as criminal offenses the helping of the subjugated peoples to regain their freedom, one such movement being the Ukrainian underground resistance which, if destroyed, would automatically deprive the Ukrainian people of their chief instrumentality for achieving freedom and independence; WHEREAS, the Draft is contrary to the American Declaration of Independence which makes the fight against tyranny the highest virtue of free men; WHEREAS, the Draft Code of Offenses was originated by a former official agent of the Soviet bloc who thereupon presented it to a former judge of the Nuremburg tribunal for the purpose of its introduction in the United Nations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: To call upon the U.S.A. Government and all free governments of the world to reject the Draft Code of Offenses.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

188

No. 292 The US State Department Adopts Delaying Tactics with regard to the Draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, December 6, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/11-2651) December 6, 1951 Mr. Omer E. Miles, Chairman Ukrainian Manifestation Committee 2255 West Fourteenth Street Cleveland 13, Ohio Dear Mr. Miles: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 26, 1951 enclosing Resolutions adopted at an Anti-Soviet Rally by the American citizens of Ukrainian descent on November 25, 1951.1 With regard to the draft Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, it was the position of the United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly to attempt to secure a delay in consideration of the matter, in view of the fact that there has been insufficient time for governments to study this draft Code. Deciding that deferment was the wisest course of action, the General Assembly put off consideration of the draft Code until its Seventh Session in 1952. In the intervening time the United States Government will have ample opportunity to study the provisions of the draft Code. The Department is very much interested in receiving the comments of United States citizens and organizations and appreciates your interest and cooperation in forwarding the above-mentioned Resolutions. I note that you have already forwarded copies to the U.S. Delegation in Paris. As you probably know, the Department has constantly urged the ratification of the Genocide Convention. It is our earnest hope that the Senate will take favorable action at the earliest possible date. Sincerely yours, John D. Hickerson Assistant Secretary

See doc. no. 291.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

189

No. 293 Raphael Lemkin and Congressman Daniel J. Flood Articulate the Differences between the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant in a Conversation with US State Department Officials, January 29, 1952  NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/1-2852) January 29, 1952 DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION Subject: Participants:

Genocide Convention and Covenant of Human Rights The Secretary D. A.1 Representative Daniel J. Flood (R., Pa.)2 Dr. Raphael Lemkin Mr. David H. Popper, UNP

Congressman Flood called on me at his request, bringing with him Dr. Lemkin, the architect of the Genocide Convention. The Congressman began by reminding me frankly that the large Polish vote in his district represented the balance of power and was, so to speak, the decisive element in his retaining his seat in Congress. He referred to the concern of the Poles over our failure to ratify the Genocide Convention and asked Dr. Lemkin to explain the circumstances more fully. Dr. Lemkin stated that his efforts, and those of other supporters of the Genocide Convention, to obtain favorable action in the Senate were being blocked by the activities of individuals and organizations who were pushing for the inclusion of provisions covering genocide in the Human Rights Covenant now under study in the United Nations. As Dr. Lemkin and Congressman Flood explained it, these activities had created new difficulties with regard to the Genocide Convention, by sowing misinformation in the public mind regarding the extent to which the Genocide Convention actually dealt with human rights matters and impinged upon the sovereignty of the ratifying states. Mr. Lemkin said that the efforts in particular of Roger Baldwin and the League for the Rights of Man, Ex-minister Pella of Rumania, and Alvarez Del Vayo were directed toward blocking the Genocide Convention in order to keep the way clear for a human rights covenant including genocide in its broad provisions.3 He intimated that Pella was subject to Communist influence, and remarked that the Communists were also Dean Acheson (1893–1971), US Secretary of State from 1949 to 1953. Flood actually ran as Democrat. 3 Co-founded by Baldwin in 1942 in New York City, the International League for the Rights of Man in 1947 was granted observer status with the ECOSOC. 1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

190

seeking to sabotage the Genocide Convention by supporting the draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind. Congressman Flood expressed the view that Senators were confused and no longer appreciated the distinction between the Convention and the Covenant. He indicated that if the Genocide Convention were equated in the minds of certain Senators with general human rights issues, the Convention would never be ratified. Representative Flood also stated that he had been informed that the activities of one or two members of our General Assembly Delegation in Paris, whom he did not name, were perhaps contributing to this development. He suggested that we get the Delegation to cease whatever activities it was undertaking in connection with the Human Rights Convention. I told Messrs. Flood and Lemkin that the failure of the Senate to approve the Genocide Convention was a matter of great embarrassment to us. I said I had mentioned the subject last week in my discussion with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and that I thought there was some prospect that the Committee would soon act on the Convention. I noted that Senator McMahon was pushing for action. I also indicated to Congressman Flood that although the work of the Delegation in Paris was virtually completed, we would inform it of the point made by him. Both of the visitors said they were glad to learn of our active interest in pushing the Genocide Convention and hoped that we would be successful.

No. 294 Assistant US Attorney General Joseph C. Duggan Replies to a Letter Invoking Legal Challenges to Potential US Ratification of the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights, March 6, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 March 6, 1952 Dept. of State 146-51-03-2 AIR MAIL Stuart Chevalier, Esquire Miller, Chevalier, Peller & Wilson 819 Title Insurance Building Los Angeles 13, California Dear Mr. Chevalier: This is in reply to your letter dated February 21, 1952, indicating that you are preparing a memorandum for the American Association for the United Nations in answer to charges that the Genocide Convention and the draft International Covenant



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

191

on Human Rights, if adopted by this country, would be inimical to our own civil rights, and asking several questions in that regard.1 First, with regard to intervention by the Federal Government in the Fujii case now pending on appeal in the California Supreme Court, it was the decision of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, in consultation with the Department of State, that the United States would not intervene at this stage.2 We understand that the Fujii case has been argued and is being considered together with the Masaoka case, but that decision has been reserved.3 It was our view, stated in response to several like inquiries, that in the event the California Supreme Court should invalidate the state alien land law in question as being repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment (which was the basis of decision in Masaoka) there would be no occasion for any action by the Government unless the State of California should petition the Supreme Court of the United States for review.4 Secondly, you ask for any brief or document which would meet the argument by Senator Bricker of Ohio that the United Nations treaties are a threat to the American people, or which meet his proposal to amend the treaty-making power (S.J. Res. 130, 82d Congress). This Department has not prepared any documents on the subject of the proposed constitutional amendment. However, you may find useful the enclosed statement of the Solicitor General delivered January 23, 1950, to the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the Genocide Convention.5 Since it is possible that the Department of State may be able to provide you with other papers, we are taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to that Department. Sincerely yours, Joseph C. Duggan Assistant Attorney General Executive Adjudications Division

No. 295 The US State Department Rebuts Lemkin’s Suggestion to Curtail the Draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, June 23, 1952 NYPL, ZL-273/1 June 23, 1952

See doc. no. 203. J. Howard McGrath (1903–63), US Attorney General from 1949 to 1952; Philip B. Perlman (1890– 1960), US Solicitor General from 1947 to 1952. 3 See also doc. no. 260. 4 Haruye Masaoka v. California and Sei Fujii v. California were two court cases from 1952 that overturned state’s Alien Land Act, which barred Japanese Americans from owing agricultural property. 5 See doc. nos. 203, 207, 209, 212, 214, 275. 1 2

192

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2 Department of State

Professor Raphael Lemkin Dorchester House, Apartment 627 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. My dear Professor Lemkin: Senator Smith has forwarded to me a memorandum which you had sent him on June 12, 1952, dealing with the Draft Covenant on Human Rights and its relationship to the Genocide Convention. Your memorandum and this letter both refer, of course, to the Draft Covenant on civil and political rights and not to the Draft Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, where the problem of the Genocide Convention does not arise.1 I regret that, knowing as well as you do the background and purposes of the Draft Covenant, you feel the necessity of taking the position you took in your memorandum of June 12 to Senator Smith. I feel I need not enter into a long discussion with you as to why our efforts through the United Nations to establish human rights covenants are so important, nor even the details of the safeguards we are writing into this Draft Covenant to assure the protection of basic American constitutional rights should the Senate approve this Covenant. It is essential that this country seek in every way to demonstrate to the world its concern with human rights and its readiness to cooperate within the United Nations in drafting of covenants which will guarantee to peoples everywhere what we consider at least the basic human rights. You suggest that the United States Delegation should demand, at the appropriate time, the deletion of Articles 3 and 4 of the Draft Covenant on civil and political rights. The Department of State could never take the position that the reference to the right to life and the reference to freedom from torture or human treatment, which are the subjects of these two articles, should be deleted from the Draft Covenant. Certainly it would be difficult to deny that these two rights are among the most basic of human rights generally recognized throughout the world. The position taken by the United States representatives in the Human Rights Commission, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly when dealing with the questions of the Covenants on Human Rights is carefully formulated after consultation with other departments of the government concerned, including the Department of Justice, and in consultation with individuals and non-governmental organizations particularly concerned with international law and the various aspects of the Human Rights program. I can assure you in the first place that the Department of State will continue to urge favorable action by the Senate of the United States on the Genocide Convention regardless of the outcome of negotiations on the Covenant, and will continue to assure that any covenant on human rights will contain safeguards necessary to preserve the rights of individuals in this country under our Constitution.

Document not in the file.

1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

193

In the light of current Soviet attacks against the United States on all manner of trumped-up charges, certain of which relate to human rights, we do not believe that participation of this Government in drafting the Covenant, nor our ratification, if favorable action is taken by the Senate, will in any way enlarge the area of baseless allegations which the Soviet Government may bring against this country. If you desire to discuss this matter further the appropriate officers of the Department of State will be prepared to meet with you at your convenience. Sincerely yours, John D. Hickerson Assistant Secretary

No. 296 Polish American Congress Conveys to US State Secretary John Foster Dulles Its Concern over the Alleged Conspiracy to Make Genocide a Part of the UN Human Rights Project, October 31, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340.1-AJ/10-3153) October 31, 1952 [Telegram] WU009 BUFFALO NY OCT 31 HON JOHN FOSTER DULLES, SECRETARY OF STATE Gravely concerned over arrangements between Mrs. Roosevelt and former administration to make genocide part of anti-discrimination and human rights projects of United Nations. All Americans of Polish decent are shocked that this ill advised action has been put into effect by the latest resolution adopted by Human Rights Commission. To seven million Americans of Polish origin the confusion of genocide perpetrated in Auschwitz, Dachau and Katyn and prison camps in Siberia and Korea – with the unfortunate occasional discrimination in employment, housing and transportation against individuals in some free countries is against the best interests of United States and hinders our struggle against communism. Such a resolution confirmed by the United Nations Assembly will become a weapon for Soviets. Definition of genocide which includes any regrettable discriminatory practices sometimes pursued in free countries is a trap laid for the United States by Soviets and their dupes in American and United Nations circles. Operative that the United States delegation should disapprove of this part of the report which confused genocide with discrimination and take instead an affirmative position on genocide as a separate issue free of any diversionary pro-Soviet riders. On behalf of the Polish American Congress division and all Americans of Polish origin we state most urgently request exercise of your influence and request your taking such action as will be necessary to defeat the

194

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

confirmation of the Human Rights Commission resolution mentioned above and the adoption instead of a true and correct definition of the crime of genocide as contained in the Geneva Convention of 1948 in order that Soviets be not allowed to escape guilt for their crimes.1 JOHN NOWAK, PRESIDENT, WEST NEW YORK DIVISION POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS2

No. 297 Raphael Lemkin Argues that Conflating the Nuremberg Principles with the Genocide Convention Would Alienate West Germany, September 4, 1953 AJA, 60/1/5, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives September 4, 1953 Memorandum There is currently a serious move in the UN, originated by a Soviet proposal of November 20, 1947 to supersede the existing Genocide Convention by proclaiming the Nuremberg judgment and charter as international law. This move is supported, for various reasons, by some former American members of the Nuremberg team and by elements within the State Department. It is feared that this plan will obstruct NATO and the proposed European Army as the German military, who are naturally very critical of the Nuremberg trials, might use this move to obstruct cooperation with the western alliance. Chancellor Adenauer has already had difficulty with the German military in this respect. The Genocide Convention is entirely divorced from the principles of Nuremberg. While there has been strong criticism of the Nuremberg trials in Germany, there has been no such opposition to the Genocide Convention. Indeed, there has been evidence of a sympathy in Bonn for endorsing it. American foreign policy is predicated upon the establishment of a strong western alliance which must in great part be based on German support. This move, which may alienate German support, deserves the immediate attention of our highest authorities.

Stylistic and syntax errors in the text; the author of the telegram obviously meant the Genocide Convention of 1948, not the Geneva Convention. 2 John Nowak should not be confused with his more famous namesake Jan Nowak-Jeziorański (1914– 2005), a major figure in Polish émigré politics. 1



The Genocide Convention vs. Nuremberg Principles

195

No. 298 Harold Epstein Tries to Convince Raphael Lemkin There is no Danger of Conflating the Nuremberg Principles with the Genocide Convention in respect to West Germany, September 8, 1953 AJA, 60/1/5, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives September 8, 1953 The thought occurred to me that the danger to the Genocide Pact may be less than it appears. It is a cardinal rule of American diplomacy that what the Soviets favor, we oppose. This alone should ensure the safety of the Convention. Moreover the possibility of alienating Germany by proclaiming the Nuremberg principles as international law should, sooner or later, become apparent to the State Department. When they see the danger, the threat to the Convention will recede. These observations are made in a rare moment of optimism and out of my ignorance of the ways and wiles of those intent upon killing the Convention. Therefore they may not be very encouraging.

No. 299 The Soviet Union Argues against the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), November 24, 1954 AJA, 60/4/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives November 24, 1954 United Nations Department of Public Information Ninth General Assembly “Sixth Committee Continues Debate on Question of Establishing International Criminal Court” The present draft statute was essentially no different from the first draft, declared V. I. Sapozhnikov (Ukraine). Such a court would violate the UN Charter, especially the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states and the principles of their jurisdiction over crimes committed in their territory. This kind of court would be a “weapon” for interference and would also run counter to the principles on which the Nuremberg Charter was based. Mr. Sapozhnikov asserted that an international court must be set up on an ad hoc basis for each particular case to be tried. The present draft statute was entirely unacceptable in his opinion.

196

XI

The Korean War, 1950–53 (nos. 300–314)

The war in Korea in 1950–53 was one of the most dangerous confrontations between the Communist bloc and the West during the Cold War. It comes as no surprise perhaps that in addition to military battles, the warring sides waged a war of words. Genocide was one of those explosive words. The war began in late June 1950 with the invasion of South Korea by North Korean troops. One month later, on July 31, the Ambassador of South Korea to the United States, John Chang, warned of impeding genocide of the Christians in his country (doc. 300). The aggressor could not possibly exterminate the entire Korean people, argued Chang, and therefore was bent on destroying the forces of national cohesion—the line taken straight from Raphael Lemkin’s playbook. Chang’s message to the Western leaders was: make the Genocide Convention operational! US president Harry Truman capitalized on Chang’s dictum when he urged on August 26 Senate approval of the Genocide Convention (doc. 301). The British, who received a copy of Chang’s letter as well, proved less forthcoming than the Americans (doc. 302). Due to the publicity given to Truman’s appeal, however, the Foreign Office suggested the UK delegation to the United Nations threading more cautiously: “We feel it will have an unfortunate effect on world opinion if our justifiable reluctance to sign this somewhat meaningless, though well-meaning, convention is misunderstood” (doc. 304). The UK delegation obliged by sending Ambassador Chang a follow-up message in September 1950. The substance of the message, however, remained the same. While His Majesty’s Government was greatly concerned about the plight of the Christians in Korea, it found it impossible to accede to the Genocide Convention at that time, not least due to reservations to some of its provisions unilaterally introduced by the Soviet Union (doc. 305). Lemkin in January 1951 publicly expressed himself on the “real possibility of genocide occurring in Asia in the wake of communist aggression.” He claimed that genocide was a general Communist policy and that “its victim finally will be nobody else but the White Man” (doc. 306). For the UN Legal Department, the problem was how to proceed with regard to the South Korean request to place on the ECOSOC’s agenda the “matter of investigating genocide committed on the Korean people.” By having acceded to the Genocide Convention, in February 1950, the Republic of Korea became a contracting party. At the same time, South Korea was not a member of the United Nations and therefore did not have the right to place items on the council’s agenda. The UN Secretariat leaned toward granting the request (docs. 307–08). Totally unexpected, on May 14, 1951, the Republic of Korea withdrew its request (doc. 309).

198

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Meanwhile, US military authorities were still quoting Foreign Minister of South Korea who alleged a conspiracy between the North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet communists to decimate the population of the country by means of genocide (doc. 310). An indirect answer as to the sudden change of heart by South Korea arrived in the form of allegations of bacteriological warfare and genocide by the US forces in Korea advanced, mutatis mutandis, by Communist countries. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, a communist front organization, claimed to have come by evidence of the crime. As of March 1952, the leftist lawyers talked of war crimes and crimes against humanity, “with a view to genocide,” being committed by the Americans on the Korean Peninsula (doc. 311). Another Soviet-sponsored organization, Women’s International Democratic Federation, supported the claim that the United States was conducting a war of extermination against the Korean people (doc. 313). William Patterson of the Civil Rights Congress, who had a year earlier launched a campaign to indict the United States for genocide, drew a parallel between the suffering inflicted on the people of Korea and black Americans (doc. 312). The Soviet Union, which had effectively launched a campaign of disinformation concerning the use of bacteriological weapons in Korea, kept in the background.1 When an amendment to the Chinese text of the Genocide Convention came up for discussion in the United Nations in the summer of 1953, the USSR appeared to be primarily concerned with the international status of Communist China (doc. 314).

No. 300 Korean Ambassador John M. Chang Refers to the Danger of Genocide in Korea, Seeks an Early Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 31, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/50 July 31, 1950 Excellency [Gladwyn Jebb]: According to the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 3, 1949, the Republic of Korea was invited to adhere to the Genocide Convention. At the very time when the Government of Korea was about to ratify the Convention, my country was overrun by the North Korean invaders. Being prevented temporarily from joining with other nations of the world in this great humanitarian endeavour because of the disaster which befell my people and my country, I wish to make a modest contribution to this great cause by bringing to the attention of your

Kathryn Weathersby, “Deceiving the Deceivers: Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, and the Allegations of Bacteriological Weapons Use in Korea”; Milton Leitenberg, “New Russian Evidence on the Korean Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (Winter 1998): 176–99.

1



The Korean War, 1950–53

199

Government a new international need for the Genocide Convention which arises out of the sufferings of my people. There is imminent danger that the invaders will commit genocide in communistcontrolled Korea on the Christian population, which amounts to some 700,000 persons, of which 400,000 are Protestants and about 300,000 are Catholics. By implication, the Christians are considered by the communists as opposed to the rule of Moscow. Moreover, the Christians have provided many men who have played an important part in Korean national life. You will be interested to know that the President of my country, His Excellency Dr. Syngman Rhee, is of the Protestant faith and the signer of this letter a Roman Catholic. The invaders obviously cannot exterminate the entire Korean nation, but they certainly will try, and are already trying to destroy the Korean people in part by liquidating those who provide national, cultural and religious leadership and who lend to the nation forces of cohesion.1 Since these practices are covered exactly by article two of the Genocide Convention, the Convention becomes a very important instrument of international law for the protection of a part of the Korean people. Let me assure your Excellency that my Government appreciates the great contributions made by your Delegation in adopting the Convention.2 In particular, it shares the views expressed by your Delegation at many of the United Nations meetings, on the importance of the Genocide Convention which introduces for the first time the concept of nations, races, and religious groups as objects of protection by international criminal law.3 It also meets the challenge of contemporary deliberate attempts to build empires on the ruins of small nations and to construct a barbaric godless society by extirpating religious groups. Therefore, this being a necessary and urgent law, and my people being in grave danger, I take the liberty of appealing to your Government, through your good offices, for the early ratification of the Genocide Convention. Ratification before the opening of, or during the first month of, the next General Assembly of the United Nations would greatly accelerate its enactment as law. If your Government will generously agree to take my appeal under its usual generous consideration, my people will have the great moral and historic satisfaction of knowing that their sufferings in this crucial hour have not been in vain. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest considerations. John M. Chang Ambassador

The passage regarding “forces of cohesion” betrays the hand of Raphael Lemkin. Identical letter was sent the same day to Warren R. Austin, US Ambassador to the United Nations. 3 The generic nature of the letter does not account for United Kingdom’s longstanding opposition to the Genocide Convention. 1 2

200

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 301 US President Harry S. Truman Seeks Senate Approval of the Genocide Convention, Refers to the Letter of the Korean Ambassador John M. Chang to the US Permanent Representative in the United Nations, August 26, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/51 August 26, 1950 IMMEDIATE RELEASE The President today sent the following letter to the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate: “My dear Senator Connally: Ambassador Austin, the United States Representative to the United Nations, has transmitted to me a note from the Ambassador to the Republic of Korea with respect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. I enclose a copy of this note for your information.1 As you will see, the note points out that this convention is a very important instrument since it brings under the protection of international law both small nations and religious groups. The Ambassador of Korea calls attention to the imminent danger to the Christian population of Korea from the communist invaders. This tragic situation brings out the need for the free and civilized nations of the world to cooperate in outlawing this shocking crime of deliberate extermination of entire national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. Genocide has not occurred here in the United States, and I cannot believe that it would ever occur here. But in other parts of the world various national and religious groups still face this threat. These unfortunate people need whatever help can be given them by the more fortunate nations of the world. In ratifying the Genocide Convention, we will let the world know that the United States does not condone mass atrocities any more now than in the past, and we will indorse the principle that such conduct is criminal under international law. This action by the United States will at least be a deterrent to the rulers of certain countries who consider genocide a justifiable means to promote their political objectives. I also regard speedy ratification of the Genocide Convention as essential to the effective maintenance of our leadership of the free and civilized nations of the world in the present struggle against the forces of aggression and barbarism. In view of your own distinguished service in the establishment and subsequent operations of the United Nations, I know that you particularly appreciate the importance of our maintaining our prestige in that organization. I sincerely hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will report favorably on the Genocide Convention within the next few days, and that the Senate will also take favorable

See doc. no. 300. A copy of Chang’s letter was sent to numerous recipients.

1



The Korean War, 1950–53

201

action, and that the United States may become a party to the Genocide Convention before the next session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Very sincerely yours, (Sgd) HARRY S. TRUMAN”

No. 302 Non-Committal Reply of the UK Representative to the United Nations to the Korean Ambassador, August 31, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/50 No. 126/528/50P August 31, 1950 Excellency [John N. Chang], I wish to thank you for your letter of the 31st July regarding the ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I have transmitted the contents of your letter to my Government who, I am sure, will give full weight to the considerations to which you have drawn my attention. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration. [Gladwyn Jebb]

No. 303 David F. Duncan of the British Foreign Office Thinks the UK Delegation Should Give a More Sympathetic Reply to the Korean Ambassador, September 12, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/50 September 12, 1950 Genocide Convention. Encloses copy of letter dated July 31st from the Korean Ambassador in Washington urging early ratification by H.M.G. together with copy of reply sent on August 31st. MINUTES I think our delegation should be asked to give a more satisfying reply to sympathetic and forthcoming reply to the Korean ambassador. It will be unfortunate if may have an unfortunate effect on world opinion if our justifiable reluctance to sign the Convention

202

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

in its present form is misunderstood (Although several British societies have written to express their concern) Draft reply to New York attached. [Signed] D.F. Duncan

No. 304 The British Foreign Office Instructs the UK Delegation to the United Nations to Give the Korean Ambassador a More Extensive Reply Stating the Reasons for UK NonAccession to the Genocide Convention, September 13, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/50 September 13, 1950 CONFIDENTIAL Dear Delegation, Please refer to your letter of the 31st August enclosing copies of a letter from Mr Chang about the Genocide Convention and you reply, thereto. 2.  We now think it advisable, particularly in view of the publicity given to President Truman’s appeal to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to report favourable on the Convention, that you should send a rather more lengthy reply to the Korean ambassador stating the reasons of His Majesty’s Government for not ratifying the Convention at the present stage. We feel it will have an unfortunate effect on world opinion if our justifiable reluctance to sign this somewhat meaningless, though wellmeaning, Convention is misunderstood. 3.  Your reply, after expressing concern at the plight of the Christian population of Korea, should proceed along the following lines: The Convention has raised the very important legal point about reservations to multilateral conventions. The Governments of the Soviet Union, the Byelorussian S.S.R., the Ukrainian S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia have all made their signature conditional on certain reservations which stated that they would not be bound by some of the articles of the Convention. This alters in important aspects the Convention as drafted and, on principle, His Majesty’s Government cannot regard as valid any ratifications to the Convention maintaining such reservations. It is clear that a Convention cannot be ratified as long as there is doubt as to what its terms will be. His Majesty’s Government have in fact, communicated these views to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and have asked him to circulate them to other member governments. 4.  We think it best that you should not refer to our other reason for declining to sign, our fear that the Convention may interfere with our right of granting political asylum to genuine refugees. Our motives in this case are more easily liable to misconstruction. Yours ever, UNITED NATIONS (POLITICAL) DEPARTMENT



The Korean War, 1950–53

203

No. 305 UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations Takes Note of the Plight of the Christians in Korea, Refers to Soviet Reservations to the Genocide Convention as the Reason for UK Non-Accession, September 25, 1950 NA, F.O. 371/88600/UP252/51 No. 126/586/50P September 25, 1950 My dear Ambassador [John M. Chang], When I wrote to you on August 31st I said that I was referring to my government your letter to me of July 31st regarding the ratification of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. 2.  I have now been instructed by His Majesty’s Government to express the great concern which they feel for the plight of the Christian population of Korea. The possibility that Korean Christians may be suffering persecution for their religious beliefs is among the most terrible consequence of the aggression of which your country has been the victim. In spite of this concern I am afraid that His Majesty’s Government will not find it easy to accede to the Convention on Genocide at a very early date. The reason for this attitude is that, as Your Excellency will no doubt be aware, certain governments, in particular the Soviet Union, have made their ratification of this Convention subject to unilateral reservations for which the Convention itself makes no provision. By virtue of these reservations the governments in question claim that they are not bound by some of the articles of the Convention. In principle His Majesty’s Government cannot accept as valid reservations the effect of which is to change in important respects the Convention as approved by the General Assembly and they could not themselves accede to an agreement so long as the extent of the obligations of the other parties to it remains thus in doubt. His Majesty’s Government have recently communicated a statement of their views on this matter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations who is circulating it to the other member governments. Yours sincerely, Gladwyn Jebb

No. 306 Raphael Lemkin Warns of Genocide in Korea, Thanks Supporters of the Genocide Convention and Attacks Alleged Opponents, January 18, 1951 NYPL, ZL-273/2 January 18, 1951 [Memorandum]

204

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2 RAPHAEL LEMKIN WARNS OF THREAT OF GENOCIDE IN ASIA

Dr. Raphael Lemkin, father of the Genocide Convention, said “genocide is more dangerous than aggressive war” and warned that “we are facing the real possibility of genocide occurring in Asia in the wake of communist aggression,” today (Thursday, January 18), at a testimonial luncheon in his honor by the American Jewish Congress at the Hotel Pierre. Dr. Lemkin said we are now witnessing in Asia “much more than a war to annex South Korea. It is, in fact, one of the great climatic moments in history, with serious implications for the Western World.” Charging that the Korean war “waged by Soviet puppet troops, the Chinese aggressors against the United Nations and South Koreans, is not only a matter of territorial conquest,” Dr. Lemkin said it was related to the invasion of Tibet and other similar moves as a “mammoth planned totalitarian effort to eliminate all potential democratic influences from Asia. This idea will find expression in the genocide technique,” Dr. Lemkin added, “unless this United Nations Genocide Convention, which has just gone into effect as a law against the destruction of races and groups, exerts the inhibiting power it is capable of, if the great nations sincerely support it.” Contending that the “Chinese Communists are now continuing the World War II pattern set by the war lords of Japan,” Dr. Lemkin said that the “slogan ‘Asia for the Asiatics’ formulating this pattern, carried in itself the seed and implication of genocide.”1 Same Group of International Lawyers Are Sabotaging U.S. Ratification Dr. Lemkin deplored that a small group of organizations working for the United Nations human rights project, together with a small group of international lawyers, were confused as to the real nature of the Genocide Convention which outlaws the crime of the destruction of a national, racial or religious group. They have been identifying it with the human rights project, so that annihilation and discrimination – completely different methods – were served to the public on the same platter.2 He accused a small group of international lawyers of using subtly-disguised tactics to sabotage the ratification of the Convention. Genocide More Dangerous Than Aggressive War “Genocide, as a crime,” he emphasized, “is more pernicious and more dangerous to humanity, indeed more dangerous to civilization than aggressive war. War in its usual conditions leads to conquest. However, the fortunes of war are changing,” Dr. Lemkin said. “Enslaved nations and populations become free and sometimes they are able to

The original sentence in Lemkin’s speech reads as follows: “The present gigantic struggle in Asia carries in itself the seeds of genocide and its victim finally will be nobody else but the White Man.” The text of Lemkin’s speech is available in both NYPL (ZL-273/2) and AJA (60/4/4). 2 Lemkin went on to add in his speech, that: “This is a dangerous confusion because the human rights project deals with discrimination which might happen also in democratic countries, while genocide deals only with mass destruction, annihilation, extermination which happens only and mostly in totalitarian regimes. Politically, such a confusion is dynamite, and a doom for the Genocide Convention. Human rights are identical with civil rights and civil rights mean filibuster. Here, where we stand, this confusion must be cleared up as soon as possible, otherwise we will lose the Convention….” 1



The Korean War, 1950–53

205

survive the most dangerous war. But when genocide is applied to populations, either in time or peace or in time of war, it is the end of the road. There is no return to life of the victims of Auschwitz and Dachau.” Dr. Lemkin declared that the enactment of the Genocide Convention was a most encouraging example of the manner in which an informed and determined popular movement could achieve results of the highest importance for mankind despite the occasional lukewarmness of governments and officials. This should be a source of greatest inspiration to the peoples of the free countries. “Democracy,” he said, “can be made to work in great matters no less than in small.” AJCongress Urges Early Senate Ratification Rabbi Irving Miller, President of the American Jewish Congress, called upon the United States Senate to give immediate ratification to the Convention. “Our failure to ratify the Convention must inevitably render many of our friends uneasy about the sincerity of our espousal of international law as a guarantee of international peace and security.” Dr. Israel Goldstein, Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Branch of the World Jewish Congress, declared that the adoption of the Convention had set a new landmark in international law and morality. Isidore Teitelbaum, President of the American Jewish Congress Bronx Division, as Chairman of the luncheon, presented Dr. Lemkin, who is professor of international law at Yale University, with a citation for his “inspired and historic achievements in initiating and bringing to a successful conclusion the enactment of the Genocide into law.”

No. 307 The UN Legal Department Discusses How to Proceed with regard to a Formal Request by the Republic of Korea to Place on the ECOSOC’s Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed against the Korean People, May 10, 1951  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 B, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide May 9, 1951 [United Nations] [Legal Department] [Memorandum] Dr. I. Kerno C. Schachter Communication dated 3 May 1951 from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the President of ECOSOC

206

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

In the attached letter the representative of the Republic of Korea has requested on the basis of Article VIII of the Genocide Convention that there be placed on the agenda of the next session of ECOSOC the “matter of investigating genocide committed on the Korean people”. Article VIII of the Genocide Convention provides: “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organ of the U.N. to take such action under the Charter of the U.N. as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III.” The Republic of Korea having acceded to the Convention on 14 February 1950 is a Contracting Party within the meaning of Article VIII. ECOSOC, having responsibility under the Charter in the field of human rights and having participated in the establishment of the Genocide Convention is certainly a “competent organ” of the United Nations within the meaning of Article VIII. Accordingly, it is clear that the Republic of Korea as a Contracting Party has the right under the Genocide Convention to call upon the Council to take such action under the Charter as the Council may consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III of the Convention. However, the Republic of Korea, since it is not a member of the United Nations does not have the right to place items on the provisional agenda of the Council (See Art. 10 of the Council Rules of Procedure). It must also be noted that the President of the Council who has been called upon the representative of Korea to inscribe the item on the provisional agenda does not have the right to do so in his capacity as President. On the other hand, the Secretary-General does have the right to place items on the provisional agenda subject to the pertinent provisions of the Council’s Rules of Procedure. In view of these provisions the following alternatives are presented: 1.  It is clear that while a Contracting Party has the right to “call upon” the Council, it does not under the Rules have the right (as a Contracting Party) to place items on the provisional agenda. It might, therefore, be considered that the Secretary-General would be acting in conformity with the Convention on Genocide if he merely circulated the Korean communication to the members of the Council, leaving it to each member to decide whether or not to place the item on the agenda. 2.  On the other hand, it should be noted that Article VIII of the Convention gives a Contracting Party the right to call upon the Council as such, and not merely to communicate to the members with a view to having one of them place the item on the agenda. Moreover, both the General Assembly and the ECOSOC have approved the Genocide Convention and thereby have implicitly agreed to Article VIII. It might therefore be concluded that in order to effectuate the right of the Contracting Party, which is not a U.N. member, the Secretary-General (acting solely on the basis of Article VIII and not on the basis of the merits of the complaint) should place the item on the provisional agenda for consideration first by the Agenda Committee and then by the Council. Of these two alternatives the second appears to be more in keeping with the language and intent of Article VIII of the Genocide Convention. The difficulty with the first alternative is that it would require a Contracting Party which is not a member,



The Korean War, 1950–53

207

to obtain the sponsorship of a member before the item can be placed on the provisional agenda. In effect, this would mean imposing a political condition for the exercise of a right clearly granted by the Convention. In contrast, the second alternative would not involve a political requirement; it would rather be giving effect to Article VIII through an administrative act of the Secretary-General. Under the existing rules of procedure of the Council this would seem to be the only way the item could be placed on the provisional agenda without requiring the intervention of a member State. If you are in agreement with this conclusion, I shall suggest that the Secretariat of the ECOSOC pass these views along to the President of the Council to whom the letter is addressed. It would undoubtedly be most helpful if you could arrange to discuss this matter with Mr. Santa Cruz in Geneva next week. Perhaps that could be mentioned in the letter of transmittal to him.

No. 308 ECOSOC Notified of a Formal Request by the Republic of Korea to Place on Its Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed Against the Korean People, May 10, 1951 UNA, SOA 318/2/01 B, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide May 10, 1951 Mr. H. Santa Cruz President Economic and Social Council Palais des Nations GENEVA Dear Sir, I am transmitting herewith a communication from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea which requests that you inscribe on the agenda of the next session of the Economic and Social Council the matter of investigating genocide committee on the Korean people. This request is made on the basis of Article VIII in conjunction with Articles I, II, III and IV of the Convention on Genocide. Since under the Council rules the Republic of Korea as a non-member does not have the right to place items of the provisional agenda, we have referred this communication to the Legal Department for advice. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Schachter to Dr. Kerno setting forth certain legal considerations regarding this question. Dr. Kerno will be in Geneva on May 14 and will be pleased to discuss this matter with you with a view to reaching a decision regarding the placing of the item on the agenda of the Council. We should appreciate it if you would let us know as soon as possible what steps should be taken in regard to this. If it is agreed that the Secretary-General should place

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

208

the matter on the provisional agenda for consideration by the Agenda Committee, then we shall go ahead and prepare the necessary documentation. Sincerely yours, (signed) Charles Hogan

No. 309 The Republic of Korea Withdraws Its Request to Place on the ECOSOC’s Agenda Genocide Allegedly Committed against the Korean People, May 14, 1951  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 B, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide May 14, 1951 United Nations Referral Sheet Subject: Communication dated 3 May 1951 from the Permanent Rep. of the Republic of Korea to the President of ECOSOC Col. Limb, Permanent Representative of Korea to the United Nations, telephoned Mr. Schachter today to say that his Government has decided to withdraw the communication of May 3rd requesting that there be placed on the agenda of the next session of ECOSOC the matter of investigating genocide committed on the Korean people. In response to my suggestion that a written communication be addressed to the S.G. requesting the withdrawal of the item, Col. Limb said that such a letter would be sent in the next few days. I informed Mr. Cordier and Mr. Hogan of this telephone communication.

No. 310 US Military Authorities in Germany Allege Communist Genocide in Korea and East Germany, May 29, 1951 AJA, 60/1/11, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives May 29, 1951 To the Editor of the New York Times, In his letter to the New York Times of May 18, Colonel Ben Limb, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and its delegate to the United Nations,



The Korean War, 1950–53

209

draws attention to the fact that the North Korean communists are committing genocide against the native Christian population of Korea. In this, they are acting in conspiracy with the Soviet Union and with communist China. Reported instances of the premeditated murder of native Christian leaders have been numerous, as also of the deliberate destruction of Christian churches and other organizations.1 The ultimate aim, as charged by Colonel Limb, is to gain permanent control of the Korean peninsula by decimating its population by means of genocide. Colonel Limb states further that genocide in Korea is only a part of a global picture of Soviet genocide in other regions. In this connection, may I point out specifically similar Soviet acts of genocide as they are regularly practiced in the part of Germany under their control. We have it on the authority of President Truman, on information given him by the Bishop of East Berlin, that in Eastern Germany the secret police “kidnap the children between the ages of ten and sixteen and carry them off to Moscow. And those children never come home.”2 This is genocide in its most outrageous form, as defined in Article II, clause of the Genocide Convention. In fact, however, the instances cited by the President is only a part of the unhappy total genocidal acts that have been committed by the communists in Eastern Germany. Hundreds of thousands of German POWs have never been accounted for, and are either dead or still held in Russia and Siberia, in definite defiance of other clauses of the same Article of the Convention.3 Theodore Knauth late of the Office of U.S. Military Government in Germany

No. 311 International Association of Democratic Lawyers Investigates the Allegations of Bacteriological Warfare by the American Forces in Korea, Claims Genocide (excerpt), March 24, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/99605/FK1095/39 New China News Agency Daily Bulletin No. 500 March 24, 1952

These claims cannot be corroborated. This claim by Otto Dibelius (1881–1967), Bishop of Berlin-Brandenburg, cannot be corroborated. Lemkin had repeatedly used this unsubstantiated claim in his argumentation. 3 According to official statistics, between 1941 and 1945 the USSR took 2,388,000 German prisoners of war. The process of repatriation had stalled following the original release of 225,000 POWs in June 1945; the remaining 20,000 prisoners were set free after the death of Stalin in 1953. Consistently relying on slave labor, the Soviet dictator regarded POWs a legitimate bounty. At times the NKVD could not even tell the prisoners’ whereabouts. See Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps (London: Allen Lane, 2003), 390–93. 1 2

210

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

BRITISH LAWYER WARNS: HORROR AND SAVAGERY OF KOREA WILL SPREAD UNLESS CIVILIZED PEOPLES RISE UP AND STAY HANDS OF CRIMINALS Peking, March 23 (NCNA) – Lawyers of eight countries who have just come from Korea, as members of a commission of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers to investigate crimes committed there by the American interventionists, spoke at a reception given in Peking in their honour yesterday. They were welcomed by Shen Chun-ju in his capacity as vice-President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and on behalf of the Political Science and Law Society of China.1 Shen Chun-ju emphasised the menace to mankind of the latest activities of the American imperialists and expressed his confidence that the report of the investigation by the lawyers would help rouse people to end the monstrous crimes. The Chairman of the investigating commission, Herr Brandweiner (Austria), declared: “We especially investigated the allegation that American forces have instituted bacteriological warfare in Korea. We have obtained evidence which in our opinion is corroborated that flies and other insects of a character hitherto unknown in Korea have been found in recent weeks in many districts in circumstances as to temperature, grouping, type of soil and other factors, and following visits of circling aircrafts in those districts and the finding of remains of containers, that indicate that these insects were deposited in groups or clusters from the air……We are horrified beyond measure at the acts we have ascertained but, in our opinion, they are indisputable. At the same time, speaking as a professor of international law, I must say that this is, in my view, a clear case of a war crime and a crime against humanity. Bacteriological warfare is expressly forbidden by international law – the Hague regulations forbid the use of poisoned weapons and the Geneva Protocol of 1925 expressly prohibited bacteriological weapons. As a member of the World Peace Council, I must also say that the peace movement, representing the common will of peace-loving mankind, went on record for the prohibition of bacteriological weapons. Such a crime is recognised also by the Nuremberg and Far East International Military Tribunals and confirmed by the Genocide Convention of 1948. We hope that our findings will be a contribution to the struggle of the heroic Korean people and the great Chinese people in their fight for peace, freedom and justice.” The Italian lawyer, Signor Cavalieri, stated: “Among the most serious crimes committed in Korea by the military commanders responsible for the conduct of the actual war …… is the crime committed by the barbaric invaders in Korea by the use of asphyxiating and toxic gas, expressly forbidden by international law. These facts, established and objectively documented not only by competent Korean authorities but also by numerous eye-witnesses, show that the forces of the United Nations, incapable of relying on manpower and ordinary arms have not hesitated, probably also with a view to genocide, to prepare and employ the most severely forbidden weapons.” The Brazilian lawyer, Senhor de Britto, made this statement: “The most important conclusion of our legal work in Korea on the war is that American imperialist aggression against the people of Korea means the menace of general aggression against

For the correct spelling of all names mentioned in the document see List of Persons.

1



The Korean War, 1950–53

211

all…..They have committed aggression that is total war with the use of all methods – the most barbaric – and the most bestial crimes – against humanitarian conventions, against international rights. It is a war of monstrous brigandage……These are the methods of atomic diplomacy camouflaged under the flag of the United Nations. At this moment, so serious for the life and future of humanity, we democratic lawyers must unite our strength with that of the democratic forces of the world to struggle to bring about peace.” Mr. J. Gaster, a British Lawyer, asserted: “I have seen in Korea enough of horror and brutality and savagery for a lifetime. But to see is not enough. For unless the civilised peoples of the whole world rise up and stay the hands of the criminals, the horror and savagery will spread. Korea is not an incident. It is part of a world-wide plan of dangerous madmen.” M. Janvier, French member of the commission, said: “We have questioned a number of witnesses of atrocities committed by American troops from the time of occupation to the moment of their retreat. They have given us a horrifying recital of murders of which many women, children and aged were the victims; they have given us descriptions of tortures inspired by a sadistic imagination. We have learned how in different places a portion of the population was systematically massacred on the orders of responsible officers of the American Army. All these things constitute unquestionable violations of the laws and custom of war which no civilised country can violate without dishonour. These are not only crimes covered by Article 6 of the Statue of the Nuremberg Tribunal, but abominations which revolt the world’s conscience. When these facts are sufficiently known and proven in the West they will provoke a storm of indignation.” Madame Moerens, a Belgian lawyer, said: “Like other members of the commission of democratic lawyers, I have seen in Korea cities and villages destroyed and razed. I have seen schools, museums, hospitals, churches, ancient monuments systematically destroyed.” Describing the heroic efforts of the Korean people to defend their homeland and keep the cultural activities of the people at a high level, Madame Moerens expressed her full confidence in the fact that the Korean people will defeat the soldiers of imperialism and achieve victory in the struggle for peace. Madam Wasilkovska, speaking in the name of Polish lawyers and Polish women, declared: “The world has known for a long time the crimes committed by the Americans in Korea. But the latest ones have brought a new and odious crime – the employment of bacteriological weapons in Korea and on the territory of People’s China……Progressive scientists of all countries work to save humanity from the disaster of contagious diseases. They have had great success in their work. At the same time, American ‘science’ is working to set back humanity by spreading germs of contagious diseases. The American aggressors do not hesitate before the greatest crime, before which even the Hitlerite criminals hesitated. Polish lawyers will join their voice to the wave of protests against this frightful crime in which they see the violation of all principles of international law. They consider this crime a crime against humanity. During our stay in Korea, we were horrified by American crimes, especially by the mass extermination of women and children. I have spoken with a number of women before whose eyes the American murderers brutally killed their children. I have spoken

212

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

with women whose hair turned grey in just a few hours following indignities to which they were subjected. But all these mothers spoke to us not only of their sufferings, but also of their indomitable struggle.” Finally, Chai Kyn Hiung, deputy Procurator-General of the Korean ProcuratorGeneral’s office, spoke. He pointed out that having failed to achieve its aim of conquering Korea by ruthless destruction and slaughter, American imperialists resorted to poison gas and germs in violation of international law and humanity. But even so, it still cannot conquer the Korean people. Being closely united around General Kim Il Sung, the Korean people are determined to win final victory. The Commission will go to Northeast China to investigate the crime which the American aggressors committed by using bacteriological weapons against the Chinese people.

No. 312 William Patterson Draws a Parallel between Purported Genocide against the Korean and African American Populations, May 5, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 May 5, 1952 Reverend John Darr World Council of Peace Palais Sia Prague, Czechoslovakia Dear Reverend Darr: Civil Rights Congress of the United States wishes to express its receipt of two appeals against bacteriological warfare and its deep appreciation of the efforts made by the General Secretary of the World Council of Peace and the World Council itself, to place before the peoples of the world the true picture of the genocidal attack launched against the Korean people in the name of the United Nations. It is profoundly true that millions of Americans have not yet understood the depth of depravity to which the war-hungry rulers of the United States have sunk, but for black Americans, the victims of 330 years of slavery and of genocidal attacks upon their political rights and human dignity, this horrendous story but reflects the age-old relations of this government to them as nationals of the United States of America. We shall stand together with you firstly to inform public opinion on the nature of the attack upon the freedom-loving peoples of Korea, and secondly, in an effort to safeguard all the peoples of the world against bacteriological warfare. We are satisfied that genocide practiced for more than 80 years against the Negro nationals of the United States has become an export commodity with which the



The Korean War, 1950–53

213

government of this country is seeking to destroy free and independent governments of the Asian world and the great People’s Democracies which have sprung up elsewhere.1 Thanking you again for receipt of this material, and commending you highly for your defense of the interests of humanity, I remain Fraternally yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 313 Women’s International Democratic Federation Presses the Charge of “Germ Warfare” in Korea, Speaks of the War of Extermination by the Americans, September 15, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 September 15, 1952 Women’s International Democratic Federation, Berlin Dear Friends: We are sending herewith a copy of a letter sent by the WIDF to Mrs. Roosevelt, in response to her letter to us in which she challenges our position on the use of germ warfare in Korea by the U.S. Government.2 We feel that since the use of germ warfare is so grave a charge, the facts so abundantly clear, the responsibility that rests on the American people so great, and the guilt of the American Government so serious, that we take this opportunity to restate our position. Mrs. Roosevelt’s letter has received wide publicity in the press and has been sent by her to all national and world organisations. We present this document to you with the firm conviction that if the truth were known to the American women, they would act to put a stop to this cruel war. We give our reasons for this confidence. We further feel that Mrs. Roosevelt in her support of the war policies of the U.S. Government, and her record as U.S. representative in the United Nations does not entitle her to speak for the American women on this question. The WIDF is sincerely interested in the true voice of the American women. We know the anguish of American mothers who are losing their sons in this useless war. We ask you to write us your opinion. And above all we ask you to utilise the information contained in our letter to make known the facts and to do everything possible to put a Cf. doc. nos. 316, 327, 345. Document not in the file. Cf. “The Appeal of M. Frederic Joliot-Curie, President of the World Council of Peace, Against the Use of Bacteriological Weapons,” which was adopted by the council’s bureau at its meeting in Oslo, Norway (March 29–April 1, 1952).

1 2

214

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

stop to the war of extermination being conducted against the Korean people, while at the same time saving your own sons from destruction. Should you desire further information we will be happy to furnish it to you. Most sincerely yours, Marie-Claude VAILLANT-COUTURIER General Secretary

No. 314 Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky Denies Legitimacy of a Kuomintang Representative at the United Nations to Propose an Amendment to the Chinese Text of the Genocide Convention, June 30, 1953  UNA, SOA 318/2/01 A, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Revision of the Original Chinese Text June 30, 1953 Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld Secretary-General of the United Nations New York, USA No. 195 Mr. Secretary-General! In reference to the letter by Mr. C. A. Stavropoulos from 11 May 1953 concerning an amendment to the Chinese text of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, I have the honor to report that the Government of the USSR does not recognize the right of a Kuomintang representative to speak at the UN in the name of China. [The Soviet Government] maintains that a request to amend the Chinese text of the Genocide Convention can only be made by the legitimate government of China – Central People’s Government of the Chinese People’s Republic.1 Deputy Foreign Minister of the USSR A. Vyshinsky

The governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia in December 1953 made nearly identical statements.

1

XII

We Charge Genocide: The Campaign to Indict the United States for Racial Discrimination, 1951–52 (nos. 315–352)

One of the factors that precluded the United States from indicting the Soviet Union for genocide before the United Nations was potential countercharges (docs. 245, 254, 258, 270). Such charges were indeed filed, though not by the Communist bloc but by an American nongovernmental organization, the Civil Rights Congress (CRC). Although CRC was a communist-affiliated organization and its leader, William Patterson, a party member, the successful public relations campaign that it ran in 1951–52 did not originate in the USSR. The centerpiece of the campaign was a 240-page-long book, We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government against the Negro People. As Patterson explained to the editor of Afro-American in August 1951, he took cues from a recent book documenting Nazi crimes against the Jews. Patterson believed the book was “going to be a sensation” and argued that—by virtue of the US membership in the United Nations—the Genocide Convention had become the law of the land (doc. 315). Patterson tried to get the International Association of Democratic Lawyers onboard. In a letter to the association’s president, Dennis Pritt, Patterson prioritized a struggle on behalf of the convicted American communists, followed by the fight for African Americans’ rights (doc. 316). President Pritt, however, did not display particular enthusiasm for Patterson’s project, enquiring instead if the CRC could be coopted in the association’s council as a loose affiliate (doc. 318). In October 1951 Patterson again emphasized that We Charge Genocide might help the cause of the eleven Communist leaders who were about to go on trial in New York in pursuance of the 1940 Smith Act (doc. 319). One copy of the book went to William Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party USA. In a follow-up letter to Foster, Patterson praised the volume for its “decisive importance ideologically and enormous organizational value.” By showing the complicity of every branch of the US government in mistreatment of black Americans, the CRC had produced a “remarkably effective weapon,” he wrote in November 1951 (doc. 320). Another time he designated We Charge Genocide as “propaganda,” explaining what exactly he meant by that (doc. 331). Foster applauded the book’s critique of capitalism and the exposition of the “bitter persecution . . . of the Negro people,” yet offered no practical advice or assistance (doc. 324). Worth noting is that, when advertising We Charge Genocide to yet another prominent American communist, Patterson talked

216

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

about “your party” (doc. 326). In a cover letter to the Communist Information Bureau in Bucharest, Patterson emphasized the role of monopoly in genocide (doc. 322). To state his case, Patterson sent a copy of the book also to the US Supreme Court (docs. 325, 330). When promoting We Charge Genocide, Patterson often pinpointed similarities between the “genocidal attack upon the Negro people” and “Hitler’s maniacal attack upon the Jewish people” (docs. 321, 323). With the same vigor, Patterson attacked the notion of “Soviet genocide.” He found it abominable that émigrés of East European descent were pushing for a UN investigation of the crimes committed in their native lands instead of fighting the “evil where you are .  .  . within the pale of Genocide— USA” (doc. 327). Even more spirited attack on “monopoly capital” and “fascist émigrés” came from Paul Robeson—a celebrated singer and civil rights activist who had achieved iconic status in the Soviet Union. In a magazine article called “Genocide Stalks the USA,” Robeson argued that US ratification of the Genocide Convention had been blocked by white supremacists. “We, Negro and white petitions,” wrote Robeson, “declare that jimcrow and segregation are a genocidal policy of government against the Negro people” (doc. 345). Even before the CRC had submitted the We Charge Genocide petition to the United Nations, on December 17, 1951, the campaign was lacking institutional support. Communists and fellow travelers endorsed the Patterson’s project only in general terms. Even worse, he had failed to secure support of major African American organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which would have given it a much needed legitimacy. In particular, Patterson courted W. E. B. Du Bois—a civil rights activist, NAACP’s cofounder, and a professed friend of the Soviet Union. Du Bois, who was 83 at the time, first agreed to present the petition on the CRC’s behalf to the UN General Assembly in Paris, but then backed out (docs. 328, 333–35, 350). Another recognized civil rights leader, NAACP’s Executive Secretary Walter White, chose to cooperate with the State Department in minimizing the impact of the petition (doc. 332). As of December 1951, the State Department was confident it could beat back the CRC petition campaign (doc. 336). Patterson had assembled massive operation on behalf of We Charge Genocide in the United States. He urged the newspapers traditionally read by African Americans to publish materials favorable to the book (doc. 340). Or perhaps it could be used as a school textbook (doc. 346) or a required text for a university course (doc. 348). Further suggestion was organizing a symposium or a cultural event (doc. 341). Even though Patterson had eventually failed to put the charge of genocide on the UN agenda, he has created “enough scare and consternation in the camp of the oppressors generally,” as one of his supporters put it in January 1952 (doc. 343). Indeed, numerous communist and/or leftist publications around the world—even in such faraway places as Martinique—reported on the CRC’s campaign (doc. 347). The State Department dutifully collected and put such evidence on file. The problem for Patterson was that many an individual who did support, or would have otherwise supported, his campaign, explicitly rejected Communism (docs. 342, 351). A communist connection was also the major line of attack against the CRC



We Charge Genocide

217

and its petition in the United States. The Chicago Daily Tribune identified the CRC as a communist front organization and quoted Raphael Lemkin, who had blasted the petition as a “communist dodge to distract attention from the Soviet Union’s genocide.” As the newspaper wrote: “The charges brought against the United States are shameful lie, but what does anyone expect of Communists? We are certain that the great body of American Negro citizens will have nothing to do with this attempt to discredit their own country” (doc. 337). Lester Davis of the CRC wrote an emotional rebuttal, which veered off the topic of genocide (doc. 339). Eleanor Roosevelt, who then served as chair of the Human Rights Commission and US delegate to the UN General Assembly, offered a more nuanced analysis than that in the newspaper editorial. She noted that the Soviet delegates in the United Nations never mentioned the “We Charge Genocide” petition, which made her conclude that it was a “Communist-inspired document” circulated for the purpose of causing “confusion and bad feeling” (doc. 338). US State Secretary in January 1952 prepared a detailed study of We Charge Genocide and ways to counter its thesis (doc. 344). As counterarguments, John Foster Dulles suggested that the book did not represent the viewpoint of “American Negroes,” that genocide never occurred and could not possibly occur in the United States, and that the economic and social conditions of the “Negro” were constantly improving. He warned US diplomatic and consular offices to brace for an eventual propaganda attack by the Soviet bloc. Engaging in polemics with Roosevelt and the State Department, Patterson ascertained genocidal intent through the fact that the US government had not apprehended a single perpetrator of lynching (doc. 347). The campaign to indict the United States for genocide had eventually faded out. When Patterson in April 1954 revived his idea to print We Charge Genocide as a textbook, the American Textbook Publishers Institute rejected the offer on the premise that the CRC had still been on the US Attorney General’s “Subversive Organizations” list (doc. 352).

No. 315 William Patterson Urges the Editor of Afro-American to Promote We Charge Genocide, August 10, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 August 10, 1951 Mr. Carl Murphy, Editor Afro-American Dear Mr. Murphy: After mailing my letter, which you so kindly printed, I made many efforts to personally contact you.1 The Civil Rights Congress has produced a book on the

William L. Patterson, “The Third World Crisis,” Afro-American, July 28, 1951.

1

218

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

atrocities of American reaction against the Negro people. It follows the line of the Black Book on Nazi Atrocities Against the Jewish People which was so effective in exposing the hell of Nazism.1 I am enclosing my own introduction to the book and the remarks of Mr. Aubrey Grossman who has been seeking to secure petitioners in order that you might get a clear picture of this project. We have charged the government with genocide in violation of the Convention on Genocide as formulated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which document is incorporated into international law. By virtue of our commitments to the General Assembly, it becomes part of the basic law of the United States.2 I want to raise with you the question of your running this material serially. Insofar as the Negro press is concerned, I would give you priority and perhaps exclusive rights. It is my deeply considered opinion and that of others who have read the galley sheets that this book, which leaves the press this month, is going to be a sensation. It is undoubtedly the best documented indictment of the horrors of jimcrow in America that has yet been written. It covers only the period of the life of the U.N. and yet cites approximately 1000 cases, all of which are documented. I should of course like to meet with you personally to give you the advantage of going over the galleys and get your reaction. To be frank I feel that I would be greatly benefitted by any suggestions you might have as to such dispositions of this book as would help change in a fundamental way the conditions in America the book reveals. Could you let me know if it is possible to meet with you sometime next week? I would like it as early as possible as I am under a subpoena in the Grand Jury and may find my efforts to travel somewhat curtailed.3 Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

The Black Book: The Nazi Crime against the Jewish People appeared in 1946 in New York. The book originated with the Soviet Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which started collected documentary evidence of Nazi mass murder as early as May 1942. The Moscow-based organization was one of the four constituents of the Jewish Black Book Committee; the book opened with a quotation from Itzik Fefer, vice chairman of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and (as it later came out) an NKVD informer. A Soviet edition of the book, scheduled for publication in June 1947, never came to be, whereas Fefer—along with other prominent members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee—was in August 1952 tried for treason and executed. In its outline, We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government against the Negro People borrowed heavily from the Black Book, which was subdivided into Indictment, Conspiracy, The Law, Strategy of Decimation, Annihilation, Resistance, and Justice. 2 See doc. nos. 203, 260, 294. 3 Patterson was indicted on charges of contempt of US Congress insofar as Civil Rights Congress was allegedly engaged in improper lobbying. 1



We Charge Genocide

219

No. 316 William Patterson Urges Inclusion of We Charge Genocide on the Agenda of the Forthcoming Congress of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, August 28, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 August 28, 1951 D. N. Pritt, President International Association of Democratic Lawyers 70 Avenue Legrand Brussels, Belgium Dear Friend Pritt: Your call to the International Juridical Association’s Congress arrived several days ago and I sincerely wish that it were possible for me to attend.1 Pressure of work here, however, and lack of funds, make that utterly impossible. I thought that I should drop a note however in view of the decisive character of the struggle here in America, to express the hope that the American scene will be in the forefront of the picture there. I am well aware that this is not your responsibility and that my remarks should in the main be addressed to the American delegates. This of course will be done, but it is my feeling that our European brothers must be alerted. Too few of the American lawyers, even those who will be in attendance at the Congress, are taking an active and healthy part in the fight; too many of them are standing aloof, unable to grasp clearly the significance of the drive toward fascism; too few of them fully appreciate the vital importance of the fight for Negro rights and few of them – except these who have been immediately involved in cases like the Foley Square case – have stood up against the Smith and McCarran Laws.2 As such, few of the lawyers here have rallied to the defense of the men who gave leadership in the legal field to the fight for the rights of the Communists. I have a feeling, therefore, that unless these men are sharply questioned, all the ramifications of the American struggle will not be brought out. Few of these men have seen clearly that all that Justice Jackson said in his opening remarks at the Nuremberg trial against the German Nazi murderers’ attack upon their own nationals, particularly the Jewish people, applies todays with equal weight to the American scene. We have just sent to the printer a volume which now bears the title “Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People.” It is my feeling that its distribution at the Congress can help orientate European jurists on the American scene. I shall try to have a copy in your hands before you leave for the Congress.

See the program of the Fifth Congress of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in the same file. 2 A reference to the trial of the eleven communist leaders that took place at the Foley Square federal courthouse in New York City in 1948–49. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

220

I am particularly anxious that the jurists of Western Europe have this picture. I think it will be of inestimable value in clarifying the role of American reaction in Korea and other colonial lands. I know that if the Congress gives attention to this matter its reaction will be reflected in the Negro press to the advantage of the whole movement. I put first on the American scene, however, the fight against the Smith Act – a struggle which has many facts – and then the fight for Negro rights. Hoping that this will be fully expressed at the conference, I am Very sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 317 Civil Rights Congress (CRC) Believes That the Publication of We Charge Genocide Will Create a “Real Sensation,” August 28, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 August 28, 1951 Miss Julia W. Cockroft 2508 Charles Seattle 44, Washington Dear Miss Cockroft: Mr. Patterson received your note and was delighted that your excitement about “Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People,” measures up to his own. CRC is convinced that the publication of this document will create a real sensation and plans for its promotion prior to its submission to the United Nations coincide with your wish that it be distributed as widely as possible. The book is expected off the press in a week and we shall be glad to add your name to the long list of those who are awaiting its availability. We regret very much that you are bedridden, but perhaps you might be able to while away a few hours by writing to friends and acquaintances and interesting them in the book. Further details about the price, etc. will be made known very shortly. With many thanks for your contribution, and our best wishes, I am Sincerely, Sec. to Wm. L. Patterson



We Charge Genocide

221

No. 318 President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers Dennis Pritt Broaches with William Patterson the Possibility of Establishing a US Chapter, Mentions in passim We Charge Genocide [September 5–8, 1951] NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 [September 5–8, 1951] INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS 4 Essex Court Temple, London, E.C. 4, England Dear Patterson, Your interesting letter of the 28th August, addressed to me at Brussels Headquarters, reached me in Berlin as we were beginning our Fifth Congress.1 It was, I think, a useful Congress – as a Congress – and we now have to work hard to make its resolutions a reality. It will not lengthen this letter with a long account of it, as we are publishing in the near future a full printed account of it, and I will see that a copy is sent to you. You will see the colonial peoples and their problems were prominent, and all speakers from colonial countries were very warmly received.2 You will know that two friends from your country attended as observers and one of them addressed the Congress. I and one or two other people had a friendly talk with both of them, and they explained a good many of their present difficulties. You will know, also that our American affiliates have withdrawn from the I.A.D.L. owing to present conditions. We were naturally very sorry that you could not attend, although we fully understand your many difficulties and engagements. We agree with what you write about too few of the lawyers in your country even grasping what is happening in the United States and in the world, so that too many just stand apart from the fight. This is happening here in Britain and in other countries too; and we have to fight it. Most people attending the Congress were, naturally, fully conscious of the real course of the developments towards Fascism in certain countries. I want very much to see the book you mention – “Genocide”; I understand from the General Secretary that there has been delay, and I shall much appreciate if you can let me have a copy soon.

See doc. no. 316. The IADL’s Fifth Congress took place in East Berlin between September 5 and 8, 1951. “Discrimination on grounds of activity for peace and on grounds of race and colour” was part of Point II on the Congress’s Agenda broadly defined as the “Struggle for the defense of the rights of man and of the citizens and against the rebirth of fascism.”

1 2

222

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Among the tasks which we are particularly setting ourselves is the fight against such things as the Smith Act, and more particularly the defence of counsel involved in imprisonment for contempt of court, or other persecution, as a result of defending political cases, The Association is urging all national groups to raise “Aid Funds” in their own countries for the defence of lawyers so involved. We propose to try in the near future to establish such a fund here in Britain, and we shall have to hang our appeal to some extent on what has been taking place in America, as there is as yet nothing very spectacular here. Could you without too much trouble help me in this by giving me up-to-date details of the lawyers of the “Eleven”, showing how many of them are going to prison, and in what shape they and their practices and their wives and children are placed as a result?1 The Association is at present in process of planning to move its headquarters and it is hoped that the work will then extend and become more effective in the countries of the West, and we hope that you will then let us know if there is anything which can be done by the I.A.D.L. to help in civil rights problems in the United States. Now that the Association has no actual affiliated group in your country, we are very anxious to fill up the gap in some way. Is there any organisation of lawyers which could and would affiliate to us? I imagine that there will not be. Then, is there anybody of lawyers or other organisation, or any individual lawyers, who would be prepared – without formal affiliation – to act as “U.S.A correspondents” for us? I suppose the CRC could not do this; but could you personally act in any such capacity? And could you consider accepting an offer from us to co-opt you on to the Council of the I.A.D.L.? (The Council is a body of 30 to 40, which meets perhaps once a year or less. It is scheduled to hold its next meeting somewhere in Western Europe in Easter week of 1952.) With all good wishes, Yours sincerely, /s/ D. N. Pritt, President

No. 319 William Patterson Believes That Documentation Presented in We Charge Genocide May Help the Cause of the Convicted Communist Leaders, October 5, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 October 5, 1951 Earl B. Dickerson, Esq. 3501 South Parkway Chicago, Illinois The trial of the eleven communist took place at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York between November 1, 1948 and October 14, 1949.

1



We Charge Genocide

223

Dear Earl: I have just finished reading that magnificent brief you wrote in support of the petition for a rehearing in the case of the 11 Communist leaders.1 I immediately asked for a thousand copies and am sending them around the country together with covering letters insisting upon reading by the receivers and then further distribution by them. It is my feeling that every Negro Lawyer in America should have an opportunity to read your brief. It is an excellent document. Our book, “We Charge Genocide – Or the Crime of the American Government against the Negro People”, a petition to the United Nations against its condonation of the violation by the United States of the UN Convention on Genocide, comes off the press this month. I will see that you immediately get copies. I think that in terms of documentation it will help you in the writing of any further material of this kind. Personally I want to thank you for your clear and succinct presentation of the fundamental interest which Negroes have in this rehearing, supported as it is by prior acts of the Supreme Court. I am satisfied that it will move into action many who cannot be reached by what they generally regard as propaganda. Yours for democracy, justice and peace. Sincerely, William L. Patterson National Executive Sec’y

No. 320 William Patterson Praises the Ideological and Organizational Value of We Charge Genocide in a Letter to William Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, November 16, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 16, 1951 Mr. William Z. Foster, Chairman Communist Party of the U.S.A. 1040 Nelson Avenue Bronx 52, New York Dear Brother Foster: By this time you have undoubtedly received copy of the Civil Rights Congress’ “We Charge Genocide – The Crime of Government Against the Negro People.” I am hoping that you have had an opportunity to read it and that you will find it possible shortly to give those of us who are responsible for its production the benefit of your conclusions. One of the petitions for writ of certiorari filed by Earl B. Dickerson (1891–1986), prominent African American attorney, supported the lawyers defending Eugene Dennis—one of the eleven convicted communists.

1

224

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

We are of the opinion that despite the weaknesses both of form and content – for example the absence of an index, failure to deal more exhaustively with the psychological effects of the manifold forms of jim-crow, segregation and its accompanying terror upon the Negro people – this volume has decisive importance ideologically and enormous organizational value. We could not, in this volume, show the effects of this program on the white rulers of this country upon the moral, stamina and will to struggle of the exploited white categories of the population. This is of very great political, and, as well, organizational, importance but could obviously not have been treated in this petition. We could not analyse here the splitting effects of this terrorist program of the ruling clique. I place these points in the category of weaknesses, although when considered in the light of the time and purposes that motivated us, the omissions do not constitute weaknesses. They do impose upon those who must and undoubtedly will comment upon the book the responsibility to broaden the vision we present and to use approaches that bring greater clarity and thereby enhance the value of the document. They impose upon us the task of doing a follow-up book which answers other vital questions within this orbit. We are preparing for this. We believe that we have produced a remarkably effective weapon, one of the sharpest ever produced on this continent. We have proved a bipartisan conspiracy. We have shown the complicity of every branch of city, state and federal government. We reveal the direction of the conspiracy, domestically, and its impact upon the foreign policy. Basic theoretical concerns of the nature of the struggles of the Negro people find tremendous support here. It contributed to a program of action as well as to ideological clarity. That action program can and must be deepened, broadened and made more intense in the light of “Genocide.” This is our belief. For the implementation understanding and struggle, the sale of less than 100,000 copies would, we believe, be a crime. We, of CRC, will fight to see that such a sale is realized within the ranks of every social [illegible] in this country. The book itself flow out of a thesis I believed not only to be consistent with all scientific reasoning on the status of the Negro, but is an elaboration of what had been written. I regard the persecution of the Negro people as a policy of government. The partisan character of the government causes no fundamental changes. In fact, the policy of persecution, exploitation and terror is and has been bipartisan since 1876–77 with the Hayes-Tilden compromise.1 That policy of government in the interests of monopoly is and could only be enforced through terror. Gangsterism is a part of the picture and terrorist organizations is wholly necessary institution. The policy finds its reflection on the ideological front by the caricature of Negro life and people through every media of propaganda. The policy becomes an effective means of splitting the most important social [illegible].

The contested 1876 US presidential election was resolved through a compromise, which saw the White House going to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. In return, federal troops were withdrawn from the South. Consequently, Democrats came to dominate the southern states in part by disfranchising black voters.

1



We Charge Genocide

225

The effect upon the oppressed and exploited of the oppressing nation is disastrous to moral stamina and destructive of their will to struggle even when their own interests are threatened. This was proved in Germany where the acceptance of antiSemitism by the vast majority of non-Jewish Germans gravely affected the whole political scene. The book will stimulate as well as enrich the thinking of many, if studied. This study should be proposed, I feel. Resolutions are needed. Certainly I feel that a review or comment by you will be helpful. Sincerely, William L. Patterson National Executive Sec’y

No. 321 William Patterson Urges a Trade Union Leader Arthur Osman to Promote We Charge Genocide, November 19, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 19, 1951 Mr. Arthur Osman, President DPOWA 13 Astor Place New York City Dear Brother Osman: I am writing to you about our publication, “We Charge Genocide – The Crime of Government Against the Negro People.” The attack upon it has, as you perhaps know, already begun. I understand that Drew Pearson lashed out at it on the air Sunday night and Walter White is preparing his broadside against it – proof again of the tremendous weapon that it is: proof also that the progressive forces must deal with this book as no other book has been dealt with in our country.1 That means that its sales must extend into more than a hundred thousand. I dare to propose that your Union take at least 1,000 copies for distribution among its leading and advanced cadres, this to be the basis for an infinitely wider sale and distribution among the masses of the organization. The book is retailing for $1.50 for the paper-covered volume and $2.50 for the cloth-bound. We will furnish you with a thousand paper-covered books for $1000. I believe that your Union paper should deal lavishly with the book, not stopping at a review but going back to it from many sides and with many voices extolling its merits and particularly showing that the genocidal attack upon the Negro people must

Cf. doc. no. 281.

1

226

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

inevitably bring upon white America the horror and destruction that Hitler’s maniacal attack upon the Jewish people brought upon non-Jewish Germans and the world. I would like to see posters made by your organization, perhaps taken from the cover of the book, with some note that this is must reading.1 In my remark in the introduction of the book I said that it differed from the “Jewish Black Book of Nazi Atrocities” in that that came after the murderous war had been launched by Hitler but this comes before war and, if used effectively, can become a monumental barrier to the war these brutish forces contemplate and the fascism they would bring upon us. Please let me hear from you. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 322 William Patterson Sends We Charge Genocide and Other Relevant Materials to Cominform in Bucharest, Romania, November 20, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 November 20, 1951 Cominform Journal Bucharest, Hungary2 Dear Friends: We are sending you a copy of our book, “We Charge GENOCIDE – The Crime of Government Against the Negro People” at the earliest possible date and hope it reaches you without delay. We shall also send you a copy of a speech made at the launching of the book for sale in America and, perhaps at a later date, an article dealing more particularly with the role of monopoly in pursuing the policy of Genocide. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

The front cover of We Charge Genocide featured an accusatory finger (belonging to Paul Robeson). Founded in September 1947 in Poland, Soviet-controlled Cominform was a successor to Comintern. Cominform had its own publication, For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy! which appeared in fourteen languages and was distributed in fifty-seven countries. The journal was initially based in Belgrade, Yugoslavia and in 1948 moved to Bucharest, Romania.

1 2



We Charge Genocide

227

No. 323 William Patterson Proposes a Round-Table Discussion on the Issue of Genocide, November 20, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 November 20, 1951 Mr. Ben Gold, President International Fur & Leather Workers Union 251 Fourth Avenue New York City Memo on Genocide Dear Brother Gold: First, however, congratulations on the tremendous people’s victory in the Du Bois case.1 I am satisfied that labor will be greatly heartened by this and more than ever ready to link its fortunes with those of the great Negro people of America in the struggle to safeguard the democratic heritage and constitutional liberties of all of us. The Genocide affair should, in my opinion, be a round-table discussion with perhaps six participating and in addition, a moderator. They could be gathered around a table with a mike from which the moderator speaks and a hand mike on the table could be used by those to whom questions are addressed. The questions would of course deal with such issues as: 1) The role of Government in the persecution of the Negro people. 2) The significance of this to the fight for the rights of labor. 3) The similarity between this struggle and the fight that the Jewish people of Germany made against the advancing tide of nazism and fascism and the lessons we should learn. 4) The role if each department of government in the conspiracy to deprive the Negro people of their constitutional liberties. 5) The Federal government’s retreat before the state government’s demand to have a free hand in the persecution of the Negro people under the slogans of “State’s Rights.” 6) The degree to which labor has been entrapped by the myth of white superiority. 7) The basis of the theory of white superiority. The questions can be directed to any of the speakers from the audience, which would require of course a mike on the floor of the auditorium as well as elsewhere. It could take on many of the aspects of the Town Hall Forum. It might not be amiss to have someone who is not too sympathetic to the book, participate. W. E. B. Du Bois was a cofounder of Peace Information Center, an organization that came into existence in 1950 in support of a Soviet peace initiative. Consequently, the US Justice Department required the center to register as an “agent of a foreign principal” and, when Du Bois and his associates refused, indicted them. On November 20, 1951, Judge Matthew F. McGuire acquitted the defendants arguing that the government failed to support the evidence adduced.

1

228

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

I believe that a leading trade-unionist should be the moderator and that a leading trade-unionist should also be in the panel. Some of the conclusions that should flow are delegations to be sent to the United Nations to demand that this question be placed on the agenda. This can be done whether or not the delegation we will send is defeated in its purpose. Delegations should be proposed to be sent to the President with copies of the Petition. You know that the book is not the petition. The Petition is printed only on one side of a page. It will be ready by the time the affair takes place. I would like to suggest that such an affair should have a large display of literature on the Negro question: Aptheker’s books, Fast’s “Freedom Road,” Du Bois’ books and other material of similar character.1 I am highly gratified by the deep interest being displayed by labor in this struggle for labor-Negro-people’s unity. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 324 Chairman of the Communist Party USA William Foster Praises We Charge Genocide in a Letter to Patterson, November 23, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 November 23, 1951

Communist Party, U.S.A.

William Patterson CIVIL RIGHTS CONGRESS 23 West 26th St. New York, N.Y. Dear Brother Patterson: Some time ago I received a copy of the CRC’s book – We Charge Genocide – The Crime of Government against the Negro People. I have read it but owing to the fact that I am extremely busy in writing a book myself, I am not in a position to prepare anything that might measure up to review of the book.2 Herbert Aptheker and Doxey A. Wilkerson, The Negro People in America: A Critique of Gunnar Myrdal’s “An American Dilemma” (New York: International Publishers, 1946); Aptheker, AfroAmerican History, 1910–1932 (New York: Citadel, 1951); Aptheker (ed.), A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States (New York: Citadel, 1951); Howard Fast, Freedom Road (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1944). 2 Foster was known as a prolific writer; the book in question is likely History of the Communist Party of the United States, released by International Publishers in 1952. 1



We Charge Genocide

229

I will say, however, that I think it is a splendid piece of work, the best documented and the most incisive of its kind. You certainly strip the mask from the face of Wall Street democracy and expose the bitter persecution that is directed against the Negro people. Such a book is refreshing when contrasted with the disgraceful apology of Jim Crowism that was put up by Dr. Channing Tobias recently before the United Nations in Paris. It now appears that the fighters for the rights of the Negro people not only have to combat the white supremacists but also misleaders among themselves as Dr. Channing Tobias who are conciliating white chauvinism and are selling out their people. In the great and growing fight of the Negro people and their white allies for justice to the Negro people, I am sure your book will play a very important part. It is simply unanswerable in its tremendous array of outrages perpetrated against the Negro people. With all good wishes, I remain Sincerely yours, Wm. Z. Foster

No. 325 William Patterson Sends US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas a Copy of We Charge Genocide, November 26, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 26, 1951 Justice Wm. O. Douglas Supreme Court Dear Justice Douglas: Enclosed you will find an exhaustively documented analysis of the position of the Negro nationals in America. In view of the fact that we believe that every one of Mr. Justice Jackson’s remarks made at the opening of the Nuremberg Trial can be applied to the rulers of America, we have sent this document to you for your perusal.1 Very truly yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary The back cover of We Charge Genocide featured a lengthy quotation from Robert Jackson’s opening address at the Nuremberg war crimes trial on November 21, 1945. Specifically, the book quoted Jackson saying that: “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated…We will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. The catalogue of crimes will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological pride, cruelty, and lust for power…We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves moral as well as legal wrong….”

1

230

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 326 William Patterson Urges Communist Party USA to Use We Charge Genocide as a Manual, November 26, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 26, 1951 Mr. Pettis Perry Communist Party 29 West 125th Street New York City Dear Pete: I have just spoken with the men who are doing the great history of your party.1 He did receive the letter, a copy of which was sent to you. His remarks were that “Genocide” is one of the great books of this period in America and must receive the most exhaustive examination and study. I want to propose that the organization in which you have the honor to be one of the outstanding leaders, should study this book from top to bottom, using it as a manual. I believe that a directive of this character should be sent out. I might close by saying that the comments that are coming here now amply testify to its effectiveness. Incidentally, the American Section of the UN sent a currier down for five copies, which we sold. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 327 William Patterson Criticizes an Article in the New York Times That Supports the East European Émigrés’ Claim That the Soviet Union Had Committed Genocide, November 26, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 26, 1951 Editor, New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York City

Patterson probably meant William Z. Foster, chairman of the CPUSA since 1945.

1



We Charge Genocide

231

Dear Sir: Your issue of Sunday, November 25th, carries an extremely interesting news item headlined, “Genocide Inquiry on Soviet is Urged.” The subhead reads, “Polish, Czech, Other Groups Here Cable Acheson to Seek Action by United Nations.” It is deeply significant that these who fled to these shores from Europe should warn us of the evils they allegedly left behind. Thus forewarned, we may well be forearmed. But how is it that they fail abysmally to see here the very conditions that they fled? Why do they not warn us of the grave dangers we confront if we do not cry aloud to end genocide in the U.S.A.?1 Surely we who have lived longer within the pale of Genocide – USA should see the beam in our own eye. Our responsibility to end the monstrous crime of genocide begins at home where its practice against 16,000,000 of Negroes casts the shadow of fascism across the land and raises the terrible menace of a Third World War. These new-comers to the United States, whose rights and privileges should certainly not be less than those of Negro citizens whose African forefathers came as early as 1619, cabled a request to Dean Acheson: “…to place on the United Nations General Assembly Agenda an investigation of Genocide charged to the Soviet and its agents.” They contend, you inform us that “As American citizens we rely on the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the sacred duty to fight tyranny and barbarity.” For a just cause that Declaration constitutes a magnificent foundation. Why not invoke it here at home? It may be a very practical thing for those who have adopted the U.S.A. to deplore the ills from which they fled. But I believe in principle, as well as practicality. The principled thing is to fight the evil where you are. These people are here now in the United States. They should fight the evil of genocide here. That is the reality of the situation. What is very significant is that the Poles and Czechs who are against an alleged genocide abroad, are in league with these committing genocide in the U.S.A. What an astonishing coincidence that one group of citizens of this country should present a charge of Genocide against a country thousands of miles away at the very moment when the victims of Genocide in the U.S.A. have presented to the world their extremely carefully documented charge of Genocide – the crime of the government of the United States against the Negro people? How strange it seems that the New York Times so quickly takes cognizance of the crimes of genocide when it is allegedly committed thousands of miles away but completely ignores it when its commission here, in this country, menaces both our constitutional guarantees and the peace of the world. Obviously, the Times does not fear the charge of subversion if it offers proof to the people of this country and the world of the crimes of this government. Or does it? Does

The New York Time chose not to publish Patterson’s letter to the editors. The thrust of Patterson’s argument was similar to that expressed a few months later by Paul Robeson in an article titled “Genocide Stalks the U.S.A.” See doc. no. 345.

1

232

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

the Times fear that the Smith Act or the McCarran Law will be used against it? Does it fear Judge Medina?1 When we, of the Civil Rights Congress, prepared this remarkable petition to the United Nations we sought and found our data in the inhuman black ghettoes that cover our land and in the jungle-like turpentine plantations of the South and its peonage-ridden cotton lands. We found irrefutable evidence of Genocide in the U.S.A. in the report the President’s Committee to Investigate Jimcrow and Segregation in the Country’s Capital presented to him.2 There, too, we found the names of the guilty parties: the monopolies and the real estate boards. Thus we were able to reveal frame-ups of innocent Negro youth so prevalent and monstrous that they can only be regarded as an attempt to stamp a brand of criminality upon that youth. We cited the procedure of the lily-white juries and their legal-lynch verdicts, the intimidation of lawyers and witnesses for Negro defendants and those who fight for the constitutional rights of Negro defendants are recorded; so too are police brutality and murder, ku klux klan and mob violence, much as at Peekskill, New York and Cicero, Illinois. We cite racial laws and practice a la the Stork Club of New York City, denial of the vote, premature death from malnutrition and preventable diseases, colonial-like relations in the Black Belt, segregation in and the denial of education, jimcrow in the departments of government.3 Above all else, we showed the demoralizing effects of these evils upon the moral stamina of white Americans and particularly the liberals, so-called, of this land who can crusade against everything save lynching and incitement to lynching and anti-Semitism. We cited the savage pogroms of Columbia, Tennessee; Monroe, Georgia; Groveland, Florida; Peekskill, New York; and the cases of the Martinsville Seven, Willie McGee, Edward Honeycutt, Milton Lewis Wilson, Rosa Lee Ingram and her two courageous sons, the Trenton Six, Robert Mallard, Macio Snipes, Isaac Woodard, John Derrick, Robert Kelly and his mother, Clyde Brown, the Groveland Two – one of them fully murdered and one shot by a lynch-crazed sheriff since the documentation, Wesley Robert Wells, Jerry Newson, Theodore Jordan, Fletcher Mills, Bayard Jenkins, George Claybon, the case of that great champion of peace, Dr. William E. B. Du Bois, my own case, the arrest and imprisonment of Benjamin J. Davis, the projected frame ups of Pettis Perry and Claudia Jones, the attempt to murder Paul Robeson at Peekskill, the District Court Judge Harold Medina (1888–1990) presided over a nine-month trial of eleven communist leaders, who were charged under the Smith Act with conspiracy to overthrow the US Government by force. Medina was praised for his professional handling of the case, becoming an unlikely icon for the anticommunist forces. 2 Jim Crow, variously spelled, is a colloquial term describing a series of state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the American South, from the late 1870s onward. Truman established the President’s Committee on Human Rights in 1946 for the purpose of ascertaining the status of civil rights in the United States. Published in December 1947, “To Secure These Rights” proposed, among other things, to ensure federal anti-lynching protection. 3 The Stork Club was an elite nightclub in New York City. Josephine Baker, a famed African American entertainer who visited the club on October 19, 1951, accused it of racist treatment. Although Baker’s lawsuit was eventually dismissed, the case generated much publicity. The so-called Black Belt thesis traces its origin to Comintern. Beginning in 1928 Comintern urged the Communist Party USA to advocate for the creation of a Negro republic in the southern American states. 1



We Charge Genocide

233

future of which immediately brought the State Department on the run to cancel the passport rights of that heroic man.1 But you took no notice of our terrifying petition. No mention of it found a way as news into your columns. This is, to say the least, astounding, considering your reputation. Can it be that Genocide, as proven here, is as nothing compared to Genocide alleged abroad? Is this glaring avoidance of the evils of our home necessary in order that we may justify our sacred mission to carry democracy in jelly bombs to Korea while its absence in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi is excused because the theory of State’s Rights hold in these backward areas of the U.S.A.? The petitioners to “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People” are the relatives of the black victims and, in several instances, victims themselves. Does that make them of lesser importance than the white Poles and Czechs who came here yesterday? Rosalie McGee and Josephine Grayson are among them. Their husbands were legally lynched. Amy Mallard is there. Her husband was lynched by a robed mob of klansmen. The Trenton Six are there. And you are there, if you regard yourselves as progressive Americans. No progressive can exempt him or herself from complicity in this crime of Genocide against the Negro people save and except to the extent that they voice a protest against its continuance. What terrible blight has struck the New York Times that it can see so clearly the mote in our neighbor’s eye, while it ignores the beam in our own. Our fight against Genocide begins at home. Sincerely, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 328 W. E. B. Du Bois Tells William Patterson He is Willing in Principle to Present the CRC’s Petition before the UN General Assembly in Paris, November 27, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 27, 1951 Memo. To Mr. Patterson: If I can obtain a passport, I am willing to go to Paris to present the genocide complaint of the Civil Rights Congress to the Assembly of the United Nations. I shall be glad to talk with you.2 W. E. B. Du Bois For details see We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People, A Petition to the United Nations (New York: Civil Rights Congress, 1951). 2 Shortly thereafter, Du Bois changed his mind. As he wrote to John Adams Kingsbury, chairman of the Council of Soviet-American Friendship, on November 30, 1951: “I made such a promise, but on strong advice from my lawyer, physician, and dentist, have had to withdraw, so that I shall not make the trip.” The text of Du Bois’s letter available at: http://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/mums312-b133-i129. 1

234

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 329 William Patterson Tries to Convince W. E. B. Du Bois to Come in support of We Charge Genocide, November 28, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 28, 1951 Memorandum To: Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois From : Mr. William L. Patterson Some of the difficulties we discussed, you will recall. However, I can see no reason why the lawyers oppose the action, which can only strengthen your position and the position of the Negro People throughout the world. We must, of course, listen very seriously to any objections raised by your physicians and the dentist. I am wondering if my suggestion about putting the dentist off until after could not be followed. I am very seriously concerned about the State Department’s spokesmen, Tobias, Bunche, Sampson, Yergan, et al.1 I know of no living figure who could answer them more thoroughly and expose their machinations than yourself. I am hoping that you will find a way out of this plethora of difficulties.

No. 330 The Office of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas Acknowledges Receiving a Copy of We Charge Genocide, November 28, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 28, 1951 Supreme Court of the United States Chambers of Justice William O. Douglas Mr. William L. Patterson Civil Rights Congress

The State Department attempted to counter the accusations of racial discrimination by enlisting several prominent African Americans, who put a positive spin on race relations in the United States. Patterson had verbal exchanges with both Channing Tobias and Edith Sampson when officially handing over We Charge Genocide petition to the Office of the UN Secretary General in Paris on December 17, 1948.

1



We Charge Genocide

235

Dear Mr. Patterson: Your letter of November 26th and the copy of We Charge Genocide have been received.1 On behalf of Justice Douglas, I thank you for sending the book to him. Yours very truly, Edith Allen Secretary

No. 331 William Patterson Admits We Charge Genocide is a Work of Propaganda in a Letter to John Raeburn Green, November 28, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 November 28, 1951 John Raeburn Green, Esq. Boatmen’s Bank Building St. Louis 2, Mo. Dear Mr. Green: I am deeply moved by your reaction to “We Charge Genocide!”2 I hope you will read it all – for I know it will be done with great care and the most serious consideration. I sent a copy to you because I regard you as one of the real democratic Americans whose sense of justice is extremely acute and whose understanding of the injustices performed in our country is extremely far-reaching. The book was, as you say, prepared “skillfully and eloquently” and it will be most effective propaganda. I would not seek to deny that. In fact I regard all literature, regardless of its subject matter, as propaganda. But this document is propaganda for what? It was written as propaganda seeking to arouse the American public, as did Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” or Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” to conditions the existence of which is no longer tolerable. It is propaganda for justice, for democracy, for peace. I believe that such propaganda must be fearlessly presented to the American people with all the stark horror of the present scene in order that we move to such action as will save ourselves. As I said to you before, I was in Hitler’s Germany twice and its terrors will never be forgotten. I was through the Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw and I, for one, will do everything humanly possible to prevent such scenes recurring in this country, for they can have but one and – a deluge of blood within our own country, culminating in war abroad.

See doc. no. 325. Document not in the file.

1 2

236

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

The things cited in “genocide” have been done. These terrible things have been done by men, by white men, in America, to Americans. What has been done cannot be undone but its continuities can be prevented and the whole program brought to an immediate and abrupt stop. Every channel of propaganda, whether it is church or school, theater or movie or television, must be brought to the task of affecting this fundamental change. It cannot be left to gradualism, as advocated by many. Gradualism contains within itself provocation which the Negro people cannot longer endure. Whom would you charge with the responsibility for these crimes? You censure me for charging President Truman and Wall Street. What forces are responsible? What forces control the political and economic and social relations of human beings in our country? Are the controlling forces the men exposed in the Kefauver report, or the lynchers of the South?1 If this is true, then we have no government, except that of murderers and criminals. If it is not true, then those who have not stopped these men and control the reins of government must be charged. Where am I wrong in this? I respect your opinion. I write as one American to another, an American whose people have suffered for 330 years, to a man whose fellow-citizens of white skin have been the perpetrators of the crimes I cite. If this helps Communism, what then is Communism? Is Communism the destroyer of these evils? If that is it, why should it not be helped? If it is something worse than what we have, how can it come out of my protest against the evils of today? I do not understand why you say that I have helped Communism. I have not here said that Communism is the remedy for injustice or for anything else. I have not raised the issue of Communism. I would be blind, however, if I did not see that men who suffered from parallel evils have moved in the direction of a socialized society. I am not unmindful of the truth contained in Justice Douglas’ remarks in his article, “Losing Asia,” that we are losing Asia because we have supported absentee landlordism and are maintaining a system which produces ignorance, disease and poverty. I am not prepared to play with the evils with which we are confronted. I be overestimating my own importance but I do head an organization and I shall do my utmost to use it as a weapon for justice, democracy and peace. If I am wrong in that, please help me to see the light. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) chaired the US Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce. Established in May 1950, the committee released its report in March 1951.

1



We Charge Genocide

237

No. 332 The US State Department Approaches Walter White of NAACP to Help Counter the CRC’s “We Charge Genocide” Petition, November 29, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/11-2951) November 29, 1951 RESTRICTED Office Memorandum, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT To: From:

PA – Mr. Russell PL – John M. Patterson

On November 28 a telephone conversation was held by Walter White, Executive Secretary of the NAACP and PL Harry Seamans regarding the “We Charge Genocide” statement issued by the Civil Rights Congress and which they have indicated would be presented to the U.N. Walter White has written an article as Executive Secretary of the NAACP for his column which appears in such papers as the Detroit Free Press, Philadelphia Bulletin and the Miami Herald, giving his views on the Civil Rights Congress statement. The Department may find it can make use of this article in a number of ways. The Administrative Committee of the NAACP Board of Directors agrees with this article but has not officially endorsed it. Dr. Rayford Logan, the NAACP observer at the U.N. General Assembly in Paris, has requested that the NAACP prepare a statement which gives its views regarding the “We Charge Genocide” statement. Walter White is willing to prepare the statement and send copies to Dr. Logan, Channing Tobias, Chester Williams USUN, who is also in Paris, and to Harry Seamans PL. Mr. White has asked if we would informally advise him if we feel this is helpful and if we have any suggestions as to points which should be stressed. Mr. Cates in UNE has agreed to supply this material. Walter White reports that Dr. Logan and Channing Tobias have indicated they are willing to be interviewed by press, movies, and T.V. if this appears timely or desirable. Dr. Logan reports from Paris to Walter White that he has been told that Paul Robeson has asked for a passport so he can present the “We Charge Genocide” petition to the U.N. but that it will probably be denied. The NAACP is willing to take the initiative in getting outstanding Negroes like Judge Hastie, Mrs. Bethune, and Dr. Ferebee, to go to Paris if their presence can be of assistance to the U.S. Delegation. It is recommended that Harry Seamans continue to be the point of contact for the Department with Walter White and other leaders of the NAACP

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

238

No. 333 Civil Rights Congress Announces That W. E. B. Du Bois Will Present “We Charge Genocide” Petition at the UN General Assembly in Paris, November 29, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 29, 1951 Press release DR. DU BOIS WILL FLY TO PARIS TO LEAD GENOCIDE PETITION DELEGATES TO U.N. New York, N.Y. – Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, 83-year old Negro scholar, announced here yesterday that he will fly to the United Nations General Assembly in Paris next week to lead a Negro and white delegation of Americans who will present “We Charge Genocide”, a petition accusing government in the United States of a policy of genocide in its relations with American Negroes. Dr. Du Bois, former chairman of the American Peace Information Center, was acquitted by a federal judge in Washington last week, along with four former associates in the Center, of a charge of failure to register as a foreign agent. As Director of Research and Publications for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the noted Negro scholar prepared “An Appeal to the World” in 1947. The appeal sought United Nations intervention to end race discrimination in the United States. No action was ever taken by any UN body on the NAACP plea.1 The new petition has been under preparation for the past year by a group of Negro and white writers, research workers, lawyers and sociologists, under the supervision of William L. Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress and nationally prominent Negro attorney. It appeared in the United States in book form on Saturday, November 18. The petition seeks relief from a “crime of government” under Article II of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was adopted by the General Assembly on December 9, 1948, following its ratification by the necessary twenty member nations. The convention, which supersedes both Federal and state law in the United States, defines genocide as any killings on the basis of race in whole or in part. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group on the basis of race also constitutes genocide according to the UN convention. The petition is divided into five parts: The Opening Statement, The Law and the Indictment, The Evidence, The Summary and Prayer, and the Appendix. It contains

NAACP’s “An Appeal to the World,” was yet another document that Patterson studied closely in preparation of a petition of his own.

1



We Charge Genocide

239

fifty pages of hundreds of cases in which innocent Negroes have been killed or assaulted since 1945 because of their race. It also includes a survey of all racist laws on the books of various states. It describes the role of Big Business, the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the Executive Branch of the National Government in the oppression of the Negro people. It describes race discrimination in the armed forces, in federal employment, in the Panama Canal Zone, in Washington, D.C. – all areas in which the Federal Government is directly responsible for discrimination. The petition also recites government statistics revealing that because of denial of work and equal pay, denial of decent housing, education, hospital and medical facilities, conditions are created which result in the deaths each year of some 30,000 Negroes who would not have died if they had been white. The indictment shows that in addition to the thousands of innocent Negroes who have been actually killed, every Negro in the United States is robbed of eight years of life, on an average, because of the conditions under which he is forced to live.

No. 334 William Patterson Tries to Convince W. E. B. Du Bois to Change His Mind and Come in support of We Charge Genocide, November 29, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 29, 1951 Dear Dr. Du Bois: I cannot describe the great feeling of regret that was mine upon reading your note of the 30th.1 I believe that the presentation by you of this document to the United Nations and the demand that you make upon your Government to end these centuries-old crimes would be an event of great historical importance. It is my feeling that the colonial peoples would herald it with tremendous acclaim and that every progressive man and woman in Europe and the Asian countries would stand solidly beside you. I believe that the Chinese battling for their lives would look upon this as though your words were supporting divisions sent to aid in their fight for freedom.2 I would not write to contravene the doctor’s orders; I would not have you think for a moment that I do not value your life very highly, but I think that lawyers who intervene to stay this unprecedented act should be challenged with great sharpness. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson

Cf. doc. nos. 328, 335. A reference to the Korean War.

1 2

240

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 335 W. E. B. Du Bois Changes His Mind on Heading a Delegation to Paris, November 30, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 November 30, 1951 Dear Mr. Patterson: I have decided not to go to Paris. I am sorry thus to disrupt and delay your plans. I do not usually change my mind at such short notice. The advice of close friends is clear. My lawyer says no; my physician and dentist say it is inadmissible; and Shirley despite her inclination, agrees that I must follow this advice.1 I still believe that your allegations should be brought to the attention of the Assembly of the United Nations and openly discussed. Very sincerely, W. E. B. Du Bois

No. 336 Walter White of the NAACP Instructs US Diplomats How to Counter the CRC Campaign, December 19, 1951 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1341 (340. 1-AJ/12-1951) December 19, 1951 RESTRICTED Office Memorandum, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT To: From:

Thru PA – Mr. Russell PI – Mr. Crosby PL – Mr. Seamans

I am attaching a copy of Walter White’s, Executive Secretary of NAACP, statement which he gave on Saturday afternoon, December 15, over the telephone to be used by the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations in Paris regarding the charge of the Civil Rights Congress that the U.S. Government is guilty of genocide. When Walter White called, I arranged for a secretary, Miss Weimer, in UNE to take the message and then called UNE/Mr. Cates at home so he could arrange to get the statement to Paris. This he did on Saturday afternoon.

Shirley Graham Du Bois (1896–1977), second wife of W. E. B. Du Bois, whom she married in 1951.

1



We Charge Genocide

241

William L. Patterson, National Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, presented to the United Nations Secretariat the petition, “We Charge Genocide,” of the Civil Rights Congress, Monday, Dec. 17. A member of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N., Dr. Channing H. Tobias, has been active in the NAACP for a number of years as a member of its Board of Directors. Dr. Rayford Logan, a professor at Howard University, is serving as an observer for the NAACP at the Paris meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. With the information sent by UNE on the history, leadership, objectives, and activities of the NAACP to USUN at Paris, the Walter White statement and the P/POL statement to the USIS officers abroad about how to treat the “We Charge Genocide” incident if it had to be answered, we have reason to believe that the Department has been on top of this one.

No. 337 Editorial in Chicago Daily Tribune Denounces the Genocide Convention and the CRC’s Petition as Beneficial to Communist Propaganda, December 22, 1951 Chicago Daily Tribune, editorial, December 22, 1951 “The Genocide Trap” A 240 page petition, accusing the United States of “genocide” against 15 million American Negroes, has been lodged with the United Nations by William L. Patterson, executive secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, a communist front organization, so designated by the attorney general.1 Of course, the inventor of the crime of genocide – a Yale professor named Raphael Lemkin – is squawking that the petition was not drafted in good faith, but is a communist dodge to distract attention from the Soviet Union’s genocide offenses against Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, and other people subjected by Moscow. The professor coined the word to describe a new international crime supposed to deal with the mass extinction of racial, religious, ethnic, or national groups, and the U.N. lost no time codifying the varieties of this fancy term for murder into an international covenant. The covenant became effective more than a year ago when it was signed by the required 20 nations. The United States senate, despite repeated urging, has never taken up the covenant, nor has Russia, which has no intention of doing so. Prof. Lemkin naturally feels that the instrument is being turned to purposes of which he never dreamed. The reaction to that is: How could but a professor or some other variety of infatuated world saver be so naïve as to think that the covenant would

Cf. doc. no. 167.

1

242

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

not be applied for propaganda and trouble making purposes precisely as it has? The TRIBUNE has pointed out repeatedly that the genocide convention can be a source of endless domestic friction. For example, on July 3, 1949, we observed: “An instrument of this sort would not only be handy to hostile foreign nations such as Russia, intent upon harassing and embarrassing the United States and developing unfavorable propaganda against this nation, but it is made to order for native Communists and members of minority groups. The Communists would use it to stir up constant dissension, and the minority groups would invoke it as a handy means of blackmailing preferential treatment out of their fellow citizens.” We were not alone in perceiving the dangers of the genocide scheme. The American Bar Association has proved its patriotism and good sense by steadfastly opposing the convention, as well as the so-called declaration of human rights of the U.N. Frank Holman of Seattle, past president of the association, called the convention a “Pandora’s box.” Alfred J. Schweppe of Seattle, chairman of the association’s committee on peace and law thru the United Nations, has distinguished himself in the fight to check the senate from falling into the ruinous error of fastening the convention upon America. Many other patriotic Americans have joined in combating the flood of propaganda released by the administration and others to shove the convention down Americans’ throats. This pressure has been formidable. Mr. Truman, Mrs. Roosevelt, such newspapers as the New York Times and Washington Post, the solicitor general of the United States, Philip Perlman; church groups, assorted do-gooders, and some deluded senators have been in the forefront of the agitation to foist the genocide convention upon Americans. We do not say that these people want to put a bludgeon in the hands of Stalin and his communist agents to be used in whacking the United States over the head. Nevertheless, they are lending support to a scheme which has now been invoked in precisely the way in which its author and its backers never contemplated, although the opportunity was plain to see. The charges brought against the United States are shameful lies, but what does anyone expect of Communists? We are certain that the great body of American Negro citizens will have nothing to do with this attempt to discredit their own country. But, despite that, some less informed members of their race may be taken in by this Soviet maneuver. In any event, the United States has been smeared before the world, as if the treatment of its citizens compared with the worst excesses perpetuated against subject populations by the colonial powers, or even with those put into execution by the Soviet Union against the Russian people themselves, as well as the inhabitants of the unfortunate neighboring states which have been drawn into Stalin’s vast concentration camp.1

See also doc. no. 339, Lester Davis’s rebuttal of the editorial.

1



We Charge Genocide

243

No. 338 Eleanor Roosevelt Dismisses CRC’s Petition as a “Communist-Inspired Document,” Says Proof is Hard to Get to Countercharge the Soviet Union with Genocide, December 30, 1951 AJA, 60/1/11, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives December 30, 1951 Dear Dr. Lemkin, Enclosed are the two stories from Yesterday’s World-Telegram which might be of interest to you. I’m glad that my last day’s contribution to the Herald Tribune was able to call attention once again to the genocide issue – and incidentally to the passport proposition, in which I think the US is losing sight of the main principle of freedom of movement and expression.1 To tell the story a bit more fully, what Mrs. Roosevelt said at Idlewild last Sunday in response to my question was this:2 Civil Rights Congress petition: “They sent over a Negro who is well known as a Communist to distribute this, which he did most effectively to all delegates”. The Americans had been “expecting every meeting” to be hit with it by the Soviet bloc. “It’s a Communist-inspired document. It shows they have learned to do things rather sensibly. They don’t make extreme statements”. (She obviously meant statements not as extreme as in the past.) “Since it was a Communist-inspired document, the only reason they took it over was to give it status over here. The real purpose was to create confusion and bad feeling here. Otherwise we would have had it handed to us every meeting by the Soviet delegate and its satellites. They never mentioned it”. Asked if the US thought charges of genocide against the Soviet bloc were likely to be brought up in the Assembly, as urged by exiles and Americans of Eastern European ancestry: “How could you prove it? I’m not sure you can prove that. Unless you can prove it, there is no use bringing it up”. [Peter Kihss]

The author of the letter is probably referring to William Patterson’s situation. Patterson was in Paris when, on December 26, 1951, the US State Department instructed the American Embassy to revoke his passport. 2 US delegate Eleanor Roosevelt was apparently returning from the UN General Assembly session in Paris, when she was interviewed at New York International Airport on December 23, 1951. 1

244

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 339 Lester Davis of the CRC Attacks the Editorial in Chicago Daily Tribune Critical of We Charge Genocide, December 31, 1951 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 December 31, 1951 Editor Chicago Daily Tribune Sir: Your editorial of Saturday, December 22nd, entitled “The Genocide Trap,” is characteristic of the story told of a man who, after seeing a giraffe for the first time, remarked, “there ain’t no such animal.” Obviously, you neither read your own newspaper, nor have you carefully studied the Genocide petition. For within your own files can be found documentary evidence to substantiate the charges contained in the petition. Your attempt to write off such a carefully documented work as “shameful lies” makes you victim of the false theory that one can wish away reality. Your express contempt for the intelligence of the American people when you ask them to believe that the Cicero violence was a “shameful lie” rather than a crime of government against the Negro people. How do you explain the recent Federal indictments against Cicero’s city officials?1 It is a “shameful lie” that Sheriff Willis McCall killed one Negro youth and critically wounded another, both of whom were handcuffed, although he, a county official, had been charged to conduct them safely to a trial ordered by the United States Supreme Court?2 Is it a lie, sir, that Isaac Woodard, a Negro servicemen, returning home from World War II, had both of his eyes gouged out by two So. Carolina policemen because of an alleged violation of the state’s segregation laws?3 And what about the Monroe, Georgia lynching of two Negro couples in 1947?4 Former Attorney General, Tom Clark took no action against anyone, although he had in his possession the name of six of the lynchers. I challenge you to prove this statement a lie. As a matter of fact, we challenge you to prove that a single one of the hundreds of lynchings, bombings, and wanton police murders of Negro people did not take place On July 11–12, 1951 a mob of 4,000 attacked an apartment building that hosted a single black family in a neighborhood in Cicero, Illinois. The white rioters fought against the Illinois National Guard dispatched to the scene of violence, causing a significant damage to the building. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted several Cicero city and police officials in connection with the riot, thus establishing a precedent. 2 The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Samuel Shepherd and Walter Lee Irvin, who had been falsely accused of raping a white woman in 1949. On November 6, 1951, Sheriff McCall (1909–1994) was escorting the prisoners from Raiford, Florida state prison for the retrial. Along the way, she fatally shot Shepherd and seriously wounded Irvin execution style. A federal grand jury subsequently acquitted McCall. 3 On February 12, 1946, former US Army Sergeant Isaac Woodard (1919–1992) was forcibly removed from a bus in Alabama by the police, subsequently beaten and blinded. 4 The said lynching of two African American couples actually took place on July 15, 1946 in Walton County, Georgia. 1



We Charge Genocide

245

as charged in the Genocide petition, or that a single lyncher was brought to justice by city, state, or federal governments. Are you trying to make us believe that the facts of jim-crow, segregation, and government-condoned violence against the Negro people are “shameful lies”? Come now, sir, I’m sure you’re capable of a more intelligent answer. Mr. Walter White, an avowed anti-communist, at least had the honesty to state: “73% or more of the charges are carefully documented ones taken from non-communist and anti-communist sources.” It is interesting to note that he also stated, “The most immediate and effective step is for the United States to plead guilty of the charges.” I would like to point out for your information and guidance, that the crime of genocide was not the sole figment of Professor Lemkin’s mind, as you imply, but came about as a result of the Nuremburg trials wherein a term was sought to define the heinous crimes committed by the Nazi butchers against the Jewish people. You might also take note of the fact that Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson contributed to the formulation of the Genocide Convention.1 And if you follow a policy of printing all of the truth, you would also have included in your editorial the fact that the jim-crow American Bar Association advised our State Department against subscribing to the Convention, primarily because they recognized that under its terms, our government would be guilty of the crime. Your editorial states: “Minority groups would invoke it (the Genocide Convention) as a handy means of blackmailing preferential treatment out of their fellow citizens. Permit me to inform you that although preferential treatment would be required to bring the Negro people up to their rightful level of social, political and economic equality in America, they are not asking for special treatment. I, a Negro, with fifteen years of honorable service in the armed forces of my country, ask only a chance to live and walk in dignity, with a chance to earn a living, support a family, unmolested by racial bigots who would deprive me of rights guaranteed by the very Constitution which I have fought to defend. And I ask this for all other Negroes. The Negro people are not seeking to discredit their country. But what can they think of a government which condones lynchings, bombings and mob violence against them? They seek only to make it a good country for all people, free from the terror of fascist violence like that which threatened D. Julian, took the life of NAACP head Harry T. Moore, and destroyed the home of Harvey Clark.2 You would perform a better service to our country if, instead of trying to deny obvious facts, many of which were printed in your paper, you would join in the fight to wipe out the evil of racism which threatens our Constitution, our freedom, and our whole right to call ourselves free people. Lester David, Executive Secretary

Justice Robert H. Jackson played no role in the formulation of the Genocide Convention. All the cues as to the crime of genocide Jackson had received in 1945 from Lemkin. See doc. nos. 6, 7. 2 Harvey E. Clark was an African American World War II veteran and tenant at Cicero whose apartment was destroyed during the July 1951 riot. Prominent civil rights activist and NAACP organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife were on December 25, 1951 assassinated at their home in Florida by the Ku Klux Klan. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

246

No. 340 Civil Rights Congress Requests Black Dispatch in Oklahoma City to Print Materials Favorable to William Patterson and We Charge Genocide, January 14, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 January 14, 1952 Mr. Roscoe Dunjee, Editor BLACK DISPATCH POB 1245 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Dear Mr. Dunjee: Several months have elapsed since I last wrote to you and during that time our friend, William L. Patterson, has really made history. At this writing, he is in Paris, where he has put up a valiant fight to have the petition, “We Charge Genocide,” presented to the United Nations. The latest report is that the United Nations, that highest world tribunal, has rejected our petition – even while the bomb that sent Mr. and Mrs. Harry Moore to eternity was exploding for all the world to hear – even as the anxious cries of grief of the aged mothers and the broken-hearted children were resounding around the world.1 We think that Mr. Patterson has not been defeated, nor has the cause of the Negro people’s fight for freedom been silenced. We here in New York are planning a tremendous rally for Sunday, January 27th, to welcome Mr. Patterson home.2 We would welcome greetings from you and from any of your business or organizational connections, to be read at the meeting. Still further, we are asking you, through your paper, to raise the cry once more that the indictment against Patterson be dropped and that he remain free to fight in the interest of real democracy and freedom. As you no doubt know, Mr. Paterson’s trial is scheduled for the 28 of January in Washington. We here have never forgotten the splendid editorial which you wrote just before the last trial and a similar action at this time would benefit us [to] no end. We would also welcome a comment on the book in the paper and also under your own pen. So far, the criticisms have been very favorable. In your opinion, what is the best way for us to guarantee the largest possible distribution of the book in the area of the country where you are? We are now able to offer the book at a special reduction, to be used along with subscriptions or as prize awards. We feel very sure that you will have some ideas on promotion and we would welcome them most sincerely. Your, with every good wish. Sincerely, Angie Dickerson Ass’t Executive Secretary Prominent civil rights activist and NAACP organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife were on December 25, 1951 assassinated at their home in Florida by the Ku Klux Klan. 2 Patterson was returning to the United States from Europe, where he spent over a month. 1



We Charge Genocide

247

No. 341 Civil Rights Congress Outlines a Program of Action in support of We Charge Genocide, Admits the Failure to Make the United Nations Act on the Petition, January 14, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 January 14, 1952 Miss Winifred Feise 246 Glenwood Drive Metairie Ridge New Orleans 20, La. Dear Miss Feise: Your letter of the 8th just came to my hand and I am happy to receive it.1 I was sorry to hear of the many problems you faced on your recent visit to New York and hope that many of them have cleared up by now. Concerning your reference to “Genocide” and the distribution of the book, I want to say that more and more I am convinced that the South, as well as the North, is ready to receive this book and to move. On a recent trip to St. Louis, which, as you know is a southern city, we had very good results. I hope that you will give leadership to a plan to arrange a symposium, a meeting or a cultural evening around “Genocide.” We are planning a national tour for Miss Beulah Richardson in February and perhaps she could come to New Orleans.2 We are suggesting that a dramatic sketch authored by her be one of the highlights of the meetings. It has been written in such a way that it could embrace the whole progress and it makes provision for a few speakers. We shall forward a copy of the script to you in a few days. We feel that on her way to the Coast, New Orleans is a must for Miss Richardson. We have just heard that the Genocide petition has been denied. This is a further indictment of the United States and the whole imperialist crew in their effort to hold on to this decadent society. We, here in New York, are planning a giant rally on the occasion of Mr. Patterson’s return, to be held January 27th. We ask now that you organize your group to send money gifts and messages of greetings to him at our office so that they can be mentioned at the mass meeting. As you know, Patterson’s trial has been set for Monday, January 28th. It is most imperative that wires go on that day to AttorneyGeneral McGrath asking that the indictment be dropped and that the lynchers and the killers of the Negro people be put behind the bars. With every good wish to you for the New Year, I am Sincerely yours, Angie Dickerson Ass’t Executive Secretary Document not in the file. Beulah E. Richardson, popularly known as Beah Richards (1920–2000), was an actress, poet, and civil rights activist. Richardson publically supported the CRC’s project and even wrote a play, “Genocide,” for the occasion.

1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

248

No. 342 Civil Rights Attorney Aubrey Grossman Thanks Private Citizen Alex Deutsch for His Contribution to the We Charge Genocide Campaign, January 18, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 January 18, 1952 Mr. Alex Deutsch 7000 Avalon Blvd. Los Angeles, Calif. Dear Al, Many thanks for your pleasant and badly needed contribution. You seem to be a worse letter-writer than I am, but I wish that you would let me know what you think of We Charge Genocide which has made quite a stir nationally and internationally. Key publications and leaders among the Negro people have already conceded its correctness and vitality and, as the mass sale of the book progresses, this is bound to grow. As of this moment, we have sold out our first 15,000 in the space of a little less than two months and our next 20,000 copies will come off the press next week. Perhaps you would like to send me a list of names and addresses that should receive the book and we would be glad to see that they got it. Beginning in February, we will reduce the price to $1.00 and then begin consideration of a mass edition to be sold at possibly 25¢.1 With my best regards, Aubrey Grossman

No. 343 William Patterson Congratulated by a Fellow Communist on Creating “Scare and Consternation in the Oppressor Camp” by means of We Charge Genocide, January 28, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 2 January 28, 1952 World Federation of Trade Unions, Vienna Dear Pat, As I write this letter I am looking at your picture, somewhat relaxed, with featured interview which is carried in the London Daily Worker of January 25th. I also saw at the See also doc. no. 351, Alex Deutsch’s reply to Aubrey Grossman.

1



We Charge Genocide

249

same time this morning in the New York Times of the 25th January an item announcing your arrival in New York and that your passport has been lifted, after the horror of an hour 45 minute grilling together with the indignity of the search of your person. Pat, all this only goes to show how desperate the oppressors are. Such actions on the part of the government which claims to be leaders of the “free world” serves more and more to bring home to those Mr. Truman and his gang think they leading, the rottenness of the present corrupt, criminal government that has been imposed upon the American people. But enough of this for a gang whose days are surely numbered. By the time this reaches you, you will have already been on trial and I am hoping that it will go the way the case of Dr. Du Bois and his associates went, and that you will have been relieved of the necessity of again confronting your persecutors for any extended period. I will be watching the press with eagle eye to discover the outcome. Although you passed through Vienna like a jet plane – not like those in Korea – it was really good to see you and to be able to talk to you even though it was for such a brief moment. Needless to say that I have been giving serious thought in discussing with my associates the question which you raised with me while you were here. I hope our friends and associates in the United States realise the tremendous potential of such an undertaking. We here have been sold on the idea and are only waiting your call to move forward. It is regrettable that you did not succeed in Paris in having the United Nations formally accept the charge of Genocide as contained in the petition submitted by you. However, I am sure you realise that you have created enough scare and consternation in the camp of the oppressors generally. Whether the United Nations accept it formally or not, the case you presented will continue to be argued in the court of world opinion. We are reporting the representation which you made, informally, in the form of spot-lighting the review of the booklet. We are using in addition to the evidence contained in the book a speech you had prepared to deliver to the United Nations, and our Union has as a way of emphasis, showing who benefits by the persecution of the Negro people; a speech made by Ewart Guinier recently at the Riverside Plaza Hotel in New York.1 This will be followed up from time to time as material comes to our attention. I have received a bill of lading telling me that the 50 copies were sent by parcel post and that they are on their way. They have not yet arrived but as soon as I have received them I will take steps to have them widely distributed.2 On the question of increasing contacts and improving relations with our friends in the States, which I discussed with you, I hope you will move as soon as possible to take action on this. It is also important in this regard that our activities are enlarged and intensified. Like the author of the letter, Ferdinand C. Smith (1894–1961), Ewart Guinier (1911–90) was an American communist and trade unionist of Jamaican origin. Guinier served as the national secretary-treasurer of the United Public Workers of America, and in 1951 he came to cofound the National Negro Labor Council. 2 The books were mailed from New York on November 15, 1951 and, by early March 1952 Patterson got to know the shipment had arrived at destination. In a letter dated March 11, 1952, Patterson urged Smith to distribute We Charge Genocide among the latter’s friends, to “show them, in a more graphic manner, the picture of the U.S.A.” 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

250

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible on following up our spot-light on the Genocide case. We will be doing a spread on the victims of the Smith and McCarran acts, applying the same method used in the Genocide case. You may convey this fact to the Committee to Repeal the Smith Act and to various Committees defending the working class victims. My immediate plans call for a quick trip to somewhere in Africa in the first week in March, before embarking on the Caribbean tour which I mentioned to you. In the meantime, if you can find the time I would like you to look into the question I raised with you with regard to Edna or someone else if she has not yet acted. Tell Paul that I have just read over the weekend his magnificent speech at the meeting of the ASP and was happy to be reminded that he is still in there fighting with all four.1 Best wishes to him also to the many of our mutual friends. Hello to “Chicago” for me when you go that way. Until next time, personal best wishes, Yours as ever, Ferdinand [Smith]

No. 344 US State Secretary Dean Acheson Considers We Charge Genocide Communist Propaganda, January 31, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 January 31, 1952 OUTGOING AIRGRAM Department of State RESTRICTED To all American Diplomatic and Consular Offices Communist agents are understood to be giving great attention to accusations that this Government is guilty of genocide against the American Negro. The basis for this charge is contained in a 240 page book entitled “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People”, published by the Civil Rights Congress, an American Communist front organization. The book is in the form of a petition to the United Nations brought under the Genocide Convention. (The Convention came into force on January 12, 1951. The United States has not yet ratified.) The frontispiece is

A reference to Paul Robeson, who was affiliated, among other organizations, with the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions—cultural section of the Communist Party USA.

1



We Charge Genocide

251

a photograph of two Negroes hung in the woods. (The Department is informed this incident occurred twenty-two years ago but the picture is still effective).1 The book takes the general form of a legal presentation in five parts: I. The opening statement; II. The law and the indictment; III. The evidence; IV. Summary and prayer; and V. Appendix. The opening statement is a strong propaganda appeal based on various newspaper reports describing “terrorism” in the south. The second part “The law and indictment” contains a brief history of the Genocide Convention and a discussion of its provisions. The third part on “evidence” is a chronological listing of acts of violence against Negroes in the United States between January 1, 1945 and June 1951. The “evidence” which relates to lynching, other “illegal” killing and economic and social discrimination has been drawn principally from newspaper accounts. The Summary and Prayer (1) asks General Assembly action declaring the United States Government guilty of the crime of genocide against American Negroes; (2) asks the General Assembly to condemn the United States for failure to implement and observe its obligations under the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention and demand that the United States carry out such obligations; and (3) expresses the hope that some contracting State “make our case its own” before the United Nations. It must be realized that a very clever job of propaganda has been accomplished. Every effort was made to make it seem objective. The “petition” in the form of this book was presented to the Secretary General of the United Nations and to the United States Delegation and made available to other delegations at the Sixth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by William L. Patterson, an American communist whose passport had previously been recalled. No action is expected in the UN by any of its Members although it has been rumored that two non-Soviet governments had been found willing to propose UN action. With regard to the “charges”, this Government has furnished for use by the United States Delegation to the General Assembly material prepared in conjunction with and which quotes leading American Negroes. The position which this Government is taking is that (1) the book is an obvious communist propaganda attack and does not represent the viewpoint of American Negroes; (2) genocide, which is planned mass killing “with intent to destroy”, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, has not occurred and cannot occur in the United States; (3) the economic and social condition of the Negro in the United States is constantly improving and, although it is not denied that discriminatory practices exist, continual efforts are being made to make a reality out of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The first point is based on the nature of the Civil Rights Congress and statements by American Negroes. The second point is based on the legal effect of the Genocide Convention and our national policy. The third is based on the rather large amount of source material available including Census Reports. Special material on aspects of Negro life in America is included in an information kit entitled “Minorities: A Progress Report”, prepared in the Division of International The photograph was taken near Columbus, Mississippi on July 17, 1935 and showed the bodies of two black men, Dooley Morton and Bert Moore, hanging from a tree. 26-year-old farmers were arrested on allegations of assaulting a white woman. A white mob wrestled the prisoners from deputy sheriff of Lowndes County, drove them through the city to Mt. Zion Church, and lynched them on the premises. See “2 Prisoners Lynched by Mississippi Mob,” Reading Eagle, 15 July 1935.

1

252

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Press and Publications (INP) and being pouched to all missions this week. VOA has been carrying pertinent items and statements re Negro life. The INP publication “The Negro in American Life” also contains useful material and has already served, with other Departmental material, for a special issue of “Document de la Quinzaine” (Paris Embassy bi-monthly French-language publication) dealing with the American Negro. VOA has been carrying pertinent items and statements re Negro life in America for some time. The Department has recently been informed that the book “We Charge Genocide” has been translated already into French, Urdu, Malay and Chinese and that it is being circulated now in areas in which these languages are spoken. It probably is, or will be, available in other languages as well. It is apparent from this development that, as the Department had felt from the first, the book was prepared not for circulation either in the U.S. or at the General Assembly, but rather for wide dissemination throughout the world in as many languages as possible as a basis for a bitter attack on the U.S. Any counter propaganda should await the development of a serious Communist propaganda campaign. There are as yet no signs of how or when the Communists intend to launch an all-out campaign based on the book, though such a campaign must be expected. So far the book has attracted very little attention in the U.S. and no official information is available on attention given to it abroad, except in Paris and Budapest. In Paris the communists papers Ce Soir and L’Humanité and the weekly Action have publicized it. The Action article was in refutation of an issue of “Document de la Quinzaine” and was in the form of an interview with William Patterson (Paris Airgram 1763, Jan. 5 1952). We should not give the substance of the allegations contained in the book any free advertising by attempting to counter them specifically in advance. It is requested that all posts be alert for any local developments charging the U.S. with genocide and report such moves promptly. ACHESON

No. 345 Paul Robeson Stresses the Significance of the CRC’s Petition, Compares the Treatment of Black Americans in the United States to That of Jews in Nazi Germany, February 1952 Paul Robeson, “Genocide Stalks the U.S.A.,” New World Review 20 (February 1952), 24–29.1 Genocide Stalks the U.S.A. Out of the lessons of the barbarities of Nazi Germany, the voice of outraged mankind caused the General Assembly of the United Nations to adopt a Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. New World Review was a bimonthly magazine of the CPUSA and successor to Soviet Russia Today.

1



We Charge Genocide

253

The opening statement of this historic petition dispels the generally held misconception that the crime of genocide can be charged only when there is mass extermination of a people. As defined in the United Nations Convention, genocide includes “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part.” It is not difficult to understand why this Convention has never been ratified by the Senate of the United Sates. This book, in fact, reveals that a determined effort has been made by white supremacy to block U.S. signature.1 From the openly terrorist Ku Klux Klan to the more suave spokesmen of the American Bar Association, there has been a brazenly open recognition of the applicability of the convention to the treatment of the Negro people in the United States. Let anyone review the history of the Negro people of these United States. Tens of millions sacrificed in the slave ships and on the plantations. Till this day terror [is] stalking this great people, not only in the South, but in the Peekskills, Ciceros, Detroits.2 Constant warning to stay in “your place,” accept the serf-like status imposed by a resurgent Dixiecrat South brazenly waving its Confederate flags in this year of 1952.3 How parallel to the condition of another great people – the Jewish people of Nazi Germany. During the trials at Nuremberg – the very base of the genocide convention – I was chairman of a delegation to the President of these United States. A leading church-woman observed in this conference that we could not morally sit in judgment at Nuremberg while lynchings were rampant in the South (this was 1946), while an Isaac Woodard (a World War II vet) had his eyes gouged out.4 The President said the Nuremberg trials had “nothing to do with the South,” that ours was a domestic problem. I observed that the history of Nazi thought proved that they had learned much from the South, that a straight line led from Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama to the Berlin and Dachau of Hitler. I stood in Dachau in 1945 and saw the ashes and bones of departed victims. I might have seen the ashes of some of my brothers in Groveland, Florida, just the other day – or in Martinsville a few months back.

We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government against the Negro People. Robeson refers to instances of mob violence against black Americans at Detroit, on June 20–22, 1943, and at Cicero, Illinois, on July 11–12, 1951. The Peekskill riot, in the New York City metropolitan area on August 27, 1949, had directly to do with Robeson and the Civil Rights Congress. A local newspaper called on the city population to protest Robeson’s concert at Peekskill following his remarks that purported to affirm the African American’s loyalty to the Soviet Union. Consequently, a white mob attacked the concert-goers; the concert was organized as a benefit for the CRC. 3 Dixiecrats was a colloquial name for the segregationist States’ Rights Democratic Party, which in 1948 briefly split from the Democratic Party. The Party’s Campaign Committee handbook lampooned the theory of equality as a communist hoax and insisted that the right to segregate was as incontrovertible as the right to assemble. 4 On February 12, 1946, former US Army Sergeant Isaac Woodard (1919–1992) was forcibly removed from a bus in Alabama by the police, subsequently beaten and blinded. 1 2

254

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

And when we come to other aspects of genocide – of stifling the growth of a whole people – of holding them in constant threat of “operations killer” – there can be no such evasive answer. The very reason for the Genocide Convention is to prevent the destruction of a people. The daily lives of the Negro people testify as to the “intent” of their persecutors. The business of the United Nations is to exercise its powers to remove this threat and terror. While the Voice of America beams its hypocritical concern for the welfare of the peoples behind the so-called Iron Curtain, the Genocide Convention remains unratified by the U.S. Government. But our failure to sign could not block the adoption of the Convention. By January 1951, the requisite number of member nations had signed and it is now binding on our government. Now that the Convention is in effect, the State Department is trying to move it into its war arsenal. Not an issue of the Sunday Times seems to go by without a sob story in which some groups of fascist émigrés charge genocide against the Soviet Union or the new democracies which have ended national oppression and outlawed racism. William L. Patterson, National Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, has added still another contribution to his magnificent record in the struggle for Negro freedom by seeing that the Genocide Convention must become a weapon for liberation of his people. The American people will someday take pride in the fact that at a time when the United States Government was the driving force behind the oppression of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, it was boldly called before the bar of world opinion by progressive Americans who exposed its pretensions of “democracy” and proved it guilty of genocide within its own borders. The demagogues and apologists for white supremacy will never be able to brush this document aside. The facts gathered here are irrefutable. Every assertion has been documented. And since the publication of the petition, we can add the bloody documentation of new genocidal acts like the murder of Harry T. Moore, and N.A.A.C.P. leader, and his wife on Christmas night in Florida, and the mockery of the local authorities and the ballyhooed FBI pretending inability to apprehend those responsible for this brazen act of terror.1 The Baltimore Afro-American, a leading Negro newspaper, has revealed that the State Department asked Walter White, executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, to attack this petition. Instead, in his syndicated column, Mr. White declared, “The United States has been hit in its most vulnerable spot by We Charge Genocide, an appeal to the United Nations by the Civil Rights Congress… The most immediate and effective step is for the United States to plead guilty to the charges.” Of course, Mr. White went on to expound his usual gradualist credo about how the “other side should be given the widest possible publicity.”

Prominent civil rights activist and NAACP organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife were on December 25, 1951 assassinated at their home in Florida by the Ku Klux Klan.

1



We Charge Genocide

255

We, the people, charge genocide. We, Negro and white petitions, declare that jimcrow and segregation are a genocidal policy of government against the Negro people. The proof is all in this monumental book – the lynchings condoned and encouraged by government officials, the killings by the police authorities of state, the legal lynchings by the courts of our land, the racist laws. The violence and murder are all stamped with the government seal. Yes, and economic genocide too, the silent, cruel killer. The petition presents all the terrible data – the death toll in Negro ghettoes, the prevention of access to medical treatment, the unemployment and the discrimination in employment, the denial of education. Out of the government’s own statistics, the petition makes the accusation: “More than 30,000 Negroes die each year in the United States who would not have died if they had been white. In addition, the Negro people are robbed of more than eight years of life on average.” This petition does more than present facts. It digs into the meaning of these facts and bares the motivation for the anti-Negro genocide. “It is genocide for profit. The intricate superstructure of ‘law and order’ and extra-legal terror enforces an oppression that guarantees profit… The prime mover of the mammoth and deliberate conspiracy to commit genocide against the Negro people in the United States is monopoly capital. Monopoly’s immediate interest is nearly four billion dollars in super profits that it extracts yearly from its exploitation and oppression of the Negro people.” We have filed our petition with the United Nations not only on behalf of the 15,000,000 Negro people in the United States but, also, in the interests of all humanity. For we know that genocide at home inevitably develops into the genocide that is aggressive war. As Patterson declares in his introduction, “The Hitler crimes of awful magnitude, beginning as they did against the heroic Jewish people, finally drenched the world in blood.” While this book was still in preparation, a delegation of the Women’s International Democratic Federation went to Korea and saw with their own eyes how the American government was practicing genocide against a colored people struggling for their independence.1 The horrifying report of the women’s delegation and this petition belong side by side. Both are weapons in the same struggle for peace and freedom. In the short time since its publication, the charge made in this petition has already begun to be heard in Europe, Asia and Africa. But most of all, it must be heard and supported within the United States. All Americans who work for peace and civil rights must read this book, sell it in their communities, use its rich documentation and absorb its penetration analysis of the meaning of the struggle for Negro rights in relation to the fight for world peace.

Women’s International Democratic Federation was a Communist front organization founded in December 1945 in Paris. Following a trip to Korea, the organization released its findings in the form of “We Accuse! Report of the Commission of the Women’s International Democratic Federation in Korea, May 16 to 27, 1951,” which was published in five languages in East Berlin later that year. As early as 1947, the federation had pushed for a UN investigation of the plight of black Americans.

1

256

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

We of the true progressive America have the deepest and most sacred obligation, to our own land and to the people of the world, to preserve and hand on the honest traditions of our fathers – traditions of full equality for all, of the need to live in friendship and cooperation with all ways of life – reaching toward the fulfillment of the profoundest aspirations and hopes of all human kind.

No. 346 William Patterson Seeks Advice of Roscoe Dunjee of Black Dispatch on Potential Publication of We Charge Genocide as a Textbook for Traditionally Black Schools, March 4, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 March 4, 1952 Mr. Roscoe Dunjee BLACK DISPATCH Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Dear Mr. Dunjee: I am satisfied that you received a copy of my open letter to Walter White and perhaps have long since editorialized upon it. If so, I should be very happy to see the editorial. I know we have subscribed to the BLACK  DISPATCH but I have been in the South, as you perhaps know, for sometime. I had splendid meetings in Durham, Louisville and in New Orleans and found a very lovely discussion going on around the points raised by Genocide. My trial is scheduled to begin on the 18th and it will probably go on, McGrath having made the admission to a few who interceded in my behalf that the pressure from the top for him to try me and get a conviction, is terrific. Anything that can be done to change his mind will be helpful. I am satisfied that tremendous pressure is being exerted for the dismissal of the indictment but more is needed. I am very anxious to get Genocide accepted as a text book in as many Negro schools as possible. I do not yet know whether it will get into one. I would like to have your thinking on this, however, and if you have any suggestions as to schools or methods to break through what I know will be strong barriers, they will be exceedingly welcome. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary



We Charge Genocide

257

No. 347 US Consulate in Martinique Reports on Local Reactions to the Publication of We Charge Genocide, March 5, 1952 NARA, DoS Decimal File, 1950–54, 59/1342 (340. 1-AJ/3-552) March 5, 1952 RESTRICTED SECURITY INFORMATION From: To:

AMCONSULATE, MARTINIQUE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON

REF: DEPT’s CIRCULAR AIRGRAM OF Jan. 31, 1952. Subject: Civil Rights Congress publication on Genocide. The Department’s Circular Airgram under reference requested information regarding local developments of an expected Communist propaganda campaign charging the United States with genocide against American negroes. The publication “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People” has not yet made its appearance in either Martinique or Guadeloupe. That local Communists are well aware of the existence of such a publication, however, is obvious from an article which appeared in the February 21 issue of “JUSTICE” Martinique’s widelyread Communist weekly newspaper. This issue of “JUSTICE” contained a short article on “New Racial Crimes in the United States”. A free translation is submitted (enclosure 1) not because the article itself is of any particular pertinence but because it furnishes an example of the extreme treatment of the United States racial question appearing week after week in Communist publications here. The genocide propaganda campaign here seems to be in a state of preparation; the last sentence of the article would seem to be a forerunner of things to come: “Barbarism in the United States is exercised on 13 million blacks.” On page 3 of the issue of “JUSTICE” referred to above appears the first indication this Consulate has had of the Congress of Civil Rights publication in question. A free translation of the article which appeared is forwarded as enclosure 2. Of interest is the fact that it begins, as do practically all local Communist commentaries on racial intolerance in the United States, with reference to the other racial incidents which have been previously publicized. The attempt to obtain objectivity mentioned in the Department’s Airgram under reference is apparent in this article which describes the difficulty with which these American citizens have brought themselves to be the first to “accuse their own government of the collective assassination of its own nationals.” The reference to the “VOIX REPUBLICAINE” has to do with the Socialist newspaper of this name which appears in Martinique and which is continually accused by local Communists as “justifying the racialism of its American masters”. The article

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

258

concludes with the assertion that it intends to provide a whole series of articles on racial discrimination in America. To this end the article concludes with the words “To be continued”. Stephen H. McClintic, American Consul Enclosures: 1.  Translation article from “JUSTICE” 2.  Article translated from “JUSTICE”

No. 348 William Patterson Urges President of Dillard University Albert W. Dent to Use We Charge Genocide as a Textbook in Social Science Classes, March 6, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 March 6, 1952 A. W. Dent, President Dillard University New Orleans, La. Dear President Dent: Under separate cover I am sending you a copy of “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People,” which has created such a furor here and abroad. As you know, it was presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris, December of last year. They have very recently acknowledged the document and have given some indication that it may be discussed in the ensuing year. I am writing this and bringing the book to your personal attention with the desire that it may be used as a text-book in one or more of the social science classes in your University. It was published, as I have noted in the Introduction, as a service to the people of America and the world who are seeking peace and democracy and I think that for those who want to know where the responsibility for the persecution of Negroes lies, it has rendered valiant aid. I am sure that “We Charge Genocide” will be of almost invaluable assistance to many of the youth in orienting them on the decisive issues embraced in its pages. Sincerely yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary



We Charge Genocide

259

No. 349 William Patterson Counters Eleanor Roosevelt’s Criticism of We Charge Genocide in a Letter to Robert E. Cushman, Cornell Law Professor, April 23, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 April 23, 1952 Mr. Robert E. Cushman P. O. Box 262 Boca Raton, Fla. Dear Mr. Cushman: I have your letter of March 17th and would have answered earlier had I been in the city.1 In relation to the question whether or not there is information as to the part monopoly is playing in the development of a police state here, I can only say the Kefauver Report gives one a clear insight into the tie-up between big business, the open gangsters and gangsters in politics.2 To Secure These Rights, report of President Truman’s Committee to Investigate Segregation in Washington, was very helpful in this respect, as was the earlier Senate report on the role of monopolies in American political life.3 This appeared, as you perhaps recall, some few years ago, but one has only to measure the attacks upon constitutional liberties to see to what degree this menace has grown greater. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt declared that the book Genocide was well written, extremely well documented, and that there could be no denial that the crimes as set forth had been committed, but that it did not constitute genocide, that they were not premeditated and that the government was seeking in every way to alleviate the conditions. My answer to that was that if the government could not apprehend a single lyncher in the years during which some six thousand lynching had been perpetrated, then the question of government endorsement might logically be raised. I also argued that the Ku Klux Klan had become an extra-legal arm of government. One remark as to the Un-American Activities Committee.4 That body, in my opinion, has become a terrorist gang in the legislative branch of the American

In his letter from March 17, 1952 Cushman asked Patterson, among other things, if Eleanor Roosevelt was “on your side at the UN.” 2 The US Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce was established in May 1950 in response to a resolution to that effect introduced by Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) four months earlier. Chaired by Kefauver, the committee released its findings in March 1951. 3 Truman established the President’s Committee on Human Rights in 1946 for the purpose of ascertaining the status of civil rights in the United States. Published in December 1947, “To Secure These Rights” proposed, among other things, to ensure federal anti-lynching protection. 4 The House Un-American Activities Committee was created in 1938 to investigate alleged communist connections of private citizens, public employees, and select organizations. 1

260

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

government. Its wild hysteria against progressive forces, its constant maneuvers to terrorize progressives and to destroy the leadership of peoples’ organizations seems to me to be conclusive in this direction. Any help that you may be able to give in the fight that the Civil Rights Congress is carrying on will be very welcome. Very truly yours, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

No. 350 William Patterson Writes to W. E. B. Du Bois to Express His Regret That a Petition in support of the Colonial Peoples Does Not Mention We Charge Genocide, May 2, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 May 2, 1952 Dear Dr. Du Bois: It is an honor to be listed among the signers of the petition to the President of the United States and the United States Delegation to the United Nations.1 May I add, however, that I wish that this splendid petition had made mention of the Genocide petition submitted by the Civil Rights Congress Delegation to the U.N. last December. It is my opinion that mention of this historical event could not but have strengthened this very fine petition. The very same Americans who interceded in order that Reverend Michael Scott, spokesman for Herreros of Southwest Africa, might speak refused to intercede when the petition dealing with Genocide in the United States was submitted.2 It is my feeling that the Genocide petition must be regarded as a peace document supporting peace. Sincerely, William L. Patterson National Executive Secretary

The petition dated March 12, 1952 criticized the US government for not doing enough to address racial discrimination in Africa and made a reference to racial inequality within the United States. Paul Robeson was among the petitioners. 2 Michael Scott (1907–1983) was an Anglican preacher and Special Representative of the Herero people in the United Nations. The South African government prevented Reverend Scott from appearing before the Trusteeship Committee at the UN General Assembly in Paris. 1



We Charge Genocide

261

No. 351 Alec Deutsch of the Deutsch Company States in a Letter to Aubrey Grossman That He Regards We Charge Genocide Propaganda, July 31, 1952 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 July 31, 1952 The Deutsch Company 7000 Avalon Boulevard Los Angeles 3, Calif. Mr. Aubrey Grossman Suite A 23 West 26th St. New York 10, N.Y. Dear Aubrey: Evidently, I have never made my position clear to you.1 I am not interested in Communism, its spreading or any other form of it. My aid in the past has been strictly a personal matter to help you with your fight for Negro rights. Such an assisting in the trials of the Trenton Six, Willy McGee, etc.2 I hope none of my money was used in the aid of propaganda for the so-called Communist trials. I consider the book “We Charge Genocide” propaganda. If you want any more money from me, please be specific and tell me what it is for. I will be glad to give to help minorities on specific causes, not when it may be construed as an assist to so called Communist propaganda. Very truly yours, THE DEUTSCH COMPANY Alex Deutsch

Cf. doc. no. 342. The trials of the Trenton Six and Willie McGee were major civil rights cases involving black defendants. An all-white jury in August 1948 convicted six African Americans from Trenton, New Jersey for murder and sentenced them to death. Willie McGee from Laurel, Mississippi was in 1945 sentenced to death for an alleged rape of a white woman. Despite several appeals and stays of execution, McGee was eventually electrocuted, in May 1951. In both cases, the Civil Rights Congress handled legal defense and appeals.

1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

262

No. 352 The American Textbook Publishers Institute Turns down the CRC’s Request to Print We Charge Genocide as a Textbook, April 6, 1954 NYPL, R-6616, Part II: Files of William L. Patterson and the National Office, 1 April 6, 1954 American Textbook Publishers Institute REGISTERED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested Civil Rights Congress 6 East 17th Street New York, New York Gentlemen: Under recent legislation in Alabama, the textbook publishers must indicate whether an author mentioned in any textbook is or is not member of ex-member of any organization listed on the U. S. Attorney General’s “Subversive Organizations” list.1 We are informed that your organization appears on that list. Therefore, to assist us in complying with this law (copy enclosed) would you please send to this Institute a list of all your members, past and present, which we will make available to publishers who are members of this organization. The courtesy of an immediate reply will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Bush Director of Information

Cf. doc. nos. 167, 337.

1

XIII

The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59 (nos. 353–365)

To separate Raphael Lemkin a scholar and individual from Lemkin a lobbyist and schemer is next to impossible. This section features a selection of documents that show Lemkin’s many sides, first and foremost the human. After all, the power politics into which Lemkin had willingly thrown himself do not invalidate his original, purely humanitarian objective that he had pursued by means of an international treaty to ban genocide. Lemkin was the first to consistently argue that the Nazi policy toward the Sinti and Roma (Gypsies) constituted genocide. Never mind that the main objective of his letter of August 1949 to the Gypsy Lore Society was making the United Kingdom accede to the Genocide Convention (doc. 353). Lemkin had a tendency to flatter his respondents, as he did in the case of the editor of St. Louis Post Dispatch, whom he called “not only the publisher of the best paper in the United States but a humanitarian and a friend.” The reason he wrote to Irving Dillard in January 1950 was to alert the latter to the forthcoming Senate hearings on US ratification of the Genocide Convention and secure his help in lobbying with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (doc. 354). To Eleanor Roosevelt later next month, Lemkin was eulogizing her deceased husband and the thirty-second President of the United States. According to Lemkin, Franklin D. Roosevelt had earlier supported an idea for a genocide treaty. Lemkin wondered if Eleanor Roosevelt could possibly mention that fact in her syndicated column, which might benefit the pro-ratification campaign (doc. 355). The same concern motivated Lemkin’s letter to the president of the Polish American Congress, whose help he sought in generating support mail to the US Senators who participated in the hearings (doc. 356). Lemkin proved even more direct in his letter to Gertrude Samuels of the New York Times, who came the closest to being his friend, in addition to being a steadfast supporter of his cause. To Samuels Lemkin told in June 1950 of the importance of maintaining US leadership in the world (in this particular case by ratifying the Genocide Convention). “For America,” Lemkin argued, “genocide is an outside crime,” and therefore designated as slander allegations of genocide being committed against “Negroes” (doc. 357). Lemkin repeated his idea that discrimination belonged under violations of human rights, not genocide, in his statement on the occasion of the Genocide Convention coming into force on January 12, 1951. Lemkin could not hold his emotions when he wrote: “I make this statement and underline

264

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

this fact for the benefit of those who tend to become cynical about humanity and who believe that governments and states are amendable only to considerations of force and practicality and who also believe that this world became so brutalized that it is unable to carry on great humanitarian endeavors” (doc. 358). Alas, for many a foreign diplomat, Lemkin was “undoubtedly a crank with an obsession on the subject of the Genocide Convention,” as one Foreign Office employee put it in July 1951 (doc. 359). To his direct question as to when the United Kingdom was planning to accede to the convention Lemkin only received a noncommittal reply (doc. 360). Lemkin was trying to be creative in his efforts to sway public opinion. To Rabbi Bernard Hamburger in New York City, for example, Lemkin proposed introducing the term genocide in prayer books (doc. 361). For many years, Lemkin was trying to sell his manuscript on the history of genocide and his autobiography to a publisher. One after another, publishing houses told Lemkin that a book on genocide would not get large enough an audience and therefore was not commercially viable (docs. 362–63). It would generate profit only if Lemkin had won a Nobel Peace Prize—for which he had been nominated ten consecutive times but never got—speculated the readers for Simon & Shuster in October 1958 (doc. 364). Coincidentally, one of the last individuals with whom Lemkin was in touch before his death, on August 29, 1959, was his literary agent (doc. 365).

No. 353 Raphael Lemkin Defines the Nazi Mass Murder of Roma as Genocide in a Letter to the Gypsy Lore Society, Seeks UK Ratification of the Convention, August 11, 1949 NYPL, ZL-273/1 August 11, 1949 Gypsy Lore Society Class Libraries Office University of Liverpool Liverpool, England Dear Sir: Before and during the last war, I have been interested in gypsies. While serving as adviser to the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, and because of my particular interest in the fate of the gypsies, I inserted the charge of genocide in the Nurnberg indictment to cover not only destruction of the Jews and Poles but also gypsies. My investigations of the gypsy problem during this war brought me to the conviction that the extermination of the gypsies presented an almost complete case of genocide perpetrated in this century. It is true that some gypsies survived in Subcarpathia, Hungary and France but the great majority were destroyed.



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

265

There were special days for gassing gypsies in Auschwitz and Majdanek. Unlike the Jews who with the exception of the Warsaw uprising met their death in submission and resignation, the gypsies were fighting their butchers and resisting death to the last moment. I found reports from German officers in Yugoslavia asking their superiors to assign them to the extermination work on Jews rather than gypsies. They gypsy women were so proud; there were no instances of begging for their lives thru submission to sexual outrage of their torturers. The gypsy women were extensively used by the infamous Dr. Rascher for freezing and reviving experiments.1 These experiments were carried out in this way: men from concentration camps were plunged in ice water and upon losing consciousness they were put in bed with two naked gypsy women whose [illegible] bodies had to restore the blood circulation in the frozen bodies of the men. A great many gypsies were sterilized. I was told about a camp where were found 400 male gypsies in the Russian zone, the only survivors if gypsies in Germany, all of them had been castrated.2 I am sure that you know all or most of these facts. My reason for writing you is the following: the United Nations adopted at the last General Assembly in Paris a convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. This convention will outlaw, in the future, the crime of genocide when perpetrated not only in connection with war but also in time of peace. Besides the humanitarian and practical legal considerations the convention on genocide must serve as an epitaph on the collective graves of nations and races recently destroyed. The convention on genocide has already been ratified by three countries, Australia, Ethiopia, Norway.3 President Truman has admitted the convention on June 19th 1949 to the United [States] Senate for ratification. I will endeavor to introduce into the discussion of the genocide convention in the Senate specifically the case of the gypsies.4 I am sure you have material on the gypsy genocide and I will [be] most grateful to you if you would mail some to me. I hope also that you will be able to prevail upon your government to include the material of the gypsies during the forthcoming ratification procedure on the genocide convention by the British government. I take the liberty of enclosing my recent article on the genocide convention in which mention is made of the gypsy case.5 Very sincerely yours, Raphael Lemkin

Sigmund Rascher (1909–1945) was a German SS doctor who conducted deadly experiments on humans at Dachau concentration camp. 2 A total number of Roma who fell victim to sterilization is estimated at 2,500. 3 All three countries ratified the Genocide Convention in July 1949. 4 There is no indication that Lemkin had actually attempted that. 5 Raphael Lemkin, “Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” American Journal of International Law, 41, no. 1 (January 1947): 147. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

266

No. 354 Raphael Lemkin Informs Irving Dillard of St. Louis Post Dispatch about the Forthcoming US Senate Hearings on the Genocide Convention, January 2, 1950 AJHS, P-154/2/3 January 2, 1950 Yale University Law School New Haven, Conn. Mr. Dilliard St Louis Post Dispatch St. Louis, Missouri Dear Mr. Dilliard: Happy New Year and best wishes. Thank you most cordially for your magnificent help in 1949. In 1950 you devotion to this cause of humanity and your courage will certainly bring about the ratification of the genocide convention. Senator McMahon is about to announce the hearings on genocide to start sometime during the second half of this month. The hearings must be extensive, full and they must develop all the angles inherent in this treaty. Many groups are attracted by the genocide convention. The religious groups are supporting it because of the moral sensitivities of the religious people and also because religion is international. Women are supporting the treaty because they are on the first line of attack being the weakest part of society. Labor is supporting the contention because under modern dictators the function of labor has been transformed into an instrumentality of death (concentration and labor camps). An economy minded Senate will support the convention because it saves not only life but also money. America had to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for rehabilitation of victims of genocide. I have confidential information that a certain group is trying to convince McMahon that the hearings should be brief and organizations should be heard for only five minutes. I hear that another organization that sent out letters to two hundred and seventy organizations asking them to send statements of support for the convention not to Senator McMahon but to this organization.1 This might be sabotage. It might also mean organizational vanity and seeking of glory to the detriment of the cause. You know that support must be spontaneous; at least it must appear so in the eyes of the Senators. We need a strong appeal and maybe several editorials now calling upon this country and especially on organizations to support the convention. Organizations and individuals should write to Senator McMahon urging support or asking for permission to appear.

Lemkin apparently referred to the US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention. On differences between Lemkin and James Rosenberg of the committee see doc. nos. 145, 154, 246.

1



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

267

The ethnic groups or minority groups in this country have a great stake in the convention. The Poles lost three million in the Nazi case. They are losing more now under Russia. What about the Katyn case?1 In Greece the guerrillas carried away twenty eight thousand Greek children to Bulgaria and Romania. This is genocide because it destroys the future generations of the nation. The Armenians never forgot what happened to them. The Ukrainians and Czechs are bleeding behind the iron curtain. The Balts are dying out in Siberia. These peoples must be heard in the Senate. Since U.S.A. has the best international press service in the world these hearings might become a world event and might expose the modern Cain of nations. I send you tonight a telegram about all this. We are in great need of your help. You are not only the publisher of the best paper in the United States but a humanitarian and a friend. Therefore, I took the liberty of asking you in my telegram to transmit this appeal to your friends the editors in other cities. With renewed thanks and hoping to hear from you soon I am Sincerely yours, Raphael Lemkin

No. 355 Raphael Lemkin Seeks Eleanor Roosevelt’s Support for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, February 1, 1950 AJHS, P-154/2/3 February 1, 1950 Yale University Law School New Haven, Connecticut (Roger Smith Hotel Washington, D.C.) Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt U.S. Mission to the United Nations Two Park Avenue New York, New York My dear Mrs. Roosevelt: I am enclosing an inspiring speech of Congressman Multer, devoted to the memory of our beloved President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose body was taken from among us five years ago but whose spirit is with us forever. As founder of the world movement to outlaw genocide, I am especially happy about the fact that Mr. Multer, while devoting his speech to the 68th anniversary of the birth of Katyn near Smolensk in Russia was a site of a mass execution of the 14,587 Polish officers by the NKVD in April 1940. The atrocity had been sanctioned by Stalin, yet the Soviets put the blame on the Germans. The Katyn massacre became a hot-button issue during the Cold War, culminating in the congressional hearings in 1951–52.

1

268

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

the late President, has chosen as his topic the ratification of the Genocide Convention. Congressman Multer makes the point that if the President were alive today he would be “one of the strongest advocates for outlawing this unspeakable crime as a major blot on our civilization.” Mr. Multer, however, does not know one fact about the President and genocide – which only three persons know: you, Miss Betty Hight, and myself.1 In 1943 or 1944, when I served as Chief Consultant to the Board of Economic Warfare, which was transformed into the Foreign Economic Administration, a colleague of mine, Miss Betty Hight, took to you a memorandum on the concept of genocide and on the necessity to prepare a Genocide Treaty after the war. Miss Hight reported to me later that you had discussed this matter with the President who expressed his great interest and asked you to tell me that he believed in this cause; that such a treaty would not apply to past genocide cases but would be very beneficial for the future.2 I remember this fact vividly now. I think that bringing it to the attention of the public in this crucial moment of the ratification campaign would be of the utmost importance toward ratification. I wonder if you could mention this fact in your column. I would be most grateful to you because this cause needs great advocates whose spirit fascinates the world and whose words create humanitarian enthusiasm. You will be interested to know that the first part of the hearing on the Genocide Convention was quite successful; 38 witnesses have testified, among them representatives of all religions – Protestants, Catholics and Jews; also representatives of federations of women’s clubs, of business and professional women, of church women and many civic groups. I am impressed by the fact that the Genocide Convention appeals very strongly to the most sensitive segments of our society – the religious leaders and women. I wish to thank you wholeheartedly for your great help to the Genocide Convention and wish to congratulate you on the historic job which you are doing on human rights. Very sincerely yours, Raphael Lemkin

No. 356 Raphael Lemkin Urges Charles Rozmarek, President of the Polish American Congress, to Make His Constituency Write Letters to Individual US Senators in support of Ratification of the Genocide Convention, TPQ May 26, 1950  AJHS, P-154/2/5 TPQ May 26, 1950

As a personal friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Hight frequently visited the White House. In his unfinished autobiography, Lemkin conveyed Roosevelt’s reaction rather differently. The president replied to Lemkin’s memorandum, sometime in summer 1942, that he was aware of the danger presently facing minority groups in Europe, yet saw difficulties in adopting a (genocide) treaty. He was urging patience (Totally Unofficial, 115). See also doc. no. 8.

1 2



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

269

Dear President Rozmarek: I wish to thank you again for your great help on the Genocide Convention. I owe you a report about the happenings after the day on which I sent you the telegram.1 On May 26, the SFRC met in order to consider the report of the McMahon Subcommittee which has recommended ratification of the Genocide Convention. Only four Senators came to this meeting and they were: Connally, McMahon, Weilly and Alexander Smith.2 In general, it is not easy to get now a quorum for a committee meeting. Senators are busy with elections and other matters to which they are asked to attend by their constituents. If the Senators will receive sufficient mail in great quantities from their particular constituents, the Convention will be approved. I hope I am properly understood: The Senators are not only sensitive to telegrams coming from Presidents of National Associations but they are also very responsive to mail coming from their constituents in their respective States. For these reasons it will be of the greatest importance to issue again an appeal to new members urging them to write to their Senators. [Raphael Lemkin]

No. 357 Raphael Lemkin Informs Gertrude Samuels of the New York Times of Recent US Senate Hearings on the Genocide Convention, June 6, 1950 NYPL, Zl-273/1 June 6, 1950 My dear Gertrude, The latest situation on the Convention as I could ascertain yesterday afternoon by calling the Foreign Relations Committee is as follows: On the 23rd of May, 1950, the U.S.A. Senate Foreign Relations Committee met in executive session in order to consider the report of the McMahon subcommittee on Genocide. Out of 13 the following four Senators appeared: Connally, McMahon, Wiley, Smith. The State Department was represented by Adrian Fisher, and the Department of Justice by Solicitor General Perlman. Cabot Lodge and Theodore Green were in Germany but returned yesterday. The Senators asked questions about the Convention. No vote could be taken because of the lack of the majority which is seven. No new session of an executive nature to consider the Genocide Convention has been scheduled. Although time is of essence. After the Convention has been approved by the full Foreign Relations Committee it must go to the floor. It must also be included in the “must” legislation to be considered between now and adjournment. Further postponement of the Convention till next year would be catastrophic. The impact of the successful hearings would be lost. Other projects like the Human Rights Document not in the file. Lemkin confuses Willis Smith, Democratic Senator from North Carolina, and Alexander Wiley, Republican Senator from Wisconsin. Cf. doc. no. 357.

1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

270

Covenant (not adopted yet) might be brought up next year and this would create a terrific confusion.1 There will be, in December, two years after the Convention has been adopted. Why wait so long on a treaty dealing with life, sterilizations, kidnapping of children? Where is the sense of values? Who tries to put America in the ridicule by making it lose its leadership which it has gained so brilliantly? Russia is very happy about it and will use it in its propaganda. Fourteen nations have ratified the Convention. The following have deposited the instruments of ratification: Australia, Ethiopia, Norway, Iceland, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Israel, Monaco, Trans-Jordan. Liberia will deposit ratification this Friday at 3:00 P.M. as you will see by the enclosed letter. The Philippines have ratified February 28, Turkey, March 19th, the French National Assembly, April 28th. Six more ratifications are necessary. For America, Genocide is an outside crime. It is like African leprosy. Millions of Americans spend sleepless nights in this century worrying whether their relatives were killed in pogroms and other acts of Genocide. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in rehabilitating victims of Genocide. Whoever tries to frighten away the southern Senators from ratification is committing slander on America by suggesting that this country is committing Genocide on the Negroes. The McMahon Subcommittee makes it clear that in Genocide the destruction of the entire national, racial or religious group must be intended, although a substantial part if affected. 1,300,000 Armenians out of 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 Jews out of 15,000,000 is enough to constitute Genocide. In the Negro problem the intent is to preserve the group on a different level of existence but not to destroy it. If a few lawyers will success in confusing the issue which is clear and moral, then there is something wrong with our democracy. Senators are like judges, they cannot let a non-conscientious lawyer to win a bad case through confusion. Humanity is our client and the Senators have to try this case for the sake of humanity. Every day of delay is confession to crime. I am sure, dear Gertrude, your editorial will be a turning point like it was many times before.2 Love [Raphael Lemkin]

No. 358 Raphael Lemkin’s Statement on the Genocide Convention Coming into Force, January 12, 1951 AJHS, P-154/6/2 January 12, 1951

Cf. doc. nos. 281, 287, 289–290, 293, 295–296. Editorial, “We Must Do Our Part,” appeared in the New York Times on July 9, 1950.

1 2



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

271

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION GOES INTO FORCE TODAY Statement by Raphael Lemkin This is a day of triumph for mankind and the most beautiful day in my life. When I look back to the year 1933 when I submitted a draft law against destruction of nations, racial and religious groups at a League of Nations Conference on penal law in Madrid, I am frightened by the number and gravity of obstacles which had to be overcome.1 To those who will follow my example in engaging in a crusade for an idea, I offer the following pattern of my experience. First, you will be told the idea is no good; then, when they will find it good, a small but skillful group of professional people in the same field will fight you openly or under cover; and when you will finally be very close to achieving your goal, they will try to make this idea accepted with slight changes and under a different name. All that was tried on me in the last 18 years up to the last General Assembly of the United Nations. The fight and obstacles put under way of a lonely crusader in any field might break his health but never his spirit. The spiritual force of a humanitarian crusade is stronger than any obstacles so that individuals and governments must bow before this force. The spiritual force of the campaign against genocide became finally recognized by governments and received a diplomatic status of its own. For these reasons, I was able to approach directly heads of state, members of cabinets, Ambassadors, members of parliaments and to receive from them pledges for action which they have factually carried out, little mattered to them that I was only a private individual. In this way, it was possible for me to secure not only the cooperation of U.K. delegation for the adoption of the Convention but also the cooperation of governments and their parliaments for ratification of the Convention. I make this statement and underline this fact for the benefit of those who tend to become cynical about humanity and who believe that governments and states are amendable only to considerations of force and practicality and who also believe that this world became so brutalized that it is unable to carry on great humanitarian endeavors. The nations which have ratified the Genocide Convention must now make this convention a living force in their societies by introducing appropriate domestic legislation which will carry in itself a great educational message of respect, love and compassion for human beings beyond their boundaries irrespective of religion, nationality and race. More nations will soon join the first 27 ratifying states. About 10 more ratifications are expected very soon – among them being Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many others. The feeling grows now among nations that the international community cannot exist without a law against genocide like a village or a city cannot exist without a law against homicide. The Genocide Convention has a specially great appeal to small nations because each of them can disappear completely under the first genocidal attack; also many nations are cognizant that the destruction of nations can assume the form of

See doc. no. 1.

1

272

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

destroying essential parts of a nation such as intellectuals and clergy in order to reduce the remainder of the nation into the state of subservience; this type of genocide is outlawed by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. The Genocide Convention is needed now like before for the protection of all nations, religious groups and races. History changes fast and the white man might need the protection of the Genocide Convention in Asia earlier than he thinks.1 I am sure that when the Genocide Convention will be fully understood in all its implications, nobody will oppose it. The greatest enemy of the Genocide Convention is misunderstanding. For example, in a certain country certain groups became cool to the Convention because they thought that the Convention deals with discrimination. Genocide is an annihilation of entire nations, races, or greater parts thereof. Discrimination aims at keeping certain people on a different level of existence without the purpose of annihilating them. The idea of discrimination is embodied not in the Genocide Convention but in the declaration of human rights, and whoever confuses these two documents produced by the United Nations may do a great harm to both documents. I am sure that the friends of the Genocide Convention will keep this in mind in their future work. Today when the most humanitarian treaty against genocide goes into force, I wish to thank wholeheartedly the numerous friends of the Convention throughout the world, the nations which brought the Convention into force and those who work now on ratification. We should remember gratefully Cuba, India and Panama who sponsored the genocide resolution in the 1946 assembly. All Latin American countries, the U.S.A. delegation to the U.N., Australia and Dr. Evatt, and many other delegations made a great contribution. We should be especially gratefully to France, who not only gave great prestige by ratifying the Convention but also brought in the ratifications of nations closely connected with her – Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia. Wholehearted thanks to the religious organizations, women's groups, labor organizations, civic groups and to the press and the radio who helped to explain the new concept and the new word of genocide to the world. I am fully aware that the new term genocide by itself helped greatly in the campaign because it crystalized human conscience and the collective reaction to this crime. The word genocide derived from the Greek “race” and the Latin “cide” which I have coined, carries in itself on the negative side a condemnation of the greatest evil in world and on the positive side it means “Don’t turn your back to a human group in distress beyond the boundaries of your country, as you do not turn your look when you hear the screaming of your neighbors who are murdered in a silent night.” Let us not rest on the laurels of this great success. Let us work for an universalization of this treaty so that it might cover soon with its protective wings the greatest part of the globe.

Lemkin elaborates on this theme in his statement before the American Jewish Congress on January 18, 1951. Cf. doc no. 306.

1



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

273

No. 359 David F. Duncan of the British Foreign Office Dismisses Raphael Lemkin as a “Crank” yet Suggests Clarifying the UK Government’s Position on the Genocide Convention, July 5, 1951 NA, F.O. 371/95709/UP254/32 July 5, 1951 Mr. Hope recently received a letter from Mr. Waddams, General Secretary of the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations, asking for advice as to how the Archbishop of Canterbury should reply to a letter from Lady Reading on the subject of the Genocide Convention.1 2.  Though Dr. Lemkin, the author of the memorandum on which we are asked to comment, is undoubtedly a crank with an obsession on the subject of the Genocide Convention, and ideas on this which are not quite normal, the present occasion has seemed a suitable one to put up a reasoned defence of His Majesty’s Government’s policy on this subject. It is respectable and well-intentioned bodies, such as the Church of England Council on Foreign Relations, which through lack of information have tended to show most concern at and be most critical of His Majesty’s Government’s policy with regard to the Convention. It should be useful to give them a frank exposition of our motives, and an explanation of the facts as they really are. 3.  A draft reply, much amended and expanded by the Legal Advisers, is attached.2 The Text of the Genocide Convention itself and of the unacceptable Soviet reservations are also attached. (D.F. Duncan)

No. 360 UK Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe Gives a Noncommittal Reply to Raphael Lemkin concerning Prospective UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 18, 1952 NA, F.O. 371/101409/UP259/9 Dear Mr. Lemkin, I was very glad to receive your letter of 17th January about Genocide.3 You will appreciate that the new Government has only been in power for a few months and has been faced with a number of important and urgent domestic problems. Geoffrey Fisher (1887–1972), Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945 to 1961; Lady Eva Violet Mond Isaacs, Second Marchioness of Reading (1895–1973) converted to Judaism in the 1930s and in 1947 was elected president of the British section of the World Jewish Congress. Cf. doc. no. 290. 2 Cecil Parrott of the Foreign Office dismissed Lemkin’s memorandum as “distinctively misleading.” See Parrott’s draft reply to Reverend Waddams dated July 10 in the same file. 3 See doc. no. 257. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

274

Genocide is one of the subjects which we shall be tackling soon, but we have not had the opportunity to go fully into the detailed implications of accession by the United Kingdom yet. You may be assured that we shall give the matter very careful thought. As regards your suggestion that I should see Msgr. Varga, I understand that he has already been to the Foreign Office and that the Foreign Office have a good deal of information about what is going on in Hungary. These matters are really outside my province as Home Secretary.1 (Sgd) DAVID MAXWELL FYFE

No. 361 Raphael Lemkin Rallies Observant American Jews in support of the Genocide Convention, May 1, 1953 AJA, 60/2/3, courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives May 1, 1953 Rabbi Bernard J. Bamberger West End Synagogue New York, NY Dear Rabbi Bamberger, I am interested in having introduced the term “Genocide” in Prayer Books. Needless to say how this could help to create the necessary moral atmosphere for repudiation of this heinous crime. I am playing also with the idea of finding somebody who could help to write a special prayer against Genocide, which could be used in any one of the three predominant religions in America, or in all religions. [Raphael Lemkin]

No. 362 The John Day Publishers Turn down Raphael Lemkin’s Manuscript on the History of Genocide, February 16, 1955 NYPL, ZL-273/1 February 16, 1955 The John Day Company Inc. Publishers Doctor Raphael Lemkin 504 West 112th Street New York, New York See doc. nos. 249, 252, 257.

1



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

275

Dear Doctor Lemkin: I must apologize because we have taken so long about considering your material and ideas. The fact is that we have considered them very seriously and I have discussed them a number of times with Mrs. Walsch and with my son. I am sorry to say that our conclusions are negative. That is, we cannot feel that we could successfully sell a book about the history of genocide, whether condensed or at length. Furthermore, we now feel that in spite of our first impression, we could not sell successfully a biography of you. There is one positive and favorable idea in our minds – we believe that your own proposal of John Hersey as a possible author is the best one, far better than any of the other men that we had suggested and discussed.1 I am sorry that we do not know Mr. Hersey well enough to make the approach to him. I am certain that it will be much better to have you approach him directly, using your well known ability to impress your point of view upon various persons. No doubt Mr. Hersey already has close relations with his publisher and could make his own arrangements. Therefore, with deep appreciation of the seriousness of your work, and of the opportunity which you have given us by discussing it with us, I am returning the enclosed sections of your manuscript which you left with us, and also the copy of Collier’s Magazine containing the article about you, and the article by yourself in the Baltic Review.2 Sincerely yours, Richard J. Walsh [President]

No. 363 Duell, Sloan & Pearce Publishers Regard Raphael Lemkin’s Book Manuscript on the History of Genocide as Not Commercially Viable, August 15, 1958 NYPL, ZL-273/1 August 15, 1958 Duell, Sloan & Pearce, Inc. Publishers Professor Raphael Lemkin 604 West 112th St. New York, N.Y.

John Hersey (1914–1993) was a celebrated journalist and author. Lemkin’s letter to Richard J. Walsh, founder and president of the John Day Company, making reference to Hersey is not in the file. 2 Herbert Yahraes, “He Gave a Name to the World’s Most Horrible Crime,” Collier’s (3 March 1951): 28–29, 56. Lemkin’s article in Baltic Review could not be located. 1

276

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Dear Professor Lemkin: This morning Mr. Duell and I had a chance to discuss the sample chapters of your manuscript, which we found of great interest.1 Unfortunately we had to come to the conclusion that it would not be possible for us to find a large enough audience of byers for a book of this nature. It is a fascinating and important record, however, so we regret the commercial aspect prevents us from submitting a publishing offer. We are most grateful to you and to our mutual friend, Mr. Maxwell Cohen, for the privilege we have had of considering your book for publication.2 With the sample chapters I am returning the Times story and the Collier’s article you were kind enough to let us see.3 Sincerely, Charles A. Pearce4

No. 364 Peer Reviewers for Simon & Shuster Publishers Like Storytelling and Praise Raphael Lemkin as an Individual, yet Believe His Autobiography is a Commercial Risk, October 7, 1958 NYPL, ZL-273/1 October 7, 1958 Simon and Schuster, Inc. Publishers Miss Naomi Burton Curtis Brown, Ltd. 575 Madison Ave. New York 22, N.Y. Dear Naomi: The following excerpts are typical of the reactions to Raphael Lemkin’s TOTALLY UNOFFICIAL: “There is good narrative suspense in Lemkin’s account of his flight from Warsaw, but it is dissipated by a too long reminiscent flashback into his childhood…. Lemkin comes through as a dedicated, saintly man but also a likeable human being. I get the feeling from this material – scanty and rough as it is – that there On August 8, 1958 Lemkin submitted two chapters from his autobiography covering his lobbying on behalf of the Genocide Convention at Geneva and Paris in 1948, respectively. Cf. Totally Unofficial, 133–79. 2 New York attorney Maxwell T. Cohen (1909–2000) was a long-term friend and supporter of Lemkin’s campaign for US ratification of the Genocide Convention. 3 Yahraes’s article in March 3, 1951 issue of Collier’s and editorial on Lemkin in the New York Times dated October 20, 1957. 4 Charles A. Pearce, C. Halliwell Duell, and Samuel Sloan were cofounders, in 1939, and coeditors of the publishing company bearing their names. 1



The Lonely Voice of Raphael Lemkin, 1949–59

277

are two potentials here for a book with dual appeal: a human story of a man who almost single handedly succeeded in establishing an international moral law – an impressive feat despite the fact that it remains to be seen whether it will work when the going really gets rough; a book for people who are interested in the backstage workings of international law. If Lemkin were to win the Nobel Prize, for which he has been nominated, this might even break through the modest-sale barrier which I would normally predict for it. I would like to see more, if possible.”1 “I met Lemkin once, very briefly, about six years ago. He impressed me as a quiet, unassuming man with a great humanity. Reading this renews and impressions…. The childhood memories are too long. Yet the reader wants very much to know where Lemkin got that great reservoir of pity for the persecuted and hatred for the persecutor. This is a very important story, but it is told so simply that the reader occasionally forgets how great the issue is. Lemkin’s English (especially tenses) would have to be corrected carefully so as not to lose his quality of unsophisticated directness. If Lemkin does not win the Nobel Prize, I think the audience for such a book would be very small. I know several relatively well-read college students who not only have never heard of Lemkin but could not define genocide.” “I, too, would like to read more of this, but I also agree that it seems a very dubious commercial risk. My reservations about the manuscript (apart from the subject) are two: it never really tells the reader the mechanics of getting a passionate conviction transformed into international law except in terms of personal magnetism, midnight walks around Lake Leman, etc.; I’m afraid that after the English was cleaned up some of the charm of the story might be lost.” Would it be possible to see more material? I’ll stand by for further word from you.

Best, Charlotte Seitlin2

No. 365 Naomi Burton of Curtis Brown Literary Agency Inquires about Raphael Lemkin’s Health, August 14, 1959 NYPL, ZL-273/1 August 14, 1959 Lemkin was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ten times, beginning in 1950; he never received the prize. Many a nomination letter Lemkin had drafted himself, with a suggestion for any given individual to submit it to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee on his behalf. See draft nomination letters in the same file. 2 Charlotte Seitlin joined Simon and Schuster publishing house in 1928 at the age of twenty six. Lemkin’s autobiography, as well as his history of genocide, was submitted to the publisher by Naomi Burton of Curtis Brown literary agency. 1

278

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2 Curtis Brown, Ltd.

Prof. Raphael Lemkin 504 West 112 Street New York City Dear Professor Lemkin: It’s such a long time since we heard from you that I’m really worried and would like to have a line telling me how you are.1 Sincerely, Naomi Burton

Naomi Burton, who represented Lemkin, had taken to heart securing him a book contract, and periodically inquired about his health. Burton was easily the last person he was in touch with. On August 29, 1959 Lemkin was on his way to discuss the manuscript with his agent. On the 42nd street in Manhattan, a few blocks from the Curtis Brown office, Lemkin collapsed and died.

1

XIV

The United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention, 1962–68 (nos. 366–389)

There was no sign that by the early 1960s the United Kingdom had considerably changed its position on the Genocide Convention. As before, UK accession stumbled over the opposition of the Home Office. In January 1962, an American author of Armenian origin contacted the UK mission to the United Nations with regard to a history of genocide he was writing. He inquired if he could possibly get help with a bibliography and wondered what prevented the United Kingdom from acting on the Genocide Convention (doc. 366). The mission found it difficult formulating a convincing reply (doc. 367). The Foreign Office suggested the author of the letter should be able to compile the bibliography on his own. Besides, no authoritative British work on genocide was available yet. As to the second half of his question, the Foreign Office hesitated to provide a direct answer (doc. 370). The Foreign Office supported UK accession to the convention in principle, yet was cognizant of the objections of the Home Office. The Law Officers’ Department sided with the latter, saying that extra legislation was required to “exclude genocide from political crimes in respect to which extradition would be refused.” Such legislation would override the traditional right to grant asylum to persons accused of political crimes. Abominable a crime no doubt, potential UK accession to the Genocide Convention would not change the situation on the ground. Furthermore, the United Kingdom found itself in “good company” of countries that had not hitherto acceded: the United States, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Yet again, the refusal to accede was unlikely to provoke strong public reaction in the United Kingdom, except for the voice of Baron Janner (docs. 368–69). Sir Barnett Janner, Labour PM for Leicester West, was “indeed the only champion of our accession to this convention.” The Foreign Office was trying to be tactful when breaking bad news to Janner, who had repeatedly raised the question of accession in Parliament (docs. 371–74). In February 1964, for example, Janner suggested Her Majesty’s Government reconsider its policy in view of a recent incident in London involving a neo-Nazi (doc. 376). The Home Office remained adamant: the reasons for UK non-accession remained unchanged (doc. 377). The fact that the United Kingdom was not a party to the Genocide Convention featured as an

280

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

answer to the inquiry that the Foreign Office had received from the British Embassy in Burundi in February 1964. The Embassy was wondering if the talk of genocide being presently committed in neighboring Rwanda fit the UN definition (doc. 375). The Foreign Office kept inquiring if the Home Office’s position on accession had changed, and the latter as consistently replied that it did not (doc. 378). To state otherwise, argued the Home Office, would only “raise false hopes and cause consequential embarrassment” (doc. 379). But the political climate was actually changing. In October 1964, after the thirteen years of Conservative rule in Britain, the Labour Party came to power. The incoming Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in April 1964 on the campaign trail expressed intention to accede to the Genocide Convention. Barnett Janner immediately capitalized on the Prime Minister’s statement (doc. 380). Beginning in the summer of 1965, the Foreign Office had focused on one particular issue in an attempt to reach an agreement with the Home Office. The issue at stake was “extradition of political offenders on charges dressed up as genocide.” As a solution, the Foreign Office proposed requesting in each such case the consent of the Attorney General (doc. 381). The information passed to the Law Officers’ Department concerning ratification of/accession to the Genocide Convention by foreign countries was as follows. As of September 1965 all Commonwealth countries, with the exception of New Zealand and Ireland (which had lost that status in 1949), had done so. The Soviet Union had ratified the convention with reservations. US Ratification was conditional upon approval by the Senate and the clarification of state jurisdiction versus federal/international jurisdiction (doc. 382). In late 1965 and early 1966, the question of UK accession to the Genocide Convention became linked to that of the establishment of an International Criminal Court (doc. 383). The plan for the ICC had stumbled over the definition of international crime, namely the lack of consensus as to what constituted “aggression” and which specific offenses “against the peace and security of mankind” should be codified (doc. 384). Why not then start with the crime of genocide, and later expand the jurisdiction of the ICC—suggested one parliamentarian (doc. 385). The Foreign Office offered a number of arguments against a permanent genocide tribunal, yet suggested keeping a “fairly open mind on this” (docs. 386–87). A more detailed analysis from February 1966 revealed that “no delegation has done more than the United Kingdom over the years to express doubts about the practicability of this scheme” (doc. 388). Meanwhile, after several years, the Home Office came to finally evaluate the Foreign Office’s compromise proposal from 1965 that rested the ultimate decision in each extradition case with the Attorney General. Having reviewed, in May 1968, extradition cases of the past twenty years, the Home Office concluded that none of them would have been affected through UK accession to the Genocide Convention (doc. 389). The path to UK accession had thus been cleared, and the United Kingdom eventually became a party to the genocide treaty, on January 30, 1970.



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

281

No. 366 Hiag Akmakjian Requests the UK Mission to the United Nations to Provide Him with Relevant Information on Genocide and the Reasons for UK Non-Accession to the Convention, January 8, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/1 8 January 1962 To the Charge d’Affaires of Her Majesty’s Mission to the United Nations Dear Sir, I am engaged in preparing for publication a history of modern genocide (since 1900), and I would therefore be much indebted to you for any documentary literature you may have. The subject is assuredly one of great interest to all members of the United Nations, and yet it is one about which the public is in relative ignorance. There have in recent years been rather more extraordinary instances of the commission of the crime, and many persons are aware of those notable instances. However, there have also been occurrences of genocide on a somewhat less spectacular scale which for a brief time only were brought to the attention of the world in the daily newspapers of some countries and were then soon forgotten. Since one of the purposes of this book is to examine the causes of genocide and to see what impels man to immolate his species, all instances of the crime are pertinent to the text – would indeed form the basis of the text. Any information or help that your government is willing to furnish would be much appreciated – pamphlets, books, papers, statements, speeches; a bibliography of available sources, in particular those which hold interest for your government; and the names of persons who may be able, through interview, to supply material which perhaps does not exist in published form. In the case of the United Kingdom, since Her Majesty’s government has neither signed nor acceded to the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, it would be of extra interest to know the official reasons for its position. Are those reasons ones purely of legal technicality? Or does the United Kingdom’s abstention signify an apprehension over some unusual difficulty in applying the general substance of the convention to specific sovereign laws? Or are the reasons other? I would be quite grateful for your cooperation in this project. Sincerely yours, Hiag Akmakjian1

Hiag Akmakjian (b. 1926), an Armenian American author with wide professional interests. Apparently, his proposed book never been completed.

1

282

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 367 The UK Mission to the United Nations Ambivalent about Hiag Akmakjian’s Request for Information, January 12, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/1 January 12, 1962 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, New York UNCLASSIFIED My dear Francis,1 I enclose a copy of a letter dated January 8, which has been received here from a Mr. Hiag Akmakjian who states that he is preparing for publication a history of modern genocide, and asks for our “co-operation in this project.” I do not know anything about Mr. Akmakjian. It is in any case, obvious that we should not be able to give him any reasons, other than those which may already have been stated and published, for the fact that the United Kingdom has neither signed nor acceded to the Genocide Convention. Equally obviously, we would not be prepared (we may be able) to give him the names of persons, “through interview” to supply material which does not exist in published form. It is, however, possible that we could draw Mr. Akmakjian’s attention to any statement made in Parliament (e.g. in answer to P.Q.’s) about the Genocide Convention, and that we could give him a bibliography of books, articles etc., published in England about the Genocide Convention or on the subject of genocide. I am, I must confess, rather reluctant to suggest the latter since it would seem that any bona fide research student ought to be able to compile a bibliography of this kind for himself without our help. I should be grateful for your views as to what help we could give to Mr. Hiag Akmakjian, if any. Yours ever, Joyce (J.A.C. Gutteridge)

No. 368 Joint Memorandum Outlines the Arguments of the Foreign Office and the Home Office Pro and Counter UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, TPQ January 18, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/5 REDRAFT Likely Francis A. Vallat, FO’s legal adviser.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

283

THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE (Brief for the Secretary of State) The attached Joint Memorandum by the Secretary of State at the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sets out the arguments for and against accession by the United Kingdom to the Genocide Convention. 2.  The Convention was drafted by a Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in consequence of the Assembly’s resolution of 1946 declaring genocide a crime under International Law. It was unanimously adopted at the Third Session of the General Assembly in December 1948. The U.K. delegate then made it clear that his vote should not be taken as committing H.M.G. to making changes in British law if such changes were necessary to make the Convention effective in this country, nor should it be considered as prejudicial to our established tradition and inalienable right to grant asylum. A decision whether or not to accede to the Convention, which came into force in January 1951 and which has received so far 65 ratifications, has been delayed by a long-standing disagreement between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. (Article VII of the Convention sees the implication of. It was therefore decided to seek an opinion of the Law Offices, which have now been given and supports the Home Office view that accession to the Convention would require the introduction of legislation [?] which might limit H.M.G’s liberty to [illegible] in the matter of granting political asylum) 3. From the Foreign Office point of view it is in principle desirable that the United Kingdom should become a party to this Convention. H.M.G. have repeatedly confirmed in public their abhorrence of the crime of genocide and would normally be expected to become a party to a Convention for its suppression and punishment. 3.  The objections to becoming a party to the Convention are however twofold.1 In the first place while most of the crimes covered by the definition of genocide in the Convention are already offenses under English law, it would be necessary to create some new offences to satisfy the whole of the definition. This would be difficult because of the broad and loose language used to define genocide in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In the second place Article 7 of the Convention lays down that genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Law Officers have given it as their view that it would therefore be necessary to legislate so as to exclude genocide from political crimes in respect to which extradition would be refused. The first objection alone would not be fatal because there are precedents for legislation to cover this kind of case, but the second objection is very strong as such legislation would involve our binding abandoning our traditional liberty to grant asylum to persons because accused of purely political crimes. 4. It has been suggested that H.M.G. might accede to the Convention at the same time making reservations in respect of Article 7. But the weight of argument is against this course, and it would be contrary to our general policy. Moreover, and a reservation on Article 7 would contradict the purpose of the Convention. Moreover, we have criticised Soviet bloc States for making reservations in respect of Article 9, Error in the original document: the number “3” given twice.

1

284

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

which requires the submission of disputes regarding the interpretation of the Convention to the International Court of Justice. 5.  The principle argument in favour of ratification is that the crime of genocide is so abominable that we might be open to criticism as long as we do not accede. There is, however, from the U.N. point of view no compelling reason why we should become a party and our accession will make little difference to the situation in fact. We shall also be in good company because some of among those countries which have not yet acceded are the United States, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Moreover it is unlikely that a decision not to accede, provided a detailed explanation of the reasons is given, will arouse much diverse adverse comment in this country – except possibly from Sir Barnett Janner – Finally, this and it will not of course be the first Convention to which H.M.G. has been unable to accede because they have not, for domestic legal reasons, been able to accept its legal binding objections in full. Finally it is particularly undesirable that any step should be taken to weaken the extradition acts while we are in the process of negotiating a Treaty and arranging for the High Commission Territories with the South Africans on the future arrangements for the return of fugitives between the High Commission Territories and South Africa and between the United Kingdom and its other departments and South Africa. It is important that we should not surrender political offenders to South African and the South Africans will be looking for ways of getting round this by alleging “non political” offences in such cases. 6.  It is not recommended therefore that we press for accession and the Secretary of State may therefore wish to accept the Home Office view that H.M.G. should not become a party to the Convention on the understanding that a detailed statement if will be made in the House giving the reasons for this decision. * * * February 9, 1962 I do not wish to dissent from the recommendation, but I am not very happy about the way the draft submission is presented. 2.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 seem to be all right. Then the thread is lost because the history and the objections to accession come before the main consideration of policy. I should have thought that it would be better to say in paragraph 3 that, from the Foreign Office point of view, it is in principle desirable that the United Kingdom should become a party to the Genocide Convention. Her Majesty’s Government have repeatedly affirmed in public their abhorrence of the crime of genocide and would normally be expected to become a party to a Convention for its suppression and punishment. 3.  Then one might deploy the objections, namely (i)  that, while most of the crimes covered by the definition of genocide in the Convention are already offences under English law, it would be necessary to create some new offences to satisfy the whole of the definition. This would be difficult because of the broad and loose language used to define genocide in the Convention; and



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

285

(ii)  that, in the light of the Law Officers’ Opinion, it would be necessary to legislate so as to exclude genocide from political crimes in respect of which extradition could be refused. 4.  The first objection alone would not be fatal because there are precedents for legislation to cover this kind of case. But the second objection is very strong. It would involve abandoning our traditional liberty to grant asylum to persons accused of purely political crimes. 5. It might then be said that on balance we do not recommend pressing for accession. It might then be pointed out that failure to accede would be unlikely to meet with much criticism except from Sir Barnett Janner. 6.  The above is not intended to be a redraft of the submission, but an indication of the line which I think it might follow. (F.A. Vallat)

No. 369 A Longstanding Disagreement between the Home Office and the Foreign Office Should Not Impede a Final Decision on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, January 18–23, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/5 Minutes January 18, 1962 GENOCIDE CONVENTION A long standing disagreement between the Home Office and the Foreign Office has prevented a decision whether H.M.G. should become a party to this Convention which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. The Home Office maintain that accession would require the introduction of legislation which might prejudice our established principle of refusing to extradite persons accused of offences which were not criminal but political. The Foreign Office view has been that accession to the Convention would merely assimilate genocide to the category of ordinary crime for extradition purposes and would leave intact our right to grant asylum if we wished to do so in any particular case. 2. There has been a certain amount of Parliamentary pressure in favour of accession to the Convention and our inability to give a clear answer one way or another has become embarrassing. We accordingly made a last attempt in November with representatives of the Home Office, the Law Officers Department and the Lord Chancellor’s Office, at a meeting under the chairmanship of the Legal Adviser, to resolve the divergent Departmental views. When this failed, it was agreed that the question

286

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

should be submitted to the Law Officers. The Law Officers decided, in effect, in favour of the Home Office view. There is, therefore, now no question but that accession would require legislation and weaken the protection given under our existing extradition law to political offenders.1 The question now to be settled is whether: (i) to decide to accede to the Convention and to agree that legislation be introduced accordingly; or (ii) to decide not to accede and to agree that an announcement to that effect be made in Parliament. The background and the arguments of both sides are contained in the attached draft memorandum which it is proposed should be submitted jointly by the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to the Home Affairs Committee.2 This memorandum has been cleared at the Departmental level with the Home Office and by the Legal Adviser. It is also being submitted to the Home Secretary. 3.  I recommend that the draft memorandum should be approved for submission to the Home Affairs Committee. The Department will in due course submit a brief for discussion in the Committee. (P.H. Scott) * * * January 19, 1962 I hope that nothing will be done to weaken the Extradition Act while we are negotiating a treaty and arrangements for the High Commission Territories with the South Africans. This is a point for the brief. [Signed] R. Stevens * * * January 23, 1962 The paper seems alright but whoever is going to H. A. Committee only to be fully briefed with the legal arguments. [Signed] Edward Heath *** [no date] I agree the paper. I don’t feel strongly. As long as the U.S. doesn’t accede we are in respectable company. The views of the Lord Chancellor and [?] Leader of H of C. will interest me. [Signed] H [?]

Hastily written marginal notes reflect on the semantics of the underlined text. See doc. no. 368.

1 2



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

287

No. 370 The British Foreign Office Refuses to Assist Hiag Akmakjian in His Request, February 8, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/1 February 8, 1962 Draft letter to Miss Joyce Gutteridge, NEW YORK Thank you for your letter of January 12 about Mr. Akmakjian’s projected publication of a history of modern genocide.1 I entirely agree with you that Mr. Akmakjian should be able to compile a bibliography for himself and as Library point out he was in New York which has almost the best bibliographical sources in the world. Moreover there is no authoritative British work on genocide. Apparently the best available study is by a Dutchman Pieter N. Drost called “The Crimes of States Book II: Genocide”, which was published in Leyden in 1959 by A.W. Sythoff. This publication has an extensive bibliography at the back.2 2.  As for H.M.G.’s attitude to genocide we are reluctant to refer Mr. Akmakjian to the speeches and statements in the House because these so far have been limited to saying why how H.M.G. have been unable to make up their mind about acceding to the Convention. For your own information it is very likely that a decision will be reached in the near future and in that event a statement will be made in the House, a copy of which we will send you to pass on to Mr. Akmakjian. [Signed] F. A. Vallat

No. 371 Barnett Janner Should Be Informed about the Consistent Position of the British Home Office against UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, April 27, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/4 Minutes April 27, 1962 The Genocide Convention The position is that the Home Affairs Committee decided as long ago as March 16 that we should not accede to this Convention and that a full explanation of the reasons for this decision should be made in Parliament. See doc. nos. 366–367. Pieter N. Drost’s 1959 study is the first ever comprehensive analysis of the Genocide Convention, followed by Nehemiah Robinson’s The Genocide Convention: A Commentary a year later. These two books effectively launched genocide scholarship.

1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

288

2.  It has been agreed at desk level between ourselves and the Home Office that the best procedure would be to inform Sir Barnet Janner, who has been the main, indeed the only, champion of our accession to this Convention, privately of this decision and to suggest that he may care to put down a Question for written answer. A written answer would allow a more detailed statement of our reasons for not acceding than an oral answer. 3.  It was also agreed that the Home Office would prepare a draft which would serve as a basis of a personal letter to Sir Barnett Janner and the eventual statement to be made in the House. In spite of regular reminders the Home Office have not yet produced the promised draft. It is important that there should be no further delay as Sir Barnett Janner may put down a Question when Parliament re-assembles. This would mean that we would lose the tactical advantage of taking the initiative in informing Sir Barnett Janner personally and thus possibly dissuading him from calling for an adjournment debate. Moreover, Mr. Thomas in his speech in the adjournment debate on November 8 promised that the House would be informed as soon as a decision was reached. Six weeks have now elapsed. 4.  The draft has been, I understand, with Mr. Graham Harrison for the last three or four weeks and I suggest that Mr. Wilson may care to give him a ring and ask him if he can let us have it as soon as possible. (E.E. Key) * * * May 22, 1962 2.  On May 15 I again asked Mr. Moriarty of the Home Office to remind Mr. Graham Harrison that we were still awaiting his draft but there has still been no reaction. 3.  Nine weeks have now elapsed since the Home Affairs Committee took the decision not to accede, although, on the occasion of the last adjournment debate, Mr. Thomas promised that the House would be informed when as soon as a decision was reached. 4.  It is three weeks since Mr. Wilson reminded Mr. Harrison that the Home Office had undertaken to prepare a draft announcement and received a promise that this would be sent to us as soon as possible. I do not think further reminders at my level will be of any avail and perhaps Mr. Wilson will may care to write to Mr. Harrison. I attach a draft. (E.E. Key)

No. 372 The British Foreign Office Decides to Inform Barnett Janner of the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 2, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/12 July 2, 1962



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

289

CONFIDENTIAL THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION The Home Affairs Committee recently decided that the United Kingdom should not accede to this Convention, and that an announcement explaining the reason for this decision should be made in Parliament. 2. The question of procedure for handling this announcement must now be decided. Sir Barnett Janner has always taken a keen interest in this question and it would be courteous to inform him of the decision before the announcement is made in the House and to suggest that he may wish to put down a Question. In order to reconcile the need for giving a full explanation and the difficulty of making such an explanation in an oral answer, it is suggested that the oral answer be short and a full statement be circulated in the Official Report. 3.  I attach a draft letter to Sir Barnett Janner, a draft oral reply and a draft statement which have been cleared with the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor’s Office and the Law Officer’s Department and the Legal Adviser. (P. H. Scott)

No. 373 Edward R.G. Heath of the British Foreign Office Informs Barnett Janner of the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 4, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/12 Draft July 4, 1962 In the adjournment debate on November 8 last year on the Genocide Convention, Peter Thomas promised that the House would be informed as soon as a decision had been reached on the question whether the United Kingdom should accede to the Convention. This decision has now been taken and we are proposing to make an announcement in the House in the near future that the United Kingdom will not accede. In view of the interest you have always shown in this question I felt it right to inform you before the announcement is made. I will not go into a detailed explanation now, as you will be familiar with the difficulties from the two Adjournment debates we have had. These stem, of course, from Article VII of the Convention. I need hardly add that the very nature of the crime of genocide is so appalling that the decision not to accede to a Convention intended to outlaw it was only taken after the most exhaustive consideration of every aspect of the question. We concluded, with the utmost regret that the difficulties in the way of accession are over-riding.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

290

We consider that the Government’s decision would be best conveyed to the House in the form of an answer to a Question. It occurred to me that you might yourself wish to put down a Question for this purpose and I enclose a draft question which, in that event, you might like to make use of. I should explain that a detailed statement of the reason for the Government’s decision would be too long for an Oral Answer and so I would propose to circulate it in the Official Report. [Signed] Edward Heath

No. 374 Barnett Janner Replies to Edward R. H. Heath of the British Foreign Office, Expresses Disappointment about the Decision of the UK Government Not to Accede to the Genocide Convention, July 10, 1962 NA, F.O. 371/166847/UN1643/12 July 10, 1962 Dear Ed, I thank you for your letter of the 4th July. I need hardly to say I was very disappointed to hear that the Government was not prepared to accede to the Genocide Convention. I have put the question on the Order Paper in accordance with your suggestion. I still hope that after having examined your full reply I shall be able to convince you of the importance of our acceding to the Convention. [Signed] Barnett Janner

No. 375 The British Embassy in Burundi Inquires with the Foreign Office whether or Not the Present Outburst of Violence in Rwanda Could be Qualified as Genocide, February 21, 1964 NA, F.O. 371/178197/UN1648/1 To United Nations Department of the Foreign Office February 21, 1964 Dear Department, In Rwanda there has been a good deal of talk of recent time about genocide.1 We have been told that there is a United Nations definition for genocide, together with Tutsi refugees in Burundi in December 1963 launched a military operation into Rwanda. In response, the Hutu-controlled government introduced a policy of terror, killing within two months an estimated 10,000 Tutsi in the country.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

291

rules for determining whether genocide is in fact being carried out. We should be grateful for any information you may have on the subject. 2. We are sending copies of this letter to the UK Mission at New York, and WCAD.1 Yours ever, CHANCERY

No. 376 The British Foreign Office Dismisses the Latest Argument of Barnett Janner That Public Veneration of Hitler Warrants UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 28, 1964 NA, F.O. 371/178197/UN1648/2 Parliamentary Question * 9 Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the new evidence recently disclosed in Germany regarding the policy of genocide as carried out by Hitler’s government, and the decision of the London Sessions Appeal Court on 7th February 1964, that a man who uttered public incitement to genocide, by shouting his approval of Hitler’s policy, was not guilty of an offence, if he will now reconsider his policy regarding Her Majesty’s Government’s adherence to the United Nations Convention on Genocide. February 28, 1964 Sir Barnett Janner has repeatedly pressed for the United Kingdom to accede to the Genocide Convention. 2.  The matter was last considered by Ministers in 1962, when the Home Affairs Committee confirmed the previous decision not to accede. The reason for this decision was explained in a Parliamentary Answer by Mr. Heath on July 18, 1962. 3. The new evidence recently disclosed in Germany which Sir Barnett Janner mentions in his Question is presumably a reference to the war crime trials now taking place, particularly that of the former S.S. cavalry officer Hans Walter Zech-Nenntwich accused of mass murder of Polish Jews. According to a press report Zech-Nenntwich deserted via Sweden to Britain in February 1943 and was brought to North RhineWestphalia by the British after the war. 4.  The Home Office have informed the Department that the case at the London Sessions Appeal Court mentioned by Sir Barnett Janner involved a member of the National Socialist Movement called Martin Webster who was reported to the police last August for shouting “Hitler was right” etc. outside Notting Hill Gate tube station The Foreign Office’s reply from March 6 referred to Article II of the Genocide Convention and stated that the United Kingdom was not a party to the treaty, without dwelling on the present situation in Rwanda.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

292

while selling copies of the Movement’s paper. Webster was charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act at Marylebone Magistrates’ Court on January 10 and was found guilty and bound over for twelve months in his own recognizance for £50. He appealed and appeared before the London Sessions Appeals Committee of February 7. The Deputy Chairman said: “We are not satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that any breach of the peace was likely to occur and in those circumstances this appeal will be allowed with 10 guineas cost.” 5.  The Home Office have advised the Home Secretary that this case should not be taken further and does not reflect either way on the efficacy of the law. 6.  Neither of the two new circumstances mentioned by Sir Barnett Janner appear to call for the reconsideration of Ministers’ decision of 1962 not to accede to the Convention. A draft reply is submitted. (S. Falle)

No. 377 The Position of the British Home Office on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention Remains Unchanged, November 25, 1964 NA, F.O. 371/178384/UN1648/7 November 25, 1964 RESTRICTED

U.N. Genocide Convention

The Minister of State has been asked informally by Sir Barnett Janner, M.P., what the position of Her Majesty’s Government now is about ratification of the Genocide Convention of the U.N. 2.  We asked the Home Office to look at this question again and they have replied, at official level, that the situation remains unaltered, i.e. that we cannot ratify for the reasons given in the statement circulated by Mr. Heath in the Official Report for July 18, 1962 (UN 1643/7). I believe, however, that Sir B. Janner has stated in conversation with the Minister of State that he received some assurance from Mr. Harold Wilson before the General Election that he would consider ratifying the convention. 3.  If we are able to take this further with the Home Office, it can only be done at Ministerial level. I wonder, however, whether it might not be best for Sir B. Janner to be advised to discuss the matter himself with the Home Secretary. It is essentially a matter for him and the Home Affairs Committee. 4.  Perhaps we could discuss with Mr. Thomson when he has seen the papers. (K.R.C. Pridham)



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

293

No. 378 The Foreign Office Inquires if the Home Office Has Changed Its Position on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 19, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/1 RESTRICTED To P. Beadle, Home Office1 February 19, 1965. Mr. W.T. Williams M.P. has put down the following question for reply on March 1: “To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty’s Government will now ratify the Genocide Convention”. 2.  This question last arose in November when Sir Barnett Janner M.P. asked the Minister of State informally what the position now was. At that time Sir Barnett mentioned in conversation with Mr. Thomson that he received some assurance from Mr. Harold Wilson before the General Election that he would consider ratifying the Convention. The Minister of State advised Sir Barnett Janner to discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. 3.  I do not know whether he has in fact done so. I would be grateful, however, if you could let me know by Thursday, February 25 what the attitude of your Department now is to this Convention. From the point of view of our United Nations policy there might be some advantage in saying that we were considering the matter again in order to discover whether there was any solution to the difficulties which the Convention had always appeared to raise. The U.N. Committee on the International Co-operation Year has recommended that states should consider before the end of 1965 whether they can ratify this, among other, Conventions. A similar recommendation is likely to arise in connexion with the International Year for Human Rights. (K.R.C. Pridham)

No. 379 The British Home Office Considers Inadvisable Raising False Hopes on UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, February 24, 1965  NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/1 February 24, 1965 The correct name of the recipient is Peter Beedle, head of Probation and After-Care Department in the Home Office.

1

294

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Dear Pridham, I am replying to your letter of 19th February, about the possibility of ratifying the Genocide Convention, as Beedle is currently enjoying a short spell of annual leave.1 As far as can be ascertained, Sir Barnett Janner has not spoken to the Home Secretary about this matter. I have consulted the Home Office Division concerned and I am advised that we have had no occasion to change our attitude toward ratification. As has always been acknowledged, Article VII of the Convention gives rise to acute practical difficulties of implementation, which are not affected by the change of Government. We feel, moreover, that it would be inadvisable to say that the matter is being reconsidered, since such a statement is likely to do no more than raise false hopes and cause consequential embarrassment. Yours sincerely, [Signed] J.E. Johnson

No. 380 The Foreign Office Urges the Home Office to Support UK Accession to the Genocide Convention in view of Prime Minister’s Affirmative Statements, TPQ March 10, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/2 CONFIDENTIAL MINISTER OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT United Nations Genocide Convention The previous Government were repeatedly pressed in Parliament to accede to the United Nations Convention on Genocide but, for the reasons set out in a Parliamentary answer by Mr. Heath on 18 July 1962 (Hansard, columns 422–424) they decided not to do so. Barnett Janner and Tom Williams put down Questions for reply in the House on 1 March to which officials of our two Departments originally proposed the standard negative reply. Janner, however, had told me that, before the Election, the Prime Minister had said that a Labour Government intended acceding to the Convention. In the circumstances, I thought that the question of our accession must be considered by the present Government before a substantive reply was given and, in agreement with your Department, my answer simply said, therefore, that the question was still under consideration. I have since traced two relevant statements by the Prime Minister. The first occurred in a speech which he made to the Society of Labour Lawyers in the Temple on 20 April 1964. The relevant extract reads “In my view too we ought to ratify the Genocide Convention, which still awaits a British See doc. no. 378.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

295

signature.” The second, to which Janner himself drew my attention, was a reply to one of a number of questions published in the “Jewish Chronicle” on 2 October 1964. In answer to the question: “Would your party sign the Genocide Treaty?”, the Prime Minister replied: “Yes – I said in my speech on April 20, 1964, that we intend to sign the Genocide Convention.” The objections to United Kingdom accession have always been Home Office ones. From the Foreign Office point of view, there would be advantage in acceding to the Convention. May I therefore ask you to consider the matter afresh with a view to the present Government’s decision being announced in Parliament fairly soon? Sir B. Janner will undoubtedly continue to put down Questions on the subject. You may feel that the matter should go to the Home Affairs Committee. GEORGE THOMSON

No. 381 The Foreign Office Dwells on the Issue of Extradition of Political Offenders in the effort to Overcome Apprehension of the Home Office to Accede to the Genocide Convention, August 20, 1965  NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/6 August 20, 1965 (dispatched) Genocide Convention We spoke on the telephone a few weeks ago about the interposition of the Attorney General in the extradition procedure in genocide cases.1 This was seen as a possible way to prevent abuse of the Convention by safeguarding ourselves against requests for the extradition of political offenders on charges dressed up as genocide. An example would be a request, from, say, Poland in respect of an alleged genocidal murder in a concentration camp where the motives and circumstances appear to have been purely political. What I have in mind is that the Bill to give effect to the Genocide Convention might provide that before the Home Secretary sets in motion the extradition machinery in the case of a charge coming within the definition of genocide, the consent of the Attorney General would be required. The consent would normally be given but might be withheld, for example, where the alleged offense was not one of “genocide” within the meaning of the Convention. A refusal in the case of the Fugitive Offenders Act would have to be justified to the requesting Government in terms of the Genocide

Elwyn Jones (1909–1989), Attorney General for England and Wales from 1964 to 1970.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

296

Convention; a refusal in the case of the Extradition Acts would have to be justified in terms of both the Convention and the bilateral Extradition Treaty. I should be grateful for your views on this suggestion. In particular, the exact role of the Attorney General and nature of his relationship with the Home Secretary require careful thought. [Signed] VA

No. 382 The British Foreign Office Summarizes the Positions of the Commonwealth Countries and the United States on the Genocide Convention, September 21, 1965 NA, L.O. 2/954 21 September, 1965 Dear Hetherington,

Genocide Convention

You asked for information on three points: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the reservation made by the Soviet Union; similar reservations to Article IX were made by the other East-European Governments. 2.  As regards the Commonwealth, the position is as follows: Parties Australia 8 July, 1949 Canada 3 September, 1952 Ceylon 12 October, 1950 Ghana 24 December, 1958 India 27 August, 1959 Pakistan 12 October, 1957 New Zealand signed, but has not ratified. (The Irish Republic has neither signed nor ratified.)1 3.  The following information on the position of the United States Government has been obtained over the telephone from a member of the United States Embassy. The official position is that the Convention is pending business before the Senate. Presidential appeals have been made from time to time, notably by the late President Kennedy, for this Convention, along with some other conventions in the field of human rights, to be given the consent of the Senate. The Convention has not been rejected and the principles meet with the approval of the Federal Government. The exact position is that the rights of the States are involved. There has only been one piece of Federal

Ireland, by means of formally becoming a republic in 1949, ceased to be part of the British Commonwealth.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

297

legislation on homicide – the Act on the assassination of the President. To seek to pass a Federal Bill in order to give effect to the Genocide Convention would meet with opposition from the States; that opposition would be centered on the Senate. There are, therefore, two reasons for the non-ratification by the United States Government: firstly, the Convention awaits the advice and consent of the Senate; and secondly, the laws in force in the fifty-one districts within the United States are not broadly in line with the requirements of the Convention. Yours sincerely, David Anderson (D.H. Anderson) * * * Reservations of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics “As regards article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to the dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court’s jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision”. “As regards article XII: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories”.

No. 383 Patrick Armstrong of the Parliamentary Group for World Government Inquires if Prospective UK Accession to the Genocide Convention Has Bearing on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, November 18, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/14 November 18, 1965 Dear George [Thomson], Congratulations on taking moves to get H.M.G. to accede to the U.N. Genocide Convention. I was delighted to hear about this in the press. Could it, do you think be a step towards the establishment of the International Penal Tribunal, envisaged under

298

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

the Convention? I feel you may need one for Mr. Ian Smith, should he indulge in a little genocide during the coming weeks.1 I had a most interesting trip round Africa and found many kindred spirits, in both political and educational fields. It should be possible to establish groupings in four or five countries to be in touch with us. Patrick Armstrong

No. 384 Minister of State George Thomson Explains to Patrick Armstrong That Setting an International Criminal Court Has Stalled over the Problem of Defining the Crime of Aggression and Drafting a Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, December 8, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/14 December 8, 1965 Thank you for your letter of 18 November about the Genocide Convention. You asked whether our decision that the United Kingdom should accede to the Genocide Convention would be a step towards the establishment of the International Penal Tribunal envisaged under the Convention. I expect you know something of the previous history of this question. It was of course considered by a number of United Nations bodies in the early nineteen fifties and a draft statute setting up an international criminal court was prepared. This draft was before the General Assembly in 1954, 1956, 1957 when the consensus was that the whole question was related to the problem of defining aggression and to the drafting of a code of offences against the peace and security of mankind. As you probably know the United Nations has not been able to make much progress with these matters. The basic problem is that for the effective functioning of such a court it would first be necessary to define what constitutes international crime and it is unfortunately unlikely that much useful progress could at present be made in this respect. The Government would naturally wish to play a full part in any further discussion in the United Nations about the establishment of a court but I think that the difficulties mentioned above are very real. (George Thomson)

Ian Smith (1919–2007), a rightwing politician who between 1964 and 1979 served as Prime Minister of Rhodesia (nowadays Zimbabwe). On November 11, 1965, the Smith-led government unilaterally proclaimed independence and for the next fourteen years waged a bloody counterinsurgency war.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

299

No. 385 Patrick Armstrong Disavows the Link Drawn by George Thomson, Suggests an International Criminal Court May Initially Deal Only with the Crime of Genocide, December 10, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/14(A) December 10, 1965 Dear George, Thank you for your letter of 8th December about establishing an International Penal Tribunal under the Genocide Convention to which H.M.G. is proposing to accede. It does not seem to me that the problem of defining aggression or even drafting the code of offences against the peace and security of mankind need to be an obstacle to the creation of an International Criminal Court. Why can we not take as the definition of an offence which will be punished by the Court that which is mentioned in Article 3 of the Genocide Convention? In the first instance there is no need to go beyond that. As you will know, the Danes in 1955 adopted a law for this purpose. H.M.G., without having exactly the same text, could surely do the same. Then, by giving an International Criminal Court such a limited task on which surely nearly everyone would be agreed, just as they agreed about Genocide being a crime, it might first get the Court established and it might later be possible to enlarge its jurisdiction when the times are more appropriate for getting agreement on the different problems which you have mentioned. I do hope you will have another look at this. Yours, Patrick Armstrong

No. 386 Arthur J. Coles of the British Foreign Office Suggests Keeping an Open Mind on the Issue of an International Criminal Court when Filing a Formal Reply to Patrick Armstrong, December 17, 1965 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/13 December 17, 1965 CONFIDENTIAL International Penal Tribunal In reply to Mr. Thomson’s letter of 8 December, Mr. Armstrong is now asking a more specific question: why not set up a court to deal initially only with the crime of

300

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

genocide as it is defined in the Genocide Convention? Our argument that a prerequisite for an international court is international criminal law is obviously not so strong in answer to this more limited question. 2.  Consultation of the General Assembly debates for 1948 (on the adoption of the Convention) and for 1954 and 1957 (on defining aggression and the draft code of offences against peace and security) reveal that there was little enthusiasm for an international court (though a handful of states, notably the Netherlands, strongly advocated it.) The strongest arguments against a genocide tribunal seem to be: (a)  Acts of genocide committed by individuals without the support of their governments do not require an international court; those committed by individuals who are supported by their governments are very difficult to deal with because governments would not surrender their nationals except in special circumstances e.g. after a revolution. Considerable problems would arise regarding the arresting of criminals, bringing them to justice, finding and compelling the attendance of witnesses and executing sentences (cf. statements by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in paragraphs 22 and 26 of records of 426th meeting of 6th Committee on 23 November, 1954.) In 1948 Sir Hartley Shawcross told the Sixth Committee (page 17): “Individual genocide is already punishable by the laws of all countries, whereas genocide committed by states is punishable only by war.” (b)  The usual reluctance of states to surrender sovereignty (a more general though not different argument). 3.  I think we need to keep a fairly open mind on this because there is a pretty high chance of U.N. interest being revived in 1966 by the Human Rights Commission’s consideration of “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.” With the exception of the Communist countries the conception of state sovereignty has become less rigid since 1957 and there may now be more support for a court. I am impressed by the practical arguments in 2(a) above (cf. for example the problems which would arise in the cases of Iraq and the Sudan) and suggest we stress these in our reply. But we might also say that we shall be taking another look at the question in view of the War Crimes item. This is very much subject to your views. 4. I know nothing of the Danish law mentioned in paragraph 2 of the letter. A.J. Coles

No. 387 George Thomson Sees Practical Difficulties in Implementing Patrick Armstrong’s Suggestion with regard to an International Criminal Court, January 3, 1966 NA, F.O. 371/183639/US1641/13 January 3, 1966 Thank you for your letter of 10 December suggesting the establishment of an international criminal court which would initially deal only with cases of genocide



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

301

as defined in the Genocide Convention. I agree that in this limited case the problem stressed in my earlier letter of 8 December, namely the absence of agreement on what should constitute the jurisdiction of the court, does not arise. When this specific question was discussed in the General Assembly in earlier years the United Kingdom representatives stressed certain practical difficulties which seem to me to have lost little of their validity in the ensuing years. First, acts of genocide committed by individuals without the support of their governments do not require an international court; while those committed by individuals who are supported by their governments are very difficult to deal with because in such a case governments would not surrender their nationals except in special circumstances, e.g. after a revolution or a military defeat. Then, since most if not all of the parties to the Genocide Convention, who now number 67, will have provided, as we intend to do, for trial by national courts, it must be doubted whether states would see sufficient practical need to justify the establishment of an international penal tribunal to try, at any rate in the first instance, no more than the offences described in the Convention. Only if they thought there was a real prospect of agreement in the reasonably near future on the definition of other offences justiciable by such a tribunal would they be likely to accept that there was a practical requirement; and for the reasons set out in my last letter the chances of their being persuaded of this are not good. There may be another chance to test international opinion about this next year when the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations consider the question of war crimes and crimes against humanity. We shall be interested to hear the views of other governments on the question of an international court, if it is raised, but I am bound to say that I think the practical objections set out above are weighty. (GEORGE THOMSON)

No. 388 Kenneth R. C. Pridham of the British Foreign Office Enumerates Factors against UK Support for an International Criminal Court, February 23, 1966 NA, F.O. 371/189932/US1641/4 PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION for ORAL answer on Feb. 28th La* Mr. E.L. Mallalieu (Brigg): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations on the Human Rights Commission to raise at its forthcoming session the question of creating an International Penal Tribunal in pursuance of Article VI of the Genocide Convention, to which her Majesty’s Government is now to accede.

302

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

February 23, 1966 International Penal Tribunal: P.Q.’s by Mr. Mallalieu and Mr. Hooson Article 6 of the Genocide Convention provides that persons shall be tried either by a domestic tribunal or “by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” Mr. Mallalieu asks whether we will raise the question of an international penal tribunal in the Human Rights commission (opening 8 March); Mr. Hooson asks whether we will propose it in the United Nations generally. 2.  This question was the subject of correspondence at the end of last year between Mr. Thomson and Mr. Armstrong of the Parliamentary group for World Government, of which Mr. Mallalieu is the Chairman, and Mr. Hooson one of the Vice-Chairmen. 3. The question of setting up an International Court to try genocide was fully debated in the General Assembly in 1948 and later. There was little enthusiasm for it. The United Kingdom opposed the suggestion. The New York Mission, who have recently been consulted about this question, point out that no delegation has done more than the United Kingdom over the years to express doubts about the practicability of this scheme. We opposed it steadily and firmly from 1950 to 1957 under both Labour and Conservative administrations. We attacked it in the General Assembly, in the International Law Commission, and in the course of two Special Committees established by the General Assembly to consider this problem in 1952 and 1953. The main theme of our opposition was that the proposal was either unnecessary, because acts of genocide committed by individuals without the support of their governments did not require an international court; or impracticable, because those committed by individuals who are supported by their governments are very difficult to deal with since in such cases governments would not surrender their nationals. The Mission also consider that opinion generally in the United Nations has not progressed sufficiently on the question of conceding to an international body legal jurisdiction over individuals, to offer the project much prospect of success. They point out that the Africans, Asians and Latin Americans are still very sensitive about the U.N. intruding in their domestic legal affairs and are likely to be more so on the subject of genocide than they are on racial discrimination, which they insist upon treating as though it were a phenomenon mainly associated with Western colonial countries. They suggest we also take into account the possibility of our initiative being distorted by our adversaries into a purely anticolonial provision (as happened with the right of individual petition in the Convention on Racial Discrimination) e.g. by the tribunal being given automatic jurisdiction in respect of “Crimes Against Humanity” allegedly committed in colonial territories. 4.  Lord Caradon has telegraphed to say that he agrees with Sir K. Unwin’s letter which was prepared in his absence. He suggests however that in replying to the P.Q.s we should not give a final rejection but rather say that while we would be prepared to reconsider the proposal, we have in the past seen valid objections to it and we do not yet see how they could be overcome. The difficulties pointed out by the Mission are formidable and I recommend that their advice be accepted. I attach a draft reply and notes for supplementaries in this sense with which legal advisers agree.1 (K.R.C. Pridham) Pridham’s note is followed by two barely legible handwritten comments.

1



United Kingdom Inches Closer to Acceding to the Genocide Convention

303

* * *

NOTES FOR SUPPLEMENTARIES 1.  The basic problem is that acts of genocide committed by individuals without the support of their governments do not require an international court because they can be dealt with by domestic courts; those committed by individuals who are supported by their governments would be difficult for an international court to deal with because in such a case governments would be unlikely to surrender their nationals. 2.  The Human Rights Commission has a very full agenda and will almost certainly have no time to consider new items. It is possible that there will be some discussion of this question in connexion with an item on “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, if so we shall be interested to see whether the thinking of member states has advanced since this matter was last discussed in the United Nations and whether the practical difficulties which were then stressed seem to have lost any of their force. 3.  A draft Statute setting up an International Criminal Court was prepared in the United Nations in the early 1950s (made no progress) and a revised form of it was considered by the General Assembly in 1954, 1956 and 1957. The consensus was that the question was related both to the question of defining aggression and to the draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind; and that until the Assembly had reached decisions on these questions, that of an International Criminal Court should be deferred. The matter rests there. 4.  On the question of U.K. accession to the Genocide Convention I have nothing to add to my statement in the House on 15 November last. 5.  The provision in Article VI for persons charged with genocide to be tried by an international penal tribunal is an alternative to their trial by a domestic tribunal. Full implementation of the Convention does not therefore await the establishment of an international tribunal. 6.  There would be likely to be considerable problems regarding the arresting of criminals, bringing them to justice, finding and compelling the attendance of witnesses and executing sentences.

No. 389 Gordon Rudd of the British Home Office Concludes That No Extradition Case in the Past Twenty Years Would Have Been Affected through UK Accession to the Genocide Convention, May 15, 1968 NA, H.O. 291/1538 MINUTES May 15, 1968 1.  It seems likely that, since the Genocide Convention was drawn up as long ago as 1948, we shall be under some pressure, when the Genocide Convention

304

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Bill is introduced, to apply the legislation to offences committed before its date of introduction. 2.  It is not unusual, in the case of amendments of the law relating to fugitive offenders, to introduce changes with retrospective effect, and, although those changes have in some cases restricted the basis of return, which would not be the case so far as the Genocide Convention Bill is concerned, this has not always been so. 3.  In the circumstances, it has seemed prudent to review previous applications for the extradition (or other return) of persons for offences which, although not returnable in the past, might become so after the introduction of the new legislation. 4.  I have accordingly placed within (Doc. 1) a memorandum dealing with the applications which had been made of this country over the last twenty years which may fall within this category.1 This review suggests that, of the cases which have come to our notice in the past, there is none which would be likely to succeed, or even be pursued, if the Genocide Convention Bill were to be given retrospective effect. I have sent a copy of this memorandum to Mr. Hart (Legal Advisers) who is preparing the draft instructions to Parliamentary Counsel for the Bill. Gordon Rud

See Rudd’s report from May 13, 1968, “Genocide Convention Bill: Attempted Extradition for War Crimes,” in the same file.

1

XV

The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, 1970–77 (nos. 390–424)

A distinctive feature of American democracy, grassroots mobilization had effectively shaped a political discourse on the Genocide Convention in the United States. It was particularly true during the 1970s, when the consecutive administrations revived the issue of US ratification. The opponents of ratification were first to state their argument. Alfred Schweppe—a veteran member of American Bar Association (ABA), which had been at the forefront of the organized opposition—did not see any reason why it should change. Addressing President Richard Nixon in March 1970, Schweppe said he only knew of the “Hitler-Stalin-African-Asian type of genocide,” which he believed the present convention did not cover (doc. 390). In its reply to Schweppe, the State Department referred to President Nixon and his message to the Senate on February 19, 1970. Nixon stated that ratification of the Genocide Convention would be in the national interests of the United States. The State Department considered the text of the convention to be “reasonably clear” and rejected the suggestion to redraft it as unrealistic. It did not make much out of Soviet reservations and insisted that the “deletion of political groups from the coverage of the convention may help protect the United States from propaganda charges that the United States is coming genocide against political groups at home or abroad.” A vaguely formulated belief that the Genocide Convention “could in some cases provide a restrain on intended genocidal activity” reaffirmed the State Department’s conclusion that US ratification would be mainly of symbolic value (doc. 393). To move forward on this issue, the State Department prepared a list of counterarguments in support of US ratification. The United States might have committed other crimes but genocide in Vietnam. Besides, it did not have a prerequisite extradition treaty with that country. The US Constitution safeguarded freedom of expression but also provided that international criminal legislation overrule state laws. The proposal for an ICC had been dormant, which canceled an unlikely scenario of the United States as a country or individual American citizens to be taken to court on charges of genocide (doc. 391). The State Department made use of that manual when responding to the kind of letters it had received from the Republican Women’s Clubs (docs. 395–96). The Los Angeles and San Diego chapters both adopted resolutions,

306

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

which described the UN definition of genocide as vague and ambiguous, decried the omission of political groups, condemned communist crimes, and predicted injustice vis-à-vis those Americans who “innocently committed .  .  . some acts . . . against a member of a minority” (docs. 392, 394). Senator John Bricker had developed a more sophisticated legal argument against US ratification, which he said would not even be an issue had his 1951 constitutional amendment passed (doc. 397). The State Department assured Bricker that, before sending his message to the Senate, President Nixon took advice from the US Attorney General. The department’s pro-ratification arguments got a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April 1970 (docs. 398–400). This answer did not satisfy Bricker, who continued arguing that the Genocide Convention would deprive US citizens of constitutional protection in the event of ratification (doc. 401). The extent and the substance of opposition to US ratification of the Genocide Convention became clearer by the fall of 1970. The sheer amount of negative mail sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by extremist groups was alarming. That was a warning coming from an Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties, which was formed under the aegis of the Jewish Labor Committee six years earlier (doc. 402). The massage hammered out by the far right, ultraconservatives, and the hate fringe fit neatly in an array of conspiracy theories they had promoted. The genocide treaty was presented as an attempt to superimpose a world government. Some radicals compared Genocide Convention to other “ills” of modernity such as income tax, birth control, and/or welfare payments. Others regarded it an evil on par with religion. Still others saw it as an attempt to undermine the US military (in Vietnam). The Genocide Convention was said to have benefitted the Jews, the blacks, and the Catholic Church. A commonly advanced argument, according to which the Communists were the only known perpetrators of genocide at present, received an extension in the form of allegation of connivance of the US Government. US authorities harassed white American “patriots” yet reportedly let members of the Black Panther Party (a leftwing nationalist African American organization) roam free. Some rightwing publications insinuated that, had the United States ratified the convention, American citizens—beginning with President Truman—would be “hauled off to a foreign country for trial and execution.” All these innuendos reinforced the overall conclusion that the Genocide Convention was a Communist hoax (docs. 403–404, 406–408, 410–411). The Anti-Defamation League, which on behest of the Ad Hoc Committee produced a comprehensive report on the organized opposition to US ratification, painted a distressing picture of rightwing individuals and organizations capable of generating a groundswell (doc. 412). The Soviet press indirectly helped the anti-ratification camp by speaking of an ongoing genocide of ethnic minorities—specifically Native Americans and Black Panthers—in the United States. That was the tenor of an article, for example, in Pravda in December 1970 (doc. 405). Mutatis mutandis, a question came up whether or not forced treatment in Soviet psychiatric hospitals constituted “mental harm” in the meaning given in the Genocide Convention (doc. 419). Still another hearings on US ratification of the Genocide Convention in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 1971 attested to a polarizing debate. The ABA stalwarts Schweppe and Eberhard



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

307

Deutsch argued against ratification while Senators Jacob Javits and William Fulbright in favor. Unexpectedly, “Fulbright and Deutsch agreed that US treatment of American Indians had probably been genocide.” (doc. 409). Despite positive signals that the Ad Hoc Committee was getting from both the Oval Office and the Senate, as of June 1971 the negative mail was running 100 to 1 against (doc. 413). For instance, in June 1972 a Senator from Iowa received a letter from his constituency warning him that his vote for the ratification of the treaty would not be appreciated. A concerned citizen from Iowa believed the Genocide Convention would nullify the Bill of Rights. She also heard on TV that blacks were about to sue the United States for genocide in the United Nations; would the zero birth rate in the United States be classified as genocide? She alleged a “liberal conspiracy” in not being able to locate the actual text of the convention (doc. 414). The State Department, in its reply to the author of the letter, explained point by point why her fears had been overblown (doc. 415). Apparently, rational explanation had its limits, as in the case of yet another individual from Maryland. To US Vice President in April 1973 she simply wrote: “I urge you most strongly to vote against and denounce the abominable Genocide Treaty, which once again is rearing its ugly head and threatening our destruction” (doc. 417). In October 1972, for the first time in twenty years, the genocide treaty was called up for debate on the Senate Floor. The result was a defeat for the pro-ratification campaign (doc. 416). Senator William Proxmire—the most persistent campaigner in the US Senate—reformulated the issue by inquiring with the State Department in April 1973 if US ratification of the Genocide Convention might have strengthened its hand in dealing with the present, dire situation in Burundi (doc. 418). The State Department expressed doubt it would have changed the situation on the ground, and put the onus on African states to stop the killings (doc. 420). The Genocide Convention was back on the Senate Floor in February 1974, and yet again succumbed to filibuster. The negative campaign reached such a fevered pitch that phone calls were running 200 to 1 against, according to the Ad Hoc Committee (doc. 421). A decisive moment arrived when, on February 17, 1976, the ABA voted to end its opposition (since 1949) to US ratification. The last and most formidable obstacle has been removed, announced the Ad Hoc Committee (doc. 422). The election of Jimmy Carter as the President of the United States later that year and his decision to make human rights a cornerstone of US foreign policy brought additional hope to the pro-ratification campaign. Although they were still lacking the necessary sixty votes for cloture or two-thirds for ratification, “prospects for favorable action on the Genocide Convention are very much brighter than they have been at any time in the past,” declared the Ad Hoc Committee in June 1977 (doc. 423). Alas, the Senate recessed on August 8 without taking action on the convention, primarily because the votes needed for cloture had not been pledged. As the Ad Hoc Committee remarked, “the conservatives in the Senate and the ultra-right lobby have again organized a formidable campaign to stop ratification” (doc. 424).

308

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 390 Alfred J. Schweppe Informs US President Richard Nixon of the American Bar Association’s Continuous Opposition to US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 13, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (8368; 4147) March 13, 1970 Hon. Richard Nixon The White House Dear Mr. President: Being one of those who opposed changing the negative position of the American Bar Association on the very badly drawn Genocide Convention, I submit for your perusal the following: 1. Copy of my remarks at Atlanta on February 23, 1970; 2. Copy of a letter written by me to Mr. Francis Hoague of Seattle, which furnishes further useful additional background on the convention;1 3. Copy of a letter from Miss Eleanor H. Finch, Assistant Editor of the American Journal of International Law, showing the reservations made by other countries. In my statement at Atlanta I stressed, among other things, that Mr. John Foster Dulles had stated that the Eisenhower administration would not bring it up; and that Mr. Dean Rusk who, in my presence, presented the State Department’s position before the Senate Committee in 1950, had, as secretary of State under two recent presidents, not brought it up. There is no difference in the American Bar Association as to the need for a genocide convention. The difference is whether there shall be approval of a genocide convention no matter how badly drawn, just to “go along” with other nations, many of whom have themselves recorded substantial reservations, or to reject the present draft which does not prohibit the Hitler-Stalin-African-Asian type of genocide, but, on the other hand, goes to the ridiculous extreme of making “mental harm” by one person to another single person “genocide.” The State Department’s memorandum of 1950 admitted that genocide could be committed on a single person. I believe a scanning of the enclosed file may reduce any enthusiasm you may have for the Genocide Convention. At any rate, I felt that you had not been fully apprised of all of the pertinent facts.

Francis Hoague (1909–1993), an immigration attorney known for his support of civil rights and labor causes.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

309

Having voted for you twice, apart from genocide, I am very well pleased with you conduct of the difficult office of President.1 Sincerely yours, ALFRED J. SCHWEPPE Enclosures2

No. 391 The US State Department Prepares a Summary of Arguments Pro US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 26, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14-7) March 26, 1970 The Honorable J. W. Fulbright, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate CC: Justice/OLC – Mr. Rehnquist Mr. Goldklang Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for your letter of March 17, 1970, concerning the Genocide Convention.3 I appreciate the Committee’s concern and I am glad to provide any information that might be helpful to you. I have enclosed a brief summary of points that have been made against the treaty and arguments refuting them as you requested. In addition, you asked for a list of prominent lawyers who favor and oppose ratification. Those who signed the respective American Bar Association briefs for and against the Convention are such people, and I have compiled a list of them, which is also enclosed. Sincerely yours, William P. Rogers * * * SUMMARY BRIEF OF ARGUMENTS ON GENOCIDE CONVENTION 1.  Argument: Americans who have fought in Vietnam and have returned to the United States would be subject to extradition under the terms of Article VII of the Convention. See also doc. no. 393, a reply to Schweppe. See Remarks of Alfred J. Schweppe, Seattle, in Debate on the Genocide Convention in the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association at Atlanta, Georgia, February 23, 1970, and Schweppe’s letter to Hoage, dated March 3, 1970 in the same file. 3 Document not in the file. 1 2

310

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Answer: The Convention provides for extradition from the territory of contracting parties “in accordance with their laws and treaties in force”. United States law permits extradition only pursuant to treaty, and the United States does not have an extradition treaty with either Vietnam. It is not clear whether North Vietnam considers itself a party to the Convention. (Although Vietnam became a party in 1950, North Vietnam has never expressed its views on the Convention and we doubt it would consider itself a party.) In any event, the Convention itself does not purport to be an extradition treaty. The Genocide Convention would not require us to conclude any new extradition treaties or to amend our existing ones. It would only require us to provide for extradition for genocide in new extradition treaties which we might negotiate or in revisions of existing extradition treaties. In the event that extradition were requested – e.g., if Vietnam considered itself a party to the Genocide Convention and if it had an extradition treaty with us – under normal extradition procedures the requesting state would have to produce sufficient evidence to persuade a U.S. court that the person sought would be held for trial under United States law if the offense had been committee here. In addition, the Secretary of State would have to be convinced that such a case had been made out before he would grant extradition. The negotiating record of the Genocide Convention makes clear that trial for acts committee in a foreign country could be held in the state of which the defendant is a national. Since the implementing statute which we are prepared to suggest would apply to U.S. nationals regardless of whether the offense occurred within the territory of the United States, we could try in this country our nationals for genocide committed abroad. Extradition treaties would not permit us to extradite U.S. nationals to the territory in which the act was committed when they are undergoing or have undergone trial here for the same acts. Finally, it is difficult to conceive that any act committed by one of our soldiers in Vietnam could fall within the definition of genocide in Article II. The article requires an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such.” Our soldiers are fighting to help the South Vietnamese, while they might infrequently be crimes under other laws, would not constitute genocide. 2.  Argument: The provision of the Genocide Convention, which makes direct and public incitement to commit genocide a crime, would infringe freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Answer: Under current law, while mere advocacy of illegal activities may well be protected by the First Amendment, direct and public incitement to commit illegal activity is surely not protected. See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).1 Incitement crosses the bounds between protected and unprotected speech. The provision of the Genocide Convention therefore does not violate the Constitution. Moreover, were there any conflict, the explicit provision of the First Amendment would control.

Brandenburg v. Ohio was a landmark US Supreme Court case that overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader on the ground that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of violence.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

311

3.  Argument: The Genocide Convention upsets the balance of powers between the federal and state governments by subsuming areas of criminal jurisdiction theretofore within the domain of the states. Answer: Genocide is a crime against the laws of nations. Congress is explicitly given the power to define such crimes under Article I, Section 8, clause 10, of the Constitution. The Genocide Convention would, although entered into under the treaty power (Article II, Section 2, clause 2), require implementing legislation. The fact that the Congress enacts a statute pursuant to a treaty, instead of under its otherwise delegated powers does not alter its competence. It is true that Congress has not previously made genocide a crime and that the states might have enacted legislation making it punishable under their laws; however, throughout its history the Congress had enacted new statutes, including new criminal legislation, in areas were the states had previously exercised jurisdiction. Where authorized by the Constitution, this is of course entirely proper. 4.  Argument: Ratification of the Genocide Convention pursuant to Senate advice and consent will make genocide a crime without the consent of both Houses of Congress. Answer: The Convention is not self-executing. Under Article V, parties undertake to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to the Convention. Establishment of the crime of genocide within the United States would require Congressional enactment of a statute covering the offense. 5.  Argument: Under Article VIII of the Convention another country may take us to the Security Council on unfounded allegations of genocide. Answer: Article VIII provides that “any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter…as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide….” This article does not, and indeed could not, change the jurisdiction of the United Nations. It merely confirms the existing situation: Members of the United Nations may already go to competent organs in appropriate cases. 6.  Argument: The Convention provides that another country may take us to the International Court of Justice on a charge of genocide. Answer: Article IX does not provide that disputes relating to the “interpretation, application or fulfillment” of the Convention shall be submitted to the Court at the request of any party to the dispute. We believe this is an appropriate provision. Two recent examples where the Senate approved similar provisions are the Supplementary Slavery Convention in 1967 and the Refugee Protocol in 1968.1 7.  Argument: Americans could be subjected to trial for genocide before an international penal tribunal under the provisions of Article VI, and such a tribunal might not have the procedural safeguards which would exist in an American court. Answer: No international penal tribunal exists. While one was proposed at the time of the drafting of the Convention, this proposal has long been dormant. If such a court The Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery is a 1956 UN treaty that builds upon the 1926 Slavery Convention. The 1967 Protocol supplemented the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1951.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

312

were proposed in the future, Congressional action would at that time be necessary for the United States to adhere to the treaty establishing the court and accept its jurisdiction. The Convention would not even require the United States to accept the jurisdiction of such a court. 8.  Argument: Genocide can be committed under Article II merely by causing serious mental harm to members of a racial group; this would open the door to numerous charges of genocide by minority groups. Answer: “Mental harm” means – and we have proposed an understanding to make this clear – permanent impairment of mental facilities. Thus, before a charge can be sustained, it must be proved that permanent impairment of mental faculties in fact occurred and that the defendant brought about this injury with the specific intent of destroying one of the protected groups. Thus, the standard is rigid enough to protect against frivolous allegations of genocide.

No. 392 Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women's Clubs Opposes US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, March 31, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (5282) March 31, 1970 The President of the United States [Richard Nixon] The White House My Dear Mr. President: Enclosed for your consideration is copy of a resolution on the Genocide Convention passed unanimously by the members of the Board of the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women on March 25, 1970. Very respectfully yours, Mrs. Tilden Mattox President * * * RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The United Nations Convention “The Crime of Genocide” was again rejected by the American Bar Association February 23, 1970, and; WHEREAS, the definition of genocide in the text of the Convention included ambiguous terms such as mental harm and conditions of life, and; WHEREAS, there no provision against the extensive murders committed in Russia, China, and Biafra, and; WHEREAS, Article VI specifies that “persons charged with genocide…shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State…in which the act was committed…”



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

313

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: we the Los Angeles Federation of Republican Women oppose the ratification of this United Nations Convention concerning the Crime of Genocide, AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT: copies of this resolution be sent to our California Senators, and President Richard M. Nixon, Secretary of State, Wm. Rogers, Attorney General, John Mitchell. This resolution was passed by unanimous vote at the regular Board Meeting of the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women on March 25, 1970.1

No. 393 John R. Stevenson, Legal Adviser of the US State Department, Replies to Alfred J. Schweppe on behalf of President Nixon, April 3, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 April 3, 1970 Alfred J. Schweppe, Esquire Schweppe, Doolittle, Krug & Tausend Attorneys and Counselors at Law Cc: White House – Dr. Kissinger (by cover memorandum) Dear Mr. Schweppe: President Nixon has asked that I reply to your letter of March 13 concerning the Genocide Convention.2 I appreciate your interest in the matter but, of course, cannot agree with your conclusions. As President Nixon affirmed in his message to the Senate on February 19, I believe that ratification of the Genocide Convention at this time would be in the national interest of the United States. I have reviewed the arguments you made in your letter and in the enclosures that you sent to the President. It is not clear whether you believe the Convention to be too weak or too strong. On the one hand, some of your arguments, such as those directed against the deletion of political groups and the inclusion of “as such” in Article II, indicate a belief that the Convention is too weak. On the other hand, arguments alleging that the Convention would merely by ratification become United States law and that the mental harm provision is senselessly broad, seem to indicate a belief that the Convention is badly drafted and that we should reject it and draft a better convention. Although we could all suggest improvements in drafting, I believe the Convention is reasonably clear. Our proposed understanding and the necessary implementing legislation should clarify any remaining ambiguities. In any event, it is See also doc. no. 395, a reply to Mattox. Doc. no. 390.

1 2

314

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

completely unrealistic to suggest that we should redraft the Convention. If the United States is to become a party to a convention on genocide, this convention, to which 75 nations have adhered, is the one. In your letter you allege, first, that the Convention would not cover the “Hitler-StalinAfrican-Asian type of genocide”. Although I am not precisely clear what you mean here, I do believe that the Convention, for example, would have covered the genocide practiced by the Nazis before and during the Second World War. Article II prohibits the killing of members of a racial or religious group with the intent to destroy it in whole or in part. Article IV provides that the prohibition shall apply to constitutional responsible rulers. If pre-war Germany had been a party to the Convention and had enacted implementing legislation, Hitler would have been covered. If no prosecution had taken place, we could have gone to the Court under Article IX to determine whether Germany was in breach of its treaty obligations. While it is doubtful that this would have been effective, the Convention does cover the situation, and could in some cases provide a restrain on intended genocidal activity. Certainly, the Convention if it had been in effect, would have been an important source of law for a court such as the Nurnberg tribunal. You also object to the “ridiculous extreme of making ‘mental harm’ by one person to another single person ‘genocide’”. However, President Nixon has proposed an understanding which makes clear that we construe mental harm to mean permanent impairment of mental faculties. So construed the provision is sufficiently rigid to discourage frivolous allegations of genocide. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Article II of the Convention that serious mental harm is not covered by the Convention unless it is done with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. An intent to harm or destroy one or more individuals does not suffice to make the action genocide. Several other arguments are made in the remarks before the ABA, which you enclosed. Let me cover just a few of the points you make. You allege that the Convention “creates new international crimes”. But it is clear that the treaty is not self-executing, and that the Congress will have to enact a statute before genocide can become a crime under the laws of the United States. In addition, you imply that the United States gave up something by agreeing to delete “political groups” from the Convention. But the Convention is very broad as it is, and, indeed, the deletion of political groups from the coverage of the Convention may help protect the United States from propaganda charges that the United States is committing genocide against political groups at home or abroad. You argue that an American may be caught abroad and tried for some crime established under the Convention. However, if an American is caught in a foreign State that State may apply its criminal statutes to him regardless of whether we are a party to the Genocide Convention – our ratification would not alter the picture. In the last of your attachments, it is pointed out that many Communist countries have made reservations to the Convention relating to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Your substantive point here is not clear. In any case, these reservations do not go to the central point of the Convention, nor weaken the obligations of any party. Communist Bloc countries often make reservations with regard to the Court. We do not agree with this point of view. We believe in many instances that the International Court of Justice is a suitable forum for dispute settlement, and the mere fact that others have made reservations on this point does not affect our attitude.



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

315

While it is important to consider such legal aspects of the Convention as have been discussed above, a major value of United States ratification will be its symbolic statement that we oppose the crime of genocide as firmly as ever. Let me quote from President Nixon’s message: “I regret to say, some of our detractors have sought to exploit our failure to ratify this Convention to question our sincerity. I believe we should delay no longer in taking the final convincing step which would reaffirm that the United States remains as strongly opposed to the crime of genocide as ever.” Sincerely yours, John R. Stevenson

No. 394 San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs Opposes President Nixon’s Request for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 13, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 [April 13, 1970] San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs RESOLUTION ON PRESIDENT NIXON’S REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION OF THE U.N. GENOCIDE CONVENTION WHEREAS, President Nixon has called on the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which no other President has done in over twenty years; and WHEREAS, there is no question among the honorable nations of the world but that the United States deplores and does not commit any crimes against any national, ethnical, racial or religious group; and WHEREAS,  the Convention as presently written has notable and dangerous shortcomings: e.g. 1. The crime of Genocide is inadequately, vaguely and emotionally defined; 2. It lists the groups coming under the crime of genocide as being national, ethnical, racial or religious, omitting “political” groups, thus leaving Communist nations free from the charge of genocide when exterminating political resisters to their expansionism; 3. It applies not only to nations and political leaders, but also to private citizens, who under Article III could be called before an international tribunal for some act they innocently committed against a member of a minority;

316

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

4. It includes not just acts committed against a minority group member, but acts deemed by someone to be “incitement” to genocide, or “complicity” in genocide, or an “attempt” at genocide. 5. It would remove an accused citizen from the protection of our laws, codes and principles of jurisprudence; and WHEREAS, the Convention has been in force since 1951 without one case of Genocide being brought before the International Court of Justice, although the crime of Genocide has obviously taken place in Tibet, Belgian Congo, Biafra, and the Hue, Vietnam, until this year, 1970, when there are dark hints of our servicemen at Mylai being accused under this Convention were we to ratify it;1 and WHEREAS, our nation is presently in dire distress over both domestic and foreign problems and does not need the fears, suspicious, anxieties and divisiveness which this Convention would endlessly compound. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs recommend to President Nixon that the Genocide Convention be sent back to the Human Rights Commission for clarification and fair dealing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President, to Secretary of State William P. Rogers, to Ambassadoress Rita Hauser, to all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and California’s Senators, and to all higher levels of the Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs. Adopted by the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Club at their Monthly Board Meeting, April 13, 1970.2

No. 395 US State Department Acknowledges Receipt of the Letter from the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women's Clubs, Outlines the Rationale for a Renewed Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 14, 1970  NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 April 14, 1970 Mrs. Tilden Mattox President, Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women

On May 16, 1968 a unit of the 23rd American Infantry division killed anywhere between 347 and 502 civilians, including children, in My Lai village in South Vietnam. The My Lai massacre, which became public knowledge in the United States in November 1969, caused an international outcry. 2 See also doc. no. 396, a reply to Kujawa. 1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

317

Dear Mrs. Mattox: President Nixon and the Secretary of State have asked that I reply to your letters of March 31, 1970 enclosing for consideration copies of a resolution on the Genocide Convention passed unanimously by the members of the Board of the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women on March 25, 1970.1 The views of the Los Angeles Federation of Republican Women concerning ratification of the Genocide Convention are much appreciated. I enclose as of possible interest to the members of the Federation a copy of the President’s Message of February 19, 1970 to the Senate renewing the request for consent to ratification of the Genocide Convention. The President’s Message transmits the report of the Secretary of State on the subject. I draw attention particularly to the reasons advanced by the President in his Message for seeking renewed consideration of the Genocide Convention by the Senate at this time, to the fact that both the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have concluded that there are no constitutional obstacles to United States ratification, and to the recommendation in the Report of the Secretary of State that an understanding of the words mental harm as used in the Convention be made. Again I thank you for your interest in this very important matter. Sincerely yours, Ward P. Allen Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs Enclosure: President’s Message2

No. 396 John R. Stevenson, Legal Adviser of the US State Department, Counters the Arguments against US Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Reply to the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs, May 25, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) May 25, 1970 Mrs. Edwin A. Kujawa, President San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs Dear Mrs. Kujawa: The President has asked that I reply to your letter of April 23, 1970, concerning the Genocide Convention. The Secretary of State has requested me to respond to your letter Doc. no. 392. See William Rogers’s memorandum for the president and the president’s letter to the State Department (both issued on February 5, 1970) in the same file.

1 2

318

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

of April 18 on the same subject.1 We appreciate the interest of the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs in the Convention and on your resolution.2 The Genocide Convention, to which 75 countries are parties and which has been in force since 1951, has been very carefully studied by the Departments of State and Justice. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State concluded that there are no constitutional objections, and the Secretary of State recommended to the President on February 5 that ratification is in the interests of the United States. The President concurred and on February 19 requested the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification. On April 24 and 27 a specially constituted subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Church, held hearings on the Convention. We hope that the subcommittee will report out the Convention favorably in the very near future. In the third whereas clause of your resolution it is stated, that the definition of the crime of genocide is inadequate, vague and emotional. I do not believe, however, that the definition is all that important. The four groups covered by the definition and the five kinds of acts which may constitute the crime are specifically listed. In addition the President has proposed an understanding that “mental harm” means permanent impairment of mental faculties; this would add further precision to Article II(b) of the Convention. Finally, when the Congress enacts the implementing legislation required it can ensure that the definition is sufficiently clear to meet our constitutional requirements for criminal statutes. The third whereas clause also states that the omission of political groups from the coverage of the Convention leaves Communist nations free from being charged with genocide of political resisters.3 However, the definition of the crime of genocide as contained in the Convention is so broad as to render its provisions applicable to a very significant area of conceivable genocidal acts. Certainly it would be illogical to reject the major advance in strengthening international law brought about by this Convention on the ground that its scope might have been even broader. The Convention does apply to private citizens, as your resolution states. But it does not allow private citizens to be called before an international tribunal. The International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction over states, and not private individuals. Rather, the Convention contemplates that each state party shall pass internal legislation prohibiting the crime of genocide and that this legislation will be enforced in each state’s internal courts. Thus, an American charged with genocide at home would be tried in an American court. Article VI of the Convention does state that persons charged with acts enumerated in Article III may also be tried “by special international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction”. However, no international tribunal exists. While one was proposed at the time of the drafting of the Convention, this proposal has long been dormant. If such a court were proposed in the future, congressional action would at that time be necessary for the United States to adhere to the treaty establishing the court and accept its jurisdiction. The Convention would not even require the United States to accept the jurisdiction of such a court. See Kujawa’s letter to US Secretary of State Rogers from April 18, 1970 in the same file; the letter dated April 23, 1970 not available. 2 Doc. no. 394. 3 Error in the original document: the word third used twice, inconsecutively. 1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

319

The fourth whereas clause of your resolution suggests that our servicemen at Mylai might be accused of genocide under the Convention were we to ratify it. However, it is difficult to conceive that any act committed by one of our soldiers in Vietnam could fall within the definition of genocide in Article II. The article requires an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such.” Our soldiers are fighting to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves and therefore acts committed against other Vietnamese, such as those alleged to have occurred at Mylai, while they might infrequently be crimes under other laws, would not constitute genocide. Moreover, with respect to the Mylai case, it is clear that our ratification of the treaty would not have any retroactive effect; indeed, our Constitution would not allow the Congress to enact an ex post facto criminal law. Your resolution suggests that the Convention be sent back to the Human Rights Commission for “clarification and fair dealing.” However, now, 22 years after the Convention was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly, you must surely recognize the impossibility of this course of action. We could not send the Convention back to the Human Rights Commission or to any other United Nations body. Seventy-five countries have already become parties to the Genocide Convention. If we are to adhere to a convention dealing with genocide, this Convention must be the one, in its present form. A major value of U.S. ratification will be a symbolic statement that we oppose the crime of genocide as firmly as ever. Let me quote from President Nixon’s message: “I regret to say, some of our detractors have sought to exploit our failure to ratify this Convention to question our sincerity. I believe we should delay no longer in taking the final convincing step which would reaffirm that the United States remains as strongly opposed to the crime of genocide as ever.” Sincerely yours, John R. Stevenson The Legal Adviser

No. 397 Senator John W. Bricker Expresses His Concerns about the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant in a Letter to Bryce N. Harlow of the US State Department, June 26, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (9711) June 26, 1970 Mr. Bryce Harlow The White House My dear Mr. Harlow: I am enclosing for your reading, if you have time for it, some articles on the Genocide Convention, about which I talked with you. I would not be so deeply concerned had

320

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

my amendment passed, but under the decision of the Supreme Court, this makes domestic law and takes away from our private citizens many of the rights they have always enjoyed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.1 The Covenant of Human Rights is even of more serious adverse consequences. I hope that it does not come out. I know the President knows the seriousness of it, and I cannot help but think that someone is promoting this in the interest of a small minority and not that of the American people. I went through both of these treaties when promoting the amendment which I introduced, and which received 60 favorable votes in the Senate and 31 adverse ones.2 If you have any suggestions as to anything that I might do to help prevent the passage of this treaty, I would appreciate hearing from you. I cannot help but think that it is being promoted by Mrs. Hauser, our representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, on behalf of the New York crowd that opposed my amendment. The American Bar Association, with the importuning of Mrs. Hauser, and even the President of the Association from Philadelphia, could not be prevented from voting against it. Very truly yours, John W. Bricker

No. 398 US National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger Informed about Draft Reply to Senator John Bricker, July 13, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) July 13, 1970 MEMORANDUM FOR MR. HENRY A. KISSINGER THE WHITE HOUSE Subject: Reply to Senator Bricker Concerning the Genocide Convention In response to Mrs. Davis’ request of July 6, 1970, there is enclosed for signature by a White House Staff Member a draft reply to the letter of June 26, 1970, addressed to Mr. Bryce Harlow by former Senator John W. Bricker. Senator Bricker takes a position generally opposed to ratification to the Genocide Convention and he encloses two articles which argue against ratification. The draft reply describes the reasons which underlay the President’s decision to seek Senate Cf. doc. nos. 203, 207, 209, 212, 214, 275. In 1951 Bricker had proposed constitutional amendment curtailing executive powers in the treaty field. Technically identified as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the amendment effectively blocked American ratification of the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights. The Bricker Amendment was approved and recommended for adoption by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, in 1954 the proposal was modified and then defeated in the Senate by the margin of one vote.

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

321

advice and consent to ratification of the Convention. The draft reply also responds to the principal arguments contained in the two articles and encloses in return the statement made by the Deputy Legal Adviser of the State Department during the recent hearings on the Genocide Convention. The Deputy Legal Adviser’s statement treats in detail the principal arguments which appear to concern Senator Bricker. Theodore L. Eliot, Jr. Executive Secretary Enclosures: 1.  Suggested Reply 2.  Letter from Senator Bricker to Mr. Harlow, dated June 26

No. 399 US State Department’s Draft Reply to Senator John Bricker Explains President’s Decision to Push for US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, July 13, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) July 13, 1970 Draft Reply Honorable John W. Bricker Bricker, Evatt, Barton & Eckler Dear Senator Bricker: I have been asked to reply to your letter of June 26, 1970 to Mr. Bryce Harlow regarding the Genocide Convention. You are undoubtedly aware of the fact that on February 19, 1970, President Nixon sent a message to the Senate in which he urged the Senate to consider anew the Genocide Convention and to grant its advice and consent to ratification. This message was sent by the President after thorough consideration within the interested departments of the Government of the pros and cons requesting Senate action. In his message the President pointed out that United States ratification of the Genocide Convention would reaffirm that the United States remains as strongly opposed to the crime of genocide as ever. The President noted that 74 countries from all parts of the world (now 75 because of the subsequent ratification by the United Kingdom) and of every political persuasion have so far become parties to the Convention. He observed that United States ratification would demonstrate unequivocally our country’s desire to participate in the building of international order based on law and justice. Before sending the message to the Senate the President had been assured by the Attorney General that there are no Constitutional obstacles to United States citizens would be taken away by ratification.

322

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

The articles which you enclosed with your letter no doubt reflect honestly held opinions on the part of their authors, who argue against ratification of the Genocide Convention. However, it would seem that none of the reasons advanced in the articles would be of such weight as to override the positive benefits that the President’s message recognized would accrue to the United States in becoming a party to the Convention. Perhaps the most serious argument advanced in the articles which you enclosed relates to the possibility of trial of United States citizens on charges of genocide in foreign courts. As the article notes, the Genocide Convention would facilitate extradition. However, extradition for genocide would be only in accordance with United States law and with such extradition treaties as may be in force. These aspects of the Convention were discussed in detail by Mr. George Aldrich, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, who testified in favor of the Convention on April 24, 1970, before the Special Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In his testimony Mr. Aldrich pointed out that under the extradition provisions of the Genocide Convention the United States would not be required to extradite Americans for trial abroad on trumped up charges of genocide. The charges would have to be supported by sufficient evidence. If a request for extradition of a United States citizen were made, the United States would be free to initiate criminal proceedings itself and refuse extradition. In every case extradition would depend upon the existence of a specific extradition treaty between the United States and the requesting government. Our extradition treaties guarantee against double jeopardy. For your information I enclose a copy of the statement made by the Deputy Legal Adviser at the hearing. The articles allege that the language in the Convention is too broad and too vague. The adequacy of the language of the Convention was also discussed in the Deputy Legal Adviser Aldrich’s statement. He points out that the definition of “genocide” contained in the Convention is clearly distinguished from that of “murder.” Existing State legislation relating to murder would be unaffected by the Genocide Convention. Moreover, the Genocide Convention is not self-executing. It would not operate domestically until implemented by appropriate legislation. This legislation of course would have to meet the requirements of the United States Constitution and it could add precision to any terms in the Convention the Congress deems insufficiently precise. Indeed, Mr. Aldrich also noted that the President has proposed an understanding by the United States to make clear the meaning of the term “mental harm” as used in the Convention. Certainly while the Convention may not be ideal from the point of view of draftsmanship and while it does omit certain groups from coverage, its sweep is broad enough to constitute a significant legal deterrent as well as to provide a firm basis under international law for punishment of the crime of genocide. As a government we should have nothing to fear in the United Nations if charges of genocide are raised. We certainly do not engage in or officially sanction the commission of genocide in any form anywhere. By becoming a party to the Convention the United States Government would be in a stronger position to draw attention to acts of genocide which may unfortunately occur elsewhere in the world. You also refer in your letter to the Covenant on Human Rights. The Covenants of course are not involved in the President’s initiative regarding the genocide Convention. The two Human Rights Covenants were adopted by the United Nations General



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

323

Assembly in 1966.1 Neither has ever been signed by the United States and there are no plans to associate the United States as a party to them. I very much appreciate your having written to Mr. Harlow about your concerns relating to the Genocide Convention. Your views have been carefully considered. I trust that you will now have a better understanding of the reasons which have motivated the President to move forward to achieve ratification of the Convention. Sincerely, Enclosure: Mr. Aldrich’s statement

No. 400 Bryce N. Harlow, Counsellor to US President Nixon, Alleviates Bricker’s Fears concerning the Genocide Convention, July 14, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 July 14, 1970 Honorable John W. Bricker Bricker, Evatt, Barton & Eckler Dear John: I promised you that I would be back in touch with you after receiving further word on the Genocide Convention, about which we spoke and about which you wrote me on June 26. I will try to give you some idea of the thinking here behind the President’s message to the Senate of February 19, in which he urged the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of the Genocide Convention. I am also enclosing a copy of the statement made by the Deputy Legal Adviser of the State Department during the recent hearings on the Convention.2 Before sending the message to the Senate, the President had been assured by the Attorney General that there are no Constitutional obstacles to U.S. ratification, and that no Constitutional rights of American citizens would be taken away by ratification. While a ratified treaty is indeed part of the law of the land according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has made clear on several occasions (for example in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1) that, as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, no treaty can override or supersede any provision of the Constitution.3 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights were both adopted on December 16, 1966. See statement by George H. Aldrich before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate in support of the Genocide Convention, on April 24, 1970, in the same file. 3 In a landmark Reid v. Covert case, the Supreme Court held that American civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States retain constitutional rights, and therefore should be tried by jury rather than by US military tribunal. 1

2

324

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

It is also our understanding that the Genocide Convention would not be selfexecuting. It would not operate domestically until implemented by appropriate legislation. This legislation would of course have to meet Constitutional requirements, and it could also add precision to any terms in the Convention that the Congress deems insufficiently precise. The President proposed to the Congress, for example, that the United States declare, upon ratification, its understanding and interpretation that the term “mental harm” in Article II(b) of the Convention means “permanent impairment of mental faculties” – which would effectively limit the scope of that phrase. The attached statement by the Deputy Legal Adviser also addresses the question you raised about the possibility of trial of U.S. citizens on charges of genocide in foreign courts. The Genocide Convention provides only that parties to the Convention pledge to grant extradition “in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.” U.S. law provides for extradition only where there is a specific extradition treaty in force which makes the given offense an extraditable one. There are no U.S. treaties now in existence with any country that make genocide an extraditable offense. We would not negotiate any such treaties until the Congress has passed legislation making genocide a crime in the U.S., because it is our policy not to make an offense extraditable unless it is a crime in both the U.S. and the state with whom the extradition treaty is made. The extradition treaty is also an appropriate place to build in basic procedural safeguards to assure a fair trial for extradited person. In sum, the President concluded that ratification of the Genocide Convention would simply reaffirm a fundamental moral principle for which the United States has always stood. Seventy-five countries from all parts of the world and of every political persuasion have become parties to this Convention, and the United States can only gain by joining them. As a government we should have nothing to fear in the United Nations if charges of genocide are raised. We certainly do not engage in or sanction genocide anywhere. By becoming a party to the Convention the U.S. Government will be in a stronger position to draw attention to acts of genocide that may occur elsewhere in the world. You refer in your letter to the Covenants on Human Rights. The two Covenants on Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 are of course not involved in the President’s initiative regarding the Genocide Convention. Neither of these Covenants has been signed by the U.S. and there are no plans to associate the U.S. as a party to them. I hope my letter and the attached statement answer your questions. Please let me know if there is any further information I can give you. Thank you once again for sending along the articles on the Genocide Convention. It was good to hear from you. With cordial regard, Sincerely, Bryce N. Harlow Counsellor to the President



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

325

No. 401 John W. Bricker Restates a Problem with the Genocide Convention in a Letter to US President Nixon, July 17, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (10348) July 17, 1970 The Honorable Richard M. Nixon President of the United States The White House My dear Mr. President: My concern about the Genocide Convention is very real and very deep. You remember it when we had my amendment up for consideration, and President Eisenhower told me then that he would never submit a treaty that would violate the terms of my amendment. Lyndon Johnson told me the same thing, and so far as I know, neither of them ever did. The Genocide Convention, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, clearly would overrule our local law and make American citizens subject to the treaty without the protection of the Constitution of the United States. This letter is prompted by an article in the July American Bar Association Journal, page 641. The Article is by Judge Orie L. Phillips and Eberhard P. Deutsch, both of whom were very active when my amendment was being considered.1 Every day that passes makes the amendment more important, in my judgment. I know you have very little time for this kind of thing, but I do wish that you would read it because it is the best analysis of the Treaty that I have read. Judge Phillips, as I remember, was at one time considered for the Supreme Court but was beyond the age limit which President Eisenhower would recommend a Justice. Your visit to Ohio and to Louisville created a fine impression in this part of the country. I saw the game on television and you certainly looked as if you were enjoying it. Republican politics in Ohio are pretty badly messed up at the present time but I hope we can pull out of the trouble that we are in. Bob Taft was in the other day and I told him I would do everything within my power for him and the rest of the ticket – all of them.2 Harriet joins me in sending to you and Pat and the family our best wishes.3 Sincerely, John W. Bricker

In their article, “Pitfalls of the Genocide Convention,” Orie L. Phillips (1885–1974) and Eberhard P. Deutsch (1897–1980) argued that the convention’s “jurisprudential sorcery” might subject American citizens to trials in disregard of US constitutional safeguards. 2 Robert A. Taft Jr. (1917–93), Republican Congressman from Ohio between 1963 and 1965, and again between 1967 and 1971. 3 Harriet Day Bricker (1897–1985), the wife of John Bricker; Thelma Catherine “Pat” Nixon (1912– 93), the wife of Richard Nixon. 1

326

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 402 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee Seeks AntiDefamation League’s Expertise on the Extremist Groups in the United States Opposed to Ratification of the Genocide Convention, October 8, 1970 WAG, 37/5/22, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee October 8, 1970 Mr. Arnold Forster General Counsel and Civil Rights Director Anti-Defamation League Dear Arnold: I’m sure you know there is a real possibility that the Genocide Treaty will come before the Senate for a vote during the “lame duck” session this year or shortly after the new Congress reconvenes in January. Surely you know better than I that the extremist groups have been conducting an extensive campaign to prevent ratification. All of our discussions with the Foreign Relations Committee and other members of the Senate indicate that mail from these groups is overwhelming and likely to be a real problem when we get close to the finish line. While I have tried to make the affiliated groups in the Ad Hoc Committee aware of the problem, I’m clearly not in position to evaluate it fully since a very small part of the ultra-right (or left) material is brought to my attention.1 I wondered, therefore, if your staff could prepare a summary of what these groups have been doing which I could then make available to our affiliated organizations. I would be happy to give ADL credit for the research if you so desire. I’m sure that you can see the importance of alerting our people to the nature and character of the opposition. Since our campaign for favorable action will go into full swing during the October 14 to November 16 recess, I’d be most grateful for an early reply.2 Warmest best wishes. Sincerely, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties was founded in 1964 by over fifty labor, religious, and civic groups for the purpose of making the US Government to commit itself more vigorously to international human rights law. 2 The Anti-Defamation League obliged, yet was able to produce such a report only by late April 1971. See doc. no. 412. 1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

327

No. 403 Liberty Line Houston, a Far Right Automatic Recorded Message Service, Warns against US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, November 15, 1970 WAG, 37/3/34 November 15, 1970 LIBERTY LINE HOUSTON – Telephone Message November 15th, 1970 – 861-1100 This is Liberty Line Houston. The Genocide Treaty became a part of the Constitution for World Government on January 12th 1951, when the 20th communist nation ratified it. The word Genocide means race-killing, that is mass murder of a race of people, and we are all very much against that, but you can search and see that the Treaty clearly applies only to individuals who act or conspire to act so as to cause mental or bodily injury, or death to a member or members of a racial or religious or ethnic group. The Treaty was in effect when the United States encouraged Hungary to resist Russian aggression. Even promising to help them. Then when the massacre began we turned our backs and let Russia take another captive nation, but that wasn’t racial, it was political.1 Nor did it apply when the U.N. forces strongly supported by the United States Air Force murdered many thousands of Katanganian natives so as to secure the cargo for the Communist rule of Patrice Lumumba, but that was political, not racial.2 Mass murders in Communist countries is a way of life. But it is not punished under the Genocide treaty. Communist countries don’t murder people for racial or religious reasons, only political. So you can see why the 20 communist countries ratified it and why to this day our Senators have refused to do so. To our knowledge Nixon is the only president to twice in one year demand passage of this treasonous act. He must be under terrific pressure by the group which has been our Super-Government for over 50 years, of course, Javits and Fulbright are leading the push for this, for it is essential for the progress of World Government. You see, the Genocide Treaty isn’t designed to protect anyone, its only purpose is to make individuals subject to international law under this law. No individual would be immune to prosecution, for anything said or done, against any

The United States found itself in a bind when an anticommunist revolt broke out in Hungary in late October 1956. On the one hand, Washington explicitly stated that the United States would not intervene militarily under any circumstances. On the other hand, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasts to Hungary made it sound as if the West would do exactly that. During an emergency session on Hungary convened by the UN General Assembly in early November, the United States did not invoke the Genocide Convention. The United States circulated a substitute resolution that eschewed any reference to genocide or the demand that the Soviet troops withdraw from Hungary. 2 The breakaway State of Katanga was established (with the connivance of Belgium) in the southeastern part of Congo in July 1960. The heavy-handed attempt by the central government to reign in the renegade province drew condemnation of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, who accused Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of committing genocide. 1

328

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

member of a racial, religious or ethnic group either an act, or the intent to act, any interpretation can be very broad. Even if you have done so, write to Senator John Tower and demand that this time he stand up for America and vote against internationalists. Urge your friends to do the same. Thank you for calling Liberty Line. Our mailing address is POB 7046, Houston 77003 If you wish to comment, you may do so at the sound of the tone.1

No. 404 Liberty Line Houston, a Far Right Automatic Recorded Message Service, Emphasizes the Dangers of US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, December 1, 1970 WAG, 37/3/34 December 1, 1970 LIBERTY LINE HOUSTON – Telephone Message – 861-1100 This is Liberty Line Houston. On December 23rd, 1913 while all other Senators had gone home for holidays, less than a dozen Senators had remained in Washington for the purpose to pass the unconstitutional income tax amendment. At the same time they turned over the printing of our currency to the international bankers operating under the name Federal Reserve System. Neither amendment would have passed if a majority had been in Washington at that time. The same trick is about to be tried again. For twenty years the one-worlders have tried to get the Genocide Treaty passed, so far, in spite of our obliging Presidents who are put in office by the internationalists we have had enough Senators to kill it. Nixon has already had one turned down this year, but he is again demanding passage, and the Bill has just been brought out of committee. If it can be presented with only a selected handful of Senators present, tricky dickey, the puppet of the internationalists will have it made. As a brief illustration, suppose that a Black Panther or a Revolutionist such as Jerry Rubin should be convicted of capital crime and be executed.2 Under the Genocide Treaty, everyone connected with the case – judges, attorneys, police, jurors and witnesses – could be charged with Genocide which is defined in the Treaty as any act or conspiracy to act with the intent to kill or cause bodily or mental injury to a member of a group. So even if the criminal is not convicted, the act of conspiring against him would be within the meaning of the Treaty. Both so charged would be tried by an international penal tribunal and extradition to the nation where the trial is to be held is pledged in advance. Remember that the administration of this treaty will be under the United Nations, not our laws, and our Constitution would be unable to give any See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the organization and its operations. Established in October 1966, the Black Panther Party was an African American nationalist organization that acquired notoriety among the far-left groups for its advocacy of violence.

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

329

protection. Today, now, write to both Ralph Yarborough and John Tower and demand that they vote against this Bill and for you. If this passes you have had it. Never has your liberty been offered for sale for so low a price. Thank you for calling Liberty Line. If you wish to comment, you may do so at the sound of the tone.1

No. 405 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Comments on the “We Charge Genocide” Petition Re-Submitted to the United Nations, Slams US “Policy of Genocide against Ethnic Minorities,” December 3, 1970 Boris Orekhov, “‘Obviniaem v genotside!’” Pravda, December 3, 1970 One million signatures appear on the petition submitted to the United Nations by black Americans. This document resolutely protests against genocide practiced in the United States, reprisals against Americans whose skin happened to be other than white. The petition was recently handed over to UN officials by the delegation comprised of such well-known figures as stage director Ossie Davis and actor Dick Gregory2 Alongside them were representatives of a number of Negro and other organizations who forge a united front against racist and police bacchanalia [razgul] in the US today. A few days later a group of protestors marched through the streets of New York, ending with a rally near the UN Headquarters. The slogans read: “We Charge Genocide!”3 These words are addressed to all those who rule contemporary America, those who have reduced people of color to the status of outcasts, those who have turned them into pariahs. Negro children in the Mississippi delta who are dying of hunger; the abused, illiterate Indians on reservations; the brutal suppression of “Black Panthers,” who raised their voices in indignation against racism and police brutality – [these are examples of] the shameful reality of the much-vaunted country of “freedom” and “democracy.” The savage persecution of Angela Davis is a powerful example of the policy of repression used by the US ruling elites against those who confront the policy of genocide.4

See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the organization and its operations. Civil rights activists Ossie Davis (1917–2005) and Dick Gregory (1932–2017) were among the five hundred people who took part in the Emergency Conference to Defend the Rights of the Black Panther Party, held at Chicago’s Malcolm X College in March 1970. Chaired by William Patterson, the session with their participation resolved to revive the 1951 “We Charge Genocide” petition. 3 The November 21, 1970 march down the Fifth Avenue was spearheaded by Patterson, who later spoke at the rally. 4 Angela Davis (b. 1944) was an assistant professor at UCLA and a CPUSA member with links to the Black Panthers. She was arrested as an alleged accomplice to murder involving hostage taking on August 7, 1970. 1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

330

Angela Davis’s “case” – forged by the police – reflects, like in a drop of water, the recent tendency among US ruling elites to revive McCarthyism-style persecution of progressive and democratic forces under the pretext of restoring “law and order.” On December 3, a New York State court will consider whether or not Angela Davis should be handed over to the hands of “justice” in California, where she is facing the death penalty and the gas chamber. Angela Davis’s destiny deeply concerns all honest people, all who hold dear the ideals of freedom, justice, and humanism. “Today it is Angela Davis,” says Wayne University professor Marianne McAfee, “and tomorrow it could be anyone of us.”1 No wonder, then, that thousands of Americans of all skin colors, political views, and religious beliefs are joining the movement in support of a young Negro woman. The policy of genocide vis-à-vis ethnic minorities, as the American reality demonstrates, is closely linked to the growing persecution of representatives of the democratic movement in the US. In response, progressive America closes its ranks against advancing reactionary forces. Boris OREKHOV

No. 406 The Truth Seeker, a California-Based Anti-Semitic Publication, Claims the Genocide Convention is Detrimental to Free Speech, December 1970 WAG, 37/3/34 December 1970 The Truth Seeker “Last of Jubilee Edition” The last of the Jubilee Edition of the Truth Seeker has been sold. Only file copies and two damaged copies remain. This edition published in 1923 celebrated the first fifty years of the Truth Seeker. The price of the extra large edition was $5. Except for the two damaged copies, none will ever be available again. The two damaged copies will be sold for $1 each to any subscriber, only one to each buyer. We look forward to the Century Edition in 1973, when the Truth Seeker will celebrate its first 100 years of the greatest work in the world, telling the truth and

The identity of the Wayne State University professor referred to in the article was not possible to establish.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

331

helping by so doing to abolish religion, the most terrible curse mankind has ever had forced upon it. The Genocide Treaty, a Jewish scheme to prevent criticism of their activity, has been pushed by their puppet, President Nixon, and has been partly approved by Congress. It will probably be passed. When this bill is approved and signed it will be against the law to criticize either the blacks or the Jews, and probably the Catholic Church. An editor who does so subjects himself to severe fines and imprisonment. The Jewish puppets in Congress will do as the Canadian parliament did. After the bill is signed it will be dangerous for an editor to publish anything which the pro-Jewish courts can twist into coming under the treaty, which takes precedence over the Constitutional provisions of free press and free speech. It is the practice of our rotten government to permit a company to violate a law which is not exact or tested in the courts, and then swoop down to ruin the company. Until it is tested, it could mean the ruin of the Truth Seeker, for telling the truth will be prohibited on racial and religious subjects. So our activity will be seriously curtailed and in order to survive the century we may have to become a cowardly, sissy, slanted periodical like the kept press and the Jewish radio and TV. And bombing by the criminals is always a danger.1

No. 407 Liberty Lobby, a Far Right Interest Group, Denounces the Genocide Convention, 1970 In private possession Washington, DC [1970] Print Advertisement Liberty Lobby “YOUR PRESIDENT MAY BE IN DANGER! YOU MUST HELP ‘DENOUNCE’ THE ‘GENOCIDE’ HOAX!” President Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the U.S. may be the first person in history tried by authority of the United Nations “Genocide” Treaty, if the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, expected soon. Fantastic? Not at all! Article IV of the “Genocide” Treaty provides: “persons committing ‘genocide’ or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rules, public officials or private individuals.” The communists [Viet Cong] in Vietnam have already charged President Nixon and our American GIs with “genocide”! All that stands in the way of our President and our GIs – maybe you – from being arrested and tried in a foreign “war crimes” trial

See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the publication.

1

332

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

or worse, is the Senate’s failure, so far [God bless ‘em], to ratify the U.N. “Genocide” Treaty Hoax! There is very little opposition to ratification of the “Genocide” Treaty, so YOU must ACT QUICKLY by writing and contacting your Senators!... After you’ve informed yourself by reading this advertisement. Would you believe that absolutely nothing can be done to the communists, by anyone, to punish them for true genocide in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Congo, and Biafra! Believe it or not, political genocide is not included in the U.N. “Genocide” Treaty. That’s why it’s a hoax! Probably every American is against genocide, of course! That’s not the issue. Unnecessary risk to you is! Are YOU willing to SURRENDER your American Citizenship? To JUNK the Constitution? Throw away the BILL of RIGHTS? To “cry over spilled milk” AFTER your rights, freedoms and guarantees are GONE? You ARE about to lose your BIRTHRIGHT! Unless YOU ACT NOW! After the Senate ratifies the “Genocide” Hoax, IT WILL BE TOO LATE! You were taught to read contracts first, before signing! Regardless of what you were told about the contract – because you were taught to expect to be required to do exactly what the contract stated! You learned to ignore tranquilizing words salesmen use to soften hard, no-nonsense contract terms! In court, you learned only written words count! So read the Treaty terms for yourself! And when anyone tells you the treaty doesn’t mean what it says, then ask, “Why not change it so it says what you say it means?” Unless the “Genocide” Treaty is Denounced by the U.S., it may be ratified someday when you are OFF GUARD! Unfortunately, Senators don’t have time to study issues carefully enough, so they believe what the State Department tells them. True genocide should be prevented and punished. It is too much to ask to demand a clear-cut, plain language treaty contract? The mandatory trial by International Court at the request of any party is not for us. All trials will be held at the most advantageous place, certainly not the U.S. The Black Panthers have said they will use the treaty against America! Of course they’ll prefer an International Court, not bound by U.S. law! [The Black Panther might be wise to check how the “Genocide” Hoax can be used against them, too!] And, they’ve said they’ll charge Judge Hoffman of Chicago and others! No grand jury, no trial by jury, no “fifth amendment” immunity, no sixth amendment confrontation of your accusers… and you’re guilty until you prove your own innocence! Write, wire or phone your Senators now! Demand Denunciation of the “Genocide” Treaty! Read what it says. Decide yourself! Again we say: If the U.N. “Genocide” Treaty is supposed to mean what it claimed, then why doesn’t it say that in the first place? DON’T YOU AGREE THAT, REGARDLESS OF OPINION, THIS TREATY OUGHT TO BE REWRITTEN AND AT LEAST MADE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND?1

See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the organization and its publications.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

333

No. 408 Cinema Educational Guild, a Professed AntiCommunist Tabloid, Blasts the “Genocide Plot,” 1970 WAG, 37/5/22 Pamphlet 1970 THE “GENOCIDE” PLOT Ever since Richard Nixon, the man of many “promises” has been selected President, he has been conferring with the UN about their “INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of HUMAN RELATIONS,” which is their camouflaged name for their “GENOCIDE” PLOT. It is highly interesting that at its 1970 Convention the American Bar Ass’n VIGOROUSLY opposed the genocide treaty! FLASH…FLASH…FLASH!!! “U.S. Senate signs Treaty giving the UN complete compulsory jurisdiction over the Lives and Freedoms of the American people” How would you like to see that happen?… Would you be willing to be executed –BY ORDER OF THE UN?…Would you be willing for the UN to have the power to sentence YOU to life imprisonment in a Slave Labor Camp? Well, that is what WILL happen to YOU and to me – and to every White American man, woman and child, when and if the U. S. will sign the UN’s “GENOCIDE TREATY” per se, or under its camouflaged name, the “INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of HUMAN RELATIONS”!…. And once that Treaty is signed, our Government and our Constitution will be powerless to protect or defend you – because under our Constitution a Treaty becomes the Law of the Land. Now let’s analyze this diabolical plot – and see how we were “suckered” into it: When Alger Hiss, architect of the UN, arrived in Washington with the UN Charter he called in the Press and Radio and triumphantly read to them the 7th paragraph of Article 2, which states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, or shall require the Members (Nations) to submit such settlement under the present Charter…”1 What magnanimity!!! These alien agents of Foreign and Communist nations would permit us to administer our domestic affairs without interference!…What bighearted generosity!!! Alger Hiss (1906–1994) played a central role in drafting the UN Charter as both a US State Department official and a UN official. In 1948 he was accused of being a Soviet spy and two years later convicted of perjury.

1

334

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Anyway, that was the BIG LIE that “suckered” the U. S. into becoming a member of the UN. Had it not been for that “assurance” the Charter would never have been ratified. But throughout the weeks before the ratification the controlled Press and Radio repeatedly front-paged the above “assurance” – and glorified the UN as the only sure-fire guarantee of the PEACE of the World… and, with just a few exceptions, the Senators virtually trampled all over each other in their stampede to ratify the Charter. But even as they were ratifying it, Senator Connally discovered the treachery in the “World Court” provision – and emasculated that plot with his “six-littlewords” Amendment.1 That was a great blow. But the Great Conspiracy never quits. Having failed with their “World Court” scheme, the UN decided to achieve the same objective, and more, with their so-called “humanitarian” GENOCIDE TREATY – the objective being such a completely compulsory jurisdiction over the American people as to make them powerless to prevent the transformation of the U. S. into an enslaved unit (a la Hungary) in their One-World Government. Thus, on December 11, 1946, the UN General assembly passed a Resolution (No. 96) calling for what they called a “Genocide Convention” – the full title being: “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”….the word “Genocide” (and its meaning) was coined by the UN. According to the UN’s proclamation, the “GENOCIDE” Law they were seeking was based on “humanitarianism” – it was to be Law, so they said, to prevent the mass murder of “minority groups” in the various nations throughout the world. They based the need for such a law on Hitler’s murder of the SIX MILLION Jews in Germany…. the records show that there were never more than 600,000 Jews in all of Germany – but six million sounds more impressive, so the UN insists upon six million. Now, first of all, bear in mind that under the “GENOCIDE TREATY”, when and if our Senate will ratify it, all authority to administer the “GENOCIDE” Law would rest with the UN – all arrests would be made by UN “police” – all “trials” would be supervised and controlled by the UN…. in short, the U. S. would surrender ALL rights and powers in “GENOCIDE” matters to the UN. The following is the UN’s definition of “GENOCIDE”, taken verbatim from their proposed “TREATY”: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such; A) Killing members of the group; B) Causing serious bodily OR MENTAL harm to members of the group; C) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; D) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group….” also, 1) Direct and/or indirect public incitement to commit Genocide; 2) Attempt to commit Genocide; 3) Complicity in Genocide.” Article IV of the “Treaty” defines the punishment of those “crimes” as follows: “Persons charged with Genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III (including MENTAL HARM) shall be tried by a competent Tribunal Senator Thomas Connally (D-TX) in 1946 introduced an amendment that barred the International Court of Justice from having jurisdiction over domestic matters as “determined by the United States.”

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

335

(approved by UN) of the State in the territory in which the act was committed, or (at the discretion of the UN) by SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL AS MAY HAVE JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CONTRACTING PARTIES (Nations) WHICH SHALL HAVE ACCEPTED ITS JURISDICTION.” Now, as previously stated, in all their announcements, the UN piously proclaimed that the sole objective of the “Genocide Treaty” was to prevent MASS murder of “Minority Groups”, always stressing Hitler’s murder of the “SIX MILLION” Jews. But, as we go through all the fine print in the Treaty, we find that you wouldn’t have to participate in the mass murder of an entire “minority group” to be guilty of “Genocide” – you’d be just as guilty if you participated in the killing of just one member of such a group…. then, lo and behold, we discover that you wouldn’t have to even go as far as killing to be guilty of “Genocide”, for if you caused “physical or mental harm” to a “minority group” member you would be just as guilty of “Genocide” as if you had killed “six million” Jews or Negroes – (Jews and Negroes are the only “Minority Groups” the UN seems to be protecting – Arabs don’t count). In other words, under that provision, if you got into a fist fight with a Jew or Negro and he suffered a black eye or a bloody nose you’d be guilty of “Genocide”…. or, if, in an argument with a Jew or a Negro, you mentioned the word “kyke” or “nigger” you would have caused him “mental anguish” and that “anguished” minority group member could bring a charge of “Genocide” against you. Thereupon, under the “Genocide Treaty” provisions, the UN could pluck you out of your home and ship you out of the U. S. for “trial.” That “trial” could be held in London, in Paris, Prague, or in Moscow, wherever the UN preferred. The “Judge” would be a so-called UN Tribunal. And, under the “Genocide Treaty” provisions, you could not choose an American lawyer to defend you – the UN would appoint your defense lawyer…. nor, under that provision, could our Constitution and/or Bill of Rights protect you. That UN Tribunal could sentence you to be hanged, or shot, or imprisoned for life in a Siberian Slave Labor Camp – and the U. S. Government could do nothing to prevent it! Thus it is clearly obvious that the real objective of the “Genocide Treaty” is to give the UN a stranglehold on every White Christian American – so as to prevent all opposition to the plot to transform the United States into a unit of a UN One-World Government. Once our Senate would ratify the “Genocide Treaty”, or its twin, the “Covenant of Human Relations”, the UN would find a hundred ways to twist your opposition to “One-World Government” into an “act of Genocide” – it surely would be easy for them to induce a member of a “Minority Group” into preferring charges that you have inflicted “mental anguish” on him – and how would you be able to disprove the charge when you’d be facing a UN Tribunal in Moscow or at The Hague? Under those conditions would YOU dare to oppose the transformation of the United States into an enslaved unit of the UN One World Government? But you can do it now – before it is too late – by sending signed copies of this document, to act as an urgent “Petition”, to your Senators and Representatives: To ALL Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives: IN this document, as also in various similar documents (Tracts), you have prima facie evidence that in 1945 the UN did premeditatedly employ fraud, deceit and misinterpretation to delude and seduce the U. S. Senate into ratifying its Charter. It is obvious that the sole objective of the UN was, AND IS, to transform itself into

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

336

a super-One World Government that would absorb the United States, destroy our sovereignty, and void and nullify our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, we, the American people, urgently request that the UN be summoned forthwith to appear before a joint session of Congress to answer all charges against it – and, if it (the UN) is proven guilty, that the Senate move promptly to rescind and revoke the original ratification, and thus GET THE U. S. OUT OF THE UN AND THROW THE UN OUT OF THE U. S.! Gentlemen of Congress: it is your SWORN obligation to protect and defend our Constitution and the sovereignty of our nation – you got us into the UN, it is up to you to get us out of it. Name…………………………… Street Address………………….. City, State and (Zip)……………. This (“GENOCIDE PLOT”) Tract can be obtained at the rate of 100 copies for $2.00. Send your order to: CINEMA EDUCATIONAL GUILD P. O. Box 46205 Hollywood, California 900461

No. 409 US State Department Sums up Senate Hearings on Genocide Convention, with particular reference to the American Bar Association, March 10, 1971 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 March 10, 1971 Department of State Telegram UNCLASSIFIED Drafted by: Action: Info: Subject:

L/UNA: R. J. Bettauer US MISSION GENEVA US MISSION NEW YORK Genocide Convention

GENEVA FOR HAUSER AND HEWITT 1.  Church subcommittee of Senate Foreign Relations Committee held further hearings on Genocide Convention March 10. Attending at times during session were: Church, Javits, Aiken, Cooper, Symington, Scott, Pell, Case, and Fulbright. See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the organization and its publications.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

337

2.  Sen. Ervin had additional material inserted in record. 3.  Sen. Long introduced Eberhard P. Deutsch, who testified against the Convention for the ABA. Javits pointed out that ABA by-laws prohibit anyone to represent ABA without vote of House of Delegate or Board of Governors. Deutsch said Board had authorized ABA Pres. To appoint him to represent ABA. 4.  Deutsch reviewed history and attacked Convention on following grounds: (a) matter is within U.S. domestic jurisdiction; (b) complicity of a government needed for genocide; (c) Black Panthers have charged US of genocide in UN petition; (d) Communists have mounted campaign to get US to ratify Convention; (e) “mental harm” provision dangerous and proposed understanding insufficient; (f) omission of “political groups” from definition a fatal defect; (g) possibility of US being taken to an international penal tribunal which might be agreed to by USG by executive agreement; (h) Hanoi would take US ratification as consent to trial of US prisoners for genocide; (i) proposed understanding on place of trial does not avoid extradition problems; (j) Nurnberg defense overridden by Art. IV; (k) Article IX overrides Connally Amendment.1 In general, he said that Convention would not be effective, that Constitutional problems are significant, and that by permitting others to judge US internal affairs Convention would tend to promote war. 5.  Alfred J. Schweppe also testified against Convention and made following additional points: (a) USG not leader in drafting Convention but a follower that retreated constantly on vital points; (b) USG yielded on omission of “political groups” and on government complicity requirement; (c) Committee proposed understanding that intent to destroy whole group required inconsistent with Convention; (d) Art. IV gives exclusive jurisdiction for trial to foreign country if act committed there.2 6.  Church, questioning Deutsche and Schweppe, pointed out charges of genocide made against USG whether or not it a party. He said UN cannot “punish” USG for genocide: only SC can enforce possible ICJ judgment, and USG has veto there. He noted extradition treaties. Cooper said US feels genocide terrible crime, but yet interpretations and understandings weaken Convention. Javits pointed out that since 1949 there was growth, not lessening, of support in ABA. He asked Deutsch to supply record of ABA sections and committees that have acted on genocide convention. Javits said fact that there charges of genocide prove nothing since charges on anything possible and these should not intimidate US because US does not intend to commit genocide. He cited safeguards in extradition treaties. Further, he said words “as such” make understanding that intent re genocide must aim at entire group. Scott, new on SFRC, asked Deutsch to provide 1949 and 1970 suggested ABA reservations. In general, Convention appealing to Scott, but he believes floor opposition could be reduced by appropriate reservations. He expressed concern to protect US rights. Case also expressed concern that US constitutional rights be protected. Fulbright and Deutsch agreed that US treatment of American Indians had probably been genocide.

Senator Thomas Connally (D-TX) in 1946 introduced an amendment that barred the International Court of Justice from having jurisdiction over domestic matters as “determined by the United States.” 2 Cf. doc. no. 390. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

338

Fulbright said key argument for SFRC action was criticism that full Senate should have chance to vote on treaty. 7.  Arthur J. Goldberg testified in favor of Convention, making following points: (a) all ABA expert groups favor Convention; (b) Convention in accord with 1969 Supreme Court case (Brandenburg) on “incitement”; (c) Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert clearly said no treaty can override Constitution; (d) questioned further authorization of Schweppe and Deutsch to represent ABA, despite letter from ABA Pres. Wright, because ABA by-laws not lived up to; (e) said SECSTATE insists on appropriate safeguards in country to which a person is extradited; (f) said omission of “political” groups, while unhappy, is no reason not to ratify; (g) argument that genocide not appropriate matter for treaties is outmoded; (h) Committee understanding on intent appropriate; (i) US should not be concerned about extreme charges of genocide; (j) our boys in Vietnam will not be affected; (k) there are ample safeguards against unwarranted UN action. 8.  Goldberg said Committee Report pointed out reason for adoption of Genocide Convention: “The world was appalled, somewhat belatedly, at the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews.” Said treaty consonant with US beliefs. He characterized treaty as important for long-run development of law for protection of human rights. He said US had been a leader in human rights and should continue to lead. Re ICJ Goldberg noted US policy to send matters to Court. 9.  Goldberg did not read prepared statement, which will appear in record. Statement reviews reasons for ratifying Convention and answers standard objections. 10.  Questioning of Goldberg was sparse. Approval for his statement was voiced and tribute was paid to him as a person. 11.  Javist, Church and Pell appeared as key supporters of Convention. Cooper and Scott expressed some doubts.

No. 410 Liberty Letter, Monthly Publication of the Liberty Lobby, Condemns the Genocide Convention as “Communist Hoax,” April 23, 1971 WAG, 37/5/22 April 23, 1971 Pamphlet EMERGENCY LIBERTY LETTER NO. 28 GENOCIDE TREATY AGAIN THREATENS Immediate Action Required to Kill Communist Hoax YOU and a million other Americans stooped the notorious Genocide Convention, when it was thrown up for ratification, last June.



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

339

Thanks to YOUR efforts, the Genocide Convention was KILLED for the 91st Congress! NOW – Senator J. William Fulbright – that ominous gravedigger of American freedom – has dug up the Genocide Convention once again! The American-Last Internationalists were sure they would win the fight last year. They put tremendous efforts behind the drive to force the Senate to ratify the Genocide Convention – they even got President Nixon to endorse it – making him the first President in history to back this communist hoax…APPARENTLY KISSINGER HASN’T TOLD NIXON THAT IF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION WERE IN FORCE, HE (NIXON) COULD BE TRIED FOR “WAR CRIMES” IN VIETNAM! Yes – under the terms of the G.C., the President or any general (such as Westmoreland or Abrams) could – AND WOULD – be hauled off to a foreign country for trial and execution if found “guilty” of alleged “war crimes” in Vietnam!1 “NONSENSE !” YOU SAY? THEN YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT FULBRIGHT HAS ACTUALLY SAID THAT WE SHOULD APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF NUREMBURG TO VIETNAM – ALL THE WAY UP TO AND INCLUDING THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF! (See enclosed documentation).2 The plot is now obvious. You can see why the Internationalists have dug up the G.C. at this time. They thought that the conviction of Lieutenant Calley would strengthen their case.3 They thought that by hammering away at the MyLai “atrocity” they would build public support for the G.C. They miscalculated. They didn’t foresee the wonderful public reaction! They didn’t believe that the American people (as brainwashed as they are) would rise up in nearly one voice against the Calley verdict – instead of approving it, as they planned. THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT THE CALLEY VERDICT IS PART OF A SUBVERSIVE PLAN TO DOWNGRADE THE MILITARY! PUBLIC PROTEST HAS ALREADY ALARMED NIXON SO MUCH THAT HE HAD TO REVERSE HIMSELF – AND RELEASE CALLEY FROM THE STOCKADE! BULLETIN. Immediately after the verdict in the Calley case, and official of LIBERTY LOBBY was dispatched to Ft. Benning. He personally visited the Lieutenant and pledged to him the full backing of America’s largest independent political group. See full story and pictures in forthcoming May issue of Liberty Letter.

This is why we have a GREAT OPPORTUNITY – but one which will pass quickly unless it is seized immediately. We must now move in and try to PERMANENTLY kill the Genocide Convention. There are two big things which can be accomplished if YOU cooperate NOW: MOST IMPORTANTLY, the G.C. must be soundly REJECTED by the Senate. If it is, it will not be submitted again for a long time – perhaps never. BUT IF NOT REJECTED DECISIVELY, LIKE A SERPENT IT WILL LIE COILED ON THE DESK General William C. Westmoreland (1914–2005) commanded US forces in the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1968 and General Creighton W. Abrams (1914–74) from 1968 to 1972. There is no known record that Senator William J. Fulbright (D-AR) ever made such an argument. 3 Second lieutenant William L. Calley (b. 1943) served in Vietnam as part of the XI Infantry Brigade. On March 31, 1971 Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment for ordering his men to murder unarmed Vietnamese civilians at My Lai three years earlier. Calley subsequently received a limited Presidential Pardon. 1

2

340

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

OF FULBRIGHT, READY TO SPRING ON THE SENATE FLOOR WHENEVER THE INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRATORS GIVE THE WORD…. And don’t be fooled by “experts” who seek to confuse you – it is technically possible for as few as TWO senators to ratify the Genocide Convention – thereby REPEALING the BILL of Rights! SECONDLY, now, is the time to tell the TRUTH about Calley, MyLai, war crimes, and to show how the “Establishment” sees only the killing of communists as “war crimes.” ATROCITIES THAT AID COMMUNISM ARE NEVER EXPOSED BY PEOPLE LIKE FULBRIGHT OR THE SO-CALLED “FREE PRESS.” INSTEAD, NEWS ABOUT COMMUNIST ATROCITIES IS ALWAYS SUPPRESSED OR PLAYED DOWN IN AMERICA’S LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA! For example, here is PART of the human communist record in Vietnam: The murder of over 30,000 village leaders, educators, etc. – with murders still proceeding at a rate of about 100 per week; The kidnapping and torture of more than 30,000 South Vietnamese by the Reds; The blowing up of school and civilian buses and restaurants and indiscriminate terror attacks on populated areas; The Hue massacre, in which more than 5,000 civilians were executed in cold blood….1 ETCETERA, ETCETERA, ETCETERA… WHAT TO DO ** WRITE YOUR SENATORS and get others to. Send them a “group letter,” petition-style, signed by as many as possible. Send a copy to Henry Kissinger and ask him to tell Nixon to repudiate his support of the Genocide Convention. ** WRITE YOUR PAPER and expose this communist hoax. Point out that anti-American hypocrisy of controlled stooges, like Fulbright, who ignore communist atrocities. ** IF YOU ARE ACTIVE in any veteran, civic or church group, get up and tell the facts. Point out to veterans that if the G.C. is ratified then they could be hauled overseas, tried and hanged by foreigners for alleged “war crimes” of years ago! Tell policemen and city officials they could be tried for “genocide” against Black Panthers, or even for advocating birth control for welfare mothers! ** COOPERATE WITH LIBERTY LOBBY in a bold plan to DEFEAT the Genocide Convention permanently. LIBERY LOBBY is contacting all senators personally to convince them that their constituents do not want to risk the dangers of the Geno. Con. A national advertising campaign is now being prepared for both newspapers and radio. Full-page ads will be inserted in papers and spot announcements on radio stations coast-to-coast. If you want (free of charge) a “matrix” or “reproduction proof ” for your local paper, please advise. All ads will be timed to appear at the same time throughout the U.S., thereby increasing the impact, and tied in with LIBERTY LOBBY’S Washington activities. ** AN EMERGENCY FUND must be raised immediately for this campaign! To do the job properly at least $100,000 is required. PLEASE DO NOT DELAY IN SENDING YOUR CONTRIBUTION, because until a budget is established the plan cannot be laid out for maximum effectiveness. PLEASE HELP! The Huể massacre was perpetrated by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army in February 1968.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

341

YOUR INFLUENCE COUNTS…USE IT!1

No. 411 Carl M. King of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Minneapolis Criticizes US President Nixon for His Support of US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April 27, 1971 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 April 27, 1971 Richard M. Nixon President of the United States of America Dear President Nixon, When you took office as our president you pledged to do all in your power to uphold and preserve the Constitution of our beloved U.S.A. Why then have you asked Congress to ratify the Genocide Convention which in many instances place us under an international law that supersedes our Constitution? Why do you waste our time making treaties with Russia when they never keep them nor do they have any intention of doing so. We honor the nuclear test ban treaty and halt nuclear weapons development and they continue to test nuclear weapons whenever needful for experimentation. Because of disarmament agreements we cut back on our defences and Russia continues to build up. Can’t our men in Washington see what’s going on? One day the Communists will walk in and take us over because we will be so weak militarily and so bound up in treaties we will not be able to defend ourselves. Your Welfare Program will never work. Giving people something for nothing is immoral and can only cause problems. Put them to work, that would cure most of our problems. Inflation will never stop until the right to strike and coerce employers is taken away from organized labor. I am most concerned regarding the security of our country. I know the Constitution and frame work of our government was designed by men whom God has raised up for that purpose. It grew to become the greatest power on earth because of the great majority of people were a God fearing people with high moral standards and a love of their fellowmen. What this country has needed for several years was a great leader. One with the courage to stand up for his honest moral principles and the Constitution of this great country. I believe you are the man. May I suggest you start by deleting

See doc. no. 412, which provides background to the organization and its publications.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

342

all programs where we give people something for nothing (avoiding honest toil on their part), stop fighting no win wars, dismiss all vowed Communists in high policy making positions, avoid entering into any treaties wherein we lose any of our Constitutional rights. May God help us to put this country back on a course of truth and honor, garnering our living from honest toil and climbing back to the number one position of leadership in the world as a result of strength and goodness. I pray for you, for your guidance and direction for I know somewhat of your great problems. I received a small insight into it while serving as the Mayor of the City of Burbank, California. Last but not least – let’s do not enter into the Genocide treaty.1 Sincerely, Carl M. King, President Manitoba-Minnesota Mission The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints2

No. 412 The Anti-Defamation League Surveys the Right Wing Groups in the United States Opposed to Ratification of the Genocide Convention, April [29], 1971 WAG, 037/3/34, courtesy of the Anti-Defamation League, New York, NY, all rights reserved April [29], 1971 Confidential ORGANIZED OPPOSITION TO THE UN CONVENTION ON GENOCIDE3 A significant proportion of the opposition to U.S. ratification of the Genocide Treaty comes from an array of organizations, publications and radio broadcasting activities operated by groups and individuals on the right wing of the American political spectrum. This organized opposition emanates from three distinct segments of the overall American right wing: 1) Ultra-conservatives; 2) political Far Rightists; and 3) a hate See State Department’s draft reply to King, dated May 14, 1971, in the same file. Carl M. King (1909–88) served as president of the Manitoba-Minnesota Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Minneapolis from 1969 to 1972. 3 The Anti-Defamation League prepared the report at the behest of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee. The report was likely written under the guidance and supervision of Jerome Bakst, Director of Research and Evaluation Department of the Anti-Defamation League. See Bakst’s letter to Betty Kaye Taylor, dated April 29, 1971, in the same file. 1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

343

fringe that mixes Radical Rightist and even neo-fascist politics with the dissemination of racial and religious bigotry. Many of the organizations in this rightist phalanx, such as The John Birch Society, for more than a year have been urging their members and their followers to send letters and telegrams to their Senators and to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee condemning the Genocide Treaty and opposing U.S. ratification. None of the organizations, publications or radio broadcasting operations in this rightist anti-ratification effort comes anywhere near representing a mass movement. Some of these groups, however, have memberships or followings in the scores of thousands and are capable to generating the appearance of a public opinion groundswell, in part because of the zeal of many of their members and supporters, in part because on an issue like ratification of the Genocide Treaty they tend to react along parallel lines, although not necessarily in concert. Some of the radio broadcasting operations sponsored by organizations in this rightist array reach audiences estimated in the millions. In short, these right-wing groups represent a very small minority of the American electorate but they are able – when so moved – to generate a substantial flow of mail and telegrams to members of Congress. Most, though not all, of the arguments used by the organized opposition to U.S. ratification of the Genocide Treaty have long been familiar and the major objections have been effectively answered in reports issued by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee dated December 8, 1970 and May 4, 1971. Ultra-Conservatives Among the ultra-conservatives opposed to ratification are three Catholic-oriented operations – the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, headquartered in St. Louis; Twin Circle, a nationally distributed weekly newspaper published in Denver which in 1970 reported an average paid circulation per issue of about 100,000; and The Wanderer, a St. Paul-based weekly which averaged 48,000 paid circulation per issue last year, and which sponsors an annual Wanderer Forum that serves as a gathering place and platform for ultra-conservatives and some political Far Rightists. The Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation publishes two regular periodicals – The Mindszenty Report, a monthly, and The Red Line, a twice monthly – and produces a radio program called Dangers of Apathy which in the mid-1960s was being carried on some 200 stations coast to coast and that as recently as the Fall of 1970 was being offered free by the CMF Study Clubs, by seminars and other groups targeted at teachers, students and the general public, and by the publication of pamphlets and other materials aimed at “parish pamphlet racks.” There is a close affinity between CMF and Twin Circle, both of which have received financial support from Patrick Frawley, Jr. a wealthy West Coast businessman, who supports conservative and ultra-conservative causes. The two operations, for example, held a joint conference in 1970. The 100,000 circulation of Twin Circle has been augmented by a radio and television operation called Twin Circle Headline, which in September, 1970, was being carried

344

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

on a claimed 650 radio stations and which in June, 1970, was being carried on 40 TV outlets. Tom Davis, a former paid public relations man for The John Birch Society, has served as moderator of the on-the-air Twin Circle programs. The Red Line, CMF publication, opposed ratification of the Genocide Treaty in its issue of September 17, 1970, the edition being headlined “Reds Ordered to Push ‘Genocide’ Propaganda.” “The Genocide Treaty Must Be Rejected” was the title of an article that appeared in the March 8, 1970, issue of Twin Circle which referred to the proposed treaty as a “monstrous document.” The Wanderer published articles critical of the pact in two of its March, 1970 issues. One of the articles was written by Robert Morris, now the editor and publisher of Twin Circle, the other by John B. Gest, a Philadelphia Bar Association critic of the Genocide Treaty. The Political Far Right On the political Far Right, the campaign against ratification of the proposed treaty is being carried forward by a number of groups whose extreme propaganda line and activities have brought them considerable publicity in recent years. One of these is The John Birch Society, whose Founder and President, Robert Welch, called Dwight Eisenhower a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” Welch has branded the Genocide Treaty as “pernicious” and as recently as April 1, 1971, published a bold-face box in the monthly John Birch Society Bulletin that said in part: “After this bulletin had already gone to press…we learned that the Genocide Treaty had been voted out of committee again, and some revamped version might soon be presented on the floor of the Senate. Please write to President Nixon, respectfully but firmly opposing and such surrender of the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Send copies of that letter to your two Senators and other Senators. For more information see our May and December 1970 Bulletins. RW.” Ranged alongside the Birth Society in the campaign against ratification are other organizations, publications and radio broadcasting operations of the political Far Right in America. These include: −− The Washington-based Liberty Lobby which calls the Genocide Treaty “deceitful” and a “Communist hoax.” −− The Christian Crusade, led by Rev. Billy James Hargis, which has headquarters in Tulsa and which has branded the treaty as “worthless and fraudulent.” −− The Manion Forum, a broadcasting operation conducted by Clarence Manion of South Bend, Ind., a long-time member of the Birch Society national council; Manion Forum has called the Genocide Treaty an “international booby-trap.” −− The Life Line Foundation, founded by Texas oil millionaire H. L. Hunt, whose broadcasts are carried on some 500 radio stations across the country seven days a week – a total of more than 3,500 broadcasts a week that reach millions of listeners. −− Dan Smoot, Dallas broadcaster and pamphleteer, whose published Dan Smoot Report will in the future be carried in a Birchite weekly publication after 15 years as part of Smoot’s own operation.



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

345

−− The Herald of Freedom, published by Frank Capell of Zarephath, N.J., a propagandist who writes extremist pamphlets and who in the mid-1960s was involved in a smear effort directed against a Republican Senator from California. −− The Independent American, published in New Orleans by Mrs. Phoebe Courtney, author of a recent paperback book charging that the respectable Council on Foreign Relations is a sinister organization that controls the Nixon administration and the domestic and foreign policies of the United States, and naming seven members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as CFR members. The scope and thrust of these organizations, publications and broadcast operations is not insubstantial, especially when considered in the aggregate. In its 12 years on the American scene, The John Birch Society has developed a nationwide membership estimated at 60,000 and organized in some 3,500 chapters from coast to coast, and a paid professional staff of about 200. It publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine with a circulation of about 45,000, and a weekly Review of the News with a circulation of about 15,000. In addition, the Society produces an array of films and film strips, operates an American Opinion Speakers Bureau whose lectures make hundreds of appearances a year, publishes books under a “Western Islands” imprimatur, operates several hundred American Opinion bookstores, and grosses anywhere from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 in the sale of publications and other materials. The reach and impact of the Society is increased through a number of “ad hoc committees” or “front groups” that are active in communities around the country. These fronts include non-Birch members but are controlled by members of the Society and, in turn, by the Society itself which launches them in the first place. They include “Support Your Local Police Committees,” TACT (“Truth About Civil Turmoil”) Committees, TRAIN (“To Restore American Independence Now”) Committees and MOTOREDE (“Movement to Restore Decency”) Committees. Liberty Lobby, headquartered in Washington, D.C., was conceived as a Far Right political lobby in 1955, and launched as an organization in 1961 by Willis Carto, a shadowy figure long active on the outer edges of American political life. Carto serves as Treasurer of Liberty Lobby and controls it. His front man is Curtis Dall, 74, who is Chairman of Liberty Lobby’s Board of Policy and a former son-in-law of the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In its decade on the American scene, Liberty Lobby has grown steadily and has achieved a front rank among the organizations of the political Far Right, with an annual gross of about $1,000,000 a year. Its monthly Liberty Letter, which had a readership of 15,000 in 1964, reached 200,000 in 1969 and in 1970 was 240,000, largest of any Far Right publication. Carto has also acquired influence or control over a variety of operations and publications. These include American Mercury magazine; Washington Observer Newsletter; Noontide Books, a California publisher of extremist books; the Government Education Foundation; Americans for National Security; the United Congressional Appeal; the National Youth Alliance, and Friends of Rhodesian Independence. The Hargis Christian Crusade claims an annual budget of about $2,000,000 and a mailing list of 200,000. Its varied activities are big business. Hargis, a fundamentalist preacher, is one of the most energetic propagandists of the political Far Right and

346

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

his operation is a complex of activities, institutions and publications. These include a weekly newspaper, Christian Crusade Weekly, with a circulation of better than 100,000 and a variety of published tracts, pamphlets and paperback books; radio broadcast on an estimated 100 stations; “leadership schools,” institutes and seminars for clergymen, teachers and students; profitable Holy Lane Tours under Crusade auspices; a hotel in Tulsa and another in Manitou Springs, Colo., and a newly launched American Christian College in Tulsa. Although the Crusade is rooted in religious fundamentalism, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in 1966 revoked its tax-exemption, contending that its concerns were so substantially political that tax exemption was not warranted. Hargis appealed the ruling to the courts. Based in South Bend, Ind., the Manion Forum is a radio broadcasting operation that has been carried on as many as 300 radio and television stations in recent years, and serves as an outlet for the views of Bircher Clarence Manion, a former dean of the Notre Dame Law School, who has also served as a member of the national advisory committee of the Hargis Christian Crusade, and has been identified with a number of other rightist groups in the last 15 years. The Forum issues printed transcripts of the broadcasts, which Manion often gives to his ultra-conservatives or Far Rightist guests. The Forum also issues a newsletter from time to time and a few years ago was spending as estimated $500,000 on its broadcasting and related operations. In addition to its more than 3,500 radio broadcasts around the country each week, H. L. Hunt’s Life Foundation publishes a thrice-weekly four-page newspaper called Life Lines and offers copies of Melvin Munn’s Life Line Freedom Talks broadcasts on a subscription basis. When Hunt formed Life Line Foundation in 1958, as the successor organization to his earlier Facts Forum propaganda operation, the Life Line operation received a postal subsidy as a religious organization – a subsidy that was subsequently revoked. In March, 1965, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the Foundation’s tax exemption. In the last four or five years, the Hunt operation has, nevertheless, steadily expanded the number of stations carrying its taped broadcasts and reaches an audience of millions on a week in a week out basis, seven days a week. Dan Smoot, a former FBI agent, has been one of the leading voices of the political Far Right for more than 15 years, first as radio commentator for Hunt’s Facts Forum in the early 1950s, later on his own as a broadcaster who by the mid-1960s was being heard on 110 radio and TV outlets, mainly in the Western states. In addition to his broadcasts, Smoot has offered for sale the printed transcripts of his talks as the Dan Smoot Report, with as many as 20,000 regular subscribers, including members of Congress who were offered discount prices. In addition to these subscribers, Smoot’s message has reached other Americans through the sale of tapes offered to home, church and civic groups and through frequent appearances by Smoot as a speaker before Far Right groups and other organizations. Capell, the publisher of The Herald of Freedom who was involved in the smear effort against a U.S. Senator from California in the mid-1960s, is a busy propagandist who in recent years has authored such sensationalist booklets as Treason is the Reason, The Strange Death of Marilyn Monroe (which charged that Communist hanky-panky was a factor and that the late Robert F. Kennedy has been involved with the late movie



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

347

actress), The Strange Case of Jacob Javits and – in 1968 – Robert F. Kennedy: Emerging American Dictator. The latter effort was re-named Robert F. Kennedy: A Political Biography after the late Senator was assassinated, Capell adding a “Post-Assassination Introduction” and a “Post-Assassination Conclusion.” The cover carried a photo of Kennedy beneath a photo of Castro. In the case of the California Senator, Capell pleaded nolo to a reduced charge – a misdemeanor – of wrongly reflecting on a person’s moral reputation. Under California law, the plea of nolo in a criminal case, if approved by the prosecution and the court, is equivalent to a plea of guilty but cannot be used as an admission in any subsequent civil case. Capell wrote a letter of apology to the libeled Senator. He had originally pleaded not guilty to an indictment that charged him with felony – conspiring to circulate an affidavit which falsely charged that the Senator had been involved in a morals offense 15 years earlier. In 1944, while an employee of the War production Board Capell was indicted by a Federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York on charges of conspiracy to obtain bribes while a WPB investigator. He pleaded guilty to three counts, was sentenced to pay a fine of $2,000 on the first count and to serve a year and a day on each of three counts the terms to run concurrently. The prison sentences were suspended conditional on payment of the fine within one year and a two-year period of probation. In addition to the The Independent American, a garish mish-mash of materials reprinted from newspapers and from other publications of the political Far Right, Mrs. Phoebe Courtney also issues a series of shrill Far Rightist tracts called Tax Fax and operates a publishing and printing enterprise called Free Men Speak, Inc. early in 1971, the latter published Mrs. Courtney’s paperback attack on the Nixon administration – Nixon and the CFR. The book, charging that the respectable Council on Foreign Relations “dictates the foreign and domestic policies of the U.S.A.,” also criticizes the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, each of which was alleged to have included prominent CFR members deemed to be part of some “invisible government” whose “ultimate aim is the same as the ultimate aim of international Communism: to create a one-world Socialist system and make the United States an official part of it” – a quote from Dan Smoot. In addition to President Nixon himself, Mrs. Courtney’s targets include Henry Kissinger; Paul McCracken; Ambassador David Bruce and 13 other ambassadors; the chairman and various members of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, including Chairman George Anderson, Jr., Gordon Gray, Robert D. Murphy, Frank Pace, Jr., and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller; Army Secretary Stanley Resor, Gen. William Westmoreland, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, HEW Secretary Elliott Richardson, Under-Secretary of State John N. Irwin II, and dozens of others whose CFR membership is alleged to make them unfit for office since, according to Mrs. Courtney, the policies of the CFR are “Communist accommodation” and “Communist appeasing.” Among the members of Congress listed by Mrs. Courtney as CFR members are seven members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Sens. John Sherman Cooper, Claiborne Pell, Gale McGee, W. Stuart Symington, Jabob Javits, Clifford Case and Frank Church.

348

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

The Hate Fringe Farther out on the extreme right of the American political spectrum are those organizations, publications and propagandists whose general political outlook is Radical Rightist – and is some cases neo-fascist or neo-Nazi – but whose main propaganda stock-in-trade is religious and racial bigotry, aimed mainly at Jews and Negroes, but in some cases against Roman Catholics as well. Among these hate peddlers are such groups as the United Klans of America – Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist White People's Party, successor to the late George Rockwell’s American Nazi Party; both the UKA and the NSWPP have called the Genocide Treaty “deadly.” Gerald Smith, head of the Christian Nationalist Crusade and dean of the anti-Jewish propagandists is America, has called the treaty “tyrannical.” Common Sense, for more than 20 years a blatant anti-Jewish hate sheet, calls the treaty “vicious,” while another anti-Semitic publication – The Truth Seeker – has labelled it “dangerous.” The Councilor, a Shreveport, La., based periodical that blends Far Right politics, racism and extreme segregationism, and anti-Semitism, called the treaty “outrageous.” Several of the extremists attacked President Nixon for seeking ratification of the Genocide Treaty. Gerald Smith, for example, charged that the President had either been “misled” or had “colluded with diabolical elements” – presumably meaning Jews. The Truth Seeker, however, was blunt. It condemned the President as a “puppet” of the Jews for supporting the treaty. A major theme among hate organizations and publications is the fancied threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press which they feel is posed by the Genocide Treaty, especially as it might affect their own hate activities. The National States Rights Party, Savannah, Ga., whose name masks the anti-Negro and anti-Jewish records and activities of its leadership, warned that publications like its own monthly, The Thunderbolt, could be “banned” and groups like NSRP driven underground if the Treaty is ratified. The anti-Jewish Common Sense struck the same note: “Enactment of this UN Treaty would close down every effective publication in [the] U.S.” Some of the hate mongers regard the white race as the real victims of genocide – or at least potential targets of genocide – and contend that whites would not be protected by the treaty. The Thunderbolt asserted: “The only race being threatened with genocide is the white race.” White Power, a bi-monthly publication of the neo-Nazi National Socialist White People's Party warned that the treaty “would not be applied against those who engaged in Acts designed to bring about the destruction of White Aryan mankind.” In addition to those organizations, publications and propagandists, the campaign being waged against the Genocide Treaty by the extremist hate fringe is aided by the efforts of several other propagandists with long records of activity. These include Richard Cotton, and anti-Semite and formal radio broadcaster, whose misnamed publication, Conservative Viewpoint, is published by Sterling enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 17, Sterling, Va., and Myron Fagan, an extremist pamphleteer who founded the Cinema Educational Guild of Hollywood, Calif., in 1949. While the extremist hate fringe represents a very small segment of American political life, some of the organizations and publications that form part of it nevertheless manage to reach audiences that number thousands of citizens who can pour a flood of letters and telegrams to Capitol Hill and the White House when so motivated.



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

349

The United Klans of America, for example, can probably count on the support of thousands of members and sympathizers in various parts of the South and in a few Northern states as well. The UKA publishes a compact-sized monthly magazine called The Fiery Cross, which is the official UKA publication, and is led by Robert Shelton, an energetic, long-time Klansman who is now in his early forties. UKA headquarters is in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Gerald Smith’s Christian Nationalist Crusade, with headquarters in Los Angeles, is an economically viable enterprise that for some years has averaged in the neighborhood of $250,000 a year in income. Smith’s monthly magazine, The Cross and the Flag, had a paid circulation of 29,000 in 1970. The National States Rights Party, whose main leadership personalities are Edward Fields and J. B. Stoner, both active peddlers of racist and anti-Jewish hatred for a quarter-of-a-century, has a relatively small membership. Its monthly newspaper, The Thunderbolt, however, had a paid circulation of 32,000 in 1969 and 14,000 in 1970. Common Sense, the hate sheet founded in the 1940s by the late Conde McGinley, a notorious anti-Semitic zealot, is the official publication of the Christian Educational Association, Union, N.J. – also founded by McGinley. In 1970, Common Sense reported a paid circulation of 27,000. Since McGinley’s death in 1963, it has been published regularly – it is now a semi-monthly – by his son and several associates. The Councilor, based in Shreveport, La., was formerly the organ of the White Citizens’ Councils of Louisiana, but is now published by Councilor Research, Inc. It is a shrill, racist and anti-Semitic periodical that is published once every three weeks and is edited by Ned Touchstone who reported a circulation of 65,000 in 1969 and 51,000 in 1970. Touchstone was an early supporter of the 1968 candidacy of George Wallace for President, has been listed on Liberty Lobby’s National Board of Policy, and as a contributing editor to American Mercury magazine, over which Liberty Lobby’s Willis Carto gained major influence in 1966. Cotton, the anti-Semite who publishes Conservative Viewpoint, several years and broadcast a radio program of the same name that was carried more than 200 times a week on 29 stations in 16 states. Like Touchstone, Cotton has been listed on the Board of Policy of Carto’s Liberty Lobby. In 1966, Cotton appeared on a platform of the so-called Patriotic Party, political arm at the time of Robert B. DePugh’s extremist Minutemen organization. In addition to publishing Conservative Viewpoint, Cotton – who is now based in the Washington, D.C. area – heads a recently formed organization called the National Documentation Institute, which has an office in the District of Columbia. Fagan of Cinema Educational Guild is one of the most prolific extremist pamphleteers to emerge on the American scene in the last 25 years. A less-than-successful playwright and theatrical producer, Fagan has been grinding out a steady stream of tracts and pamphlets purporting to “expose” alleged Communism in Hollywood and in other areas of American life. Over the years, Fagan has not only attacked various film stars, but has denounced the United Nations and called for the impeachment of President Dwight Eisenhower, of Chief Justice Earl Warren and of then-Vice-President Richard M. Nixon. In 1961, a spokesman for the California State Senate Fact-Finding Sub-Committee on Un-American Activities was quoted as stating that the Cinema Educational Guild has been guilty of spreading “erroneous information” about a number of well-known entertainment personalities in the film capital.

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

350

Among the smaller operations on the hate fringe are the admirers of Adolph Hitler who form the National Socialist White People’s Party – formerly the American Nazi Party – whose emblem is the Hitlerian swastika. The NSWPP is now headed by Matthias Koehl – a veteran anti-Semite and hate activist – who succeeded the late George Rockwell, assassinated in 1967. The NSWPP produces two publications – White Power, a tabloid published every two months, and NS (National Socialist) Bulletin, a monthly newsletter. The NSWPP has a minuscule membership headquartered in Arlington, Va., and small groups of adherents in Chicago, Akron, O., and a few other locations. The Truth Seeker, which inveighs against the Genocide Treaty along with the other hate groups and publications already mentioned, is a small anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and anti-negro publication, formerly published in New York but now based in San Diego, Calif. Its editor is James Hervey Johnson who has been associated with the publication for many years and who succeeded to the editorship some years ago. In 1970, The Truth Seeker reported a paid circulation of 1,100. The extremists also use the ordinary telephone in their campaign against the Genocide Treaty. An automatic recorded message service offered by telephone companies around the country makes it possible for anyone dialing a given phone number to hear a taped message and the device is now used by a number of individuals and organizations to disseminate their propaganda. One such operation in the campaign against the Genocide Treaty, among other subjects, is Liberty Line Houston, a Texas-based message service that mixes Radical Rightist political themes and antiSemitism. In one message against the Genocide Treaty, Liberty Line Houston referred to President Nixon as “tricky Dickey, the puppet of the internationalists…”1

No. 413 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee Reports on the Challenges Facing the Pro-Ratification Campaign in the United States, June 17, 1971 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee June 17, 1971 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Dear Friend: As many of you know, the campaign for Senate approval of the Genocide Convention has been meeting with formidable opposition from ultra-right and conservative groups. In fact, our Washington sources indicate that mail is still running 100 to 1 against. The enclosed reprint of the Liberty League’s Letter is a typical example of the The concluding, one and a half page-long, section of the report, “Information re Certain Signers of April 22, 1971 Full-Page Ad in the Houston Tribune, Opposing the Genocide Treaty,” provides a list of six.

1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

351

propaganda being circulated by these groups.1 Their efforts have had a negative impact on the Senate and call for an effective campaign of counter-action. On the positive side, we are encouraged by the Foreign Relations Committee’s Report (a copy is enclosed for your information and reference).2 In both substantive argument and moral terms it strongly endorses the need for favorable U.S. action, as does the Report of the President’s Commission for the Observance of the 15th Anniversary of the U.N., which notes: “The U.S. would be in a far stronger position to play its historic role as champion of individual rights and to take a leading part in consideration of alleged violations of international standards if it ratified the instruments it has helped to develop.” We are also heartened by the President’s continuing interest and by assurances from the Senate Majority and Minority leaders that the Treaty will be brought before the Senate at the appropriate time. Recently a few of us had an opportunity to get together informally with our Washington chairman to discuss the timing of our efforts.3 We decided to be guided in our strategy by the Senate calendar. It affords sufficient time to lay the groundwork now for the intensive campaign of public education and discussion with senators which must be undertaken in the fall. In assessing our ability to carry out this campaign it was determined that a budget of $25,000 was required. Several of our affiliated organizations have already pledged $1,000 each for this purpose, and it is our hope that our other affiliates will pledge an equal amount toward realizing the enclosed budget proposal. Organizations that responded to our last fund appeal are urged to supplement their contributions to the greatest possible extent. These new funds will make it possible for us to arrange for the publication of new materials for use by our constituent groups and special background material for the Senate. It will also enable us to hire supplementary, part-time staff in Washington and New York to facilitate our enlarged operations from the fall until March or April, when we hope to have sufficient votes to win Senate approval. To ensure the success of this intensive effort in the fall we are calling upon our affiliated organizations to help in the following ways: ●● Designate a “Genocide Coordinator” to take primary responsibility for your organization’s participation and follow-up with our New York and Washington offices. ●● Adopt a resolution at your convention and send copies to each member of the Senate, to President Nixon, and the press. ●● Organize delegations of your members and leadership to visit senators during the summer recess, which runs from August 6th to Labor Day and during the Christmas recess. Invite other groups affiliated with the Ad Hoc Committee to join you in a coordinated effort. ●● Involve prominent community leaders, lawyers, university professors, clergymen, civic organizations, youth groups, etc., in letter-writing campaigns and visits. ●● Carry activities on the need for action in your news-letters and publications. Document not in the file. Document not in the file. Cf. doc. no. 409. 3 Hyman “Hy” Bookbinder (1916–2007), representative of the American Jewish Committee in Washington, DC from 1967 to 1986. 1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

352

As soon as we have a final rundown on where members of the Senate stand, we will be in touch with you. It would be most helpful if you would let us know how the states in which your organization is particularly strong so that we can call on you later to exert and perhaps coordinate an extra “push”. With your full backing and cooperation, we are confident that we will win. With best wishes for a pleasant summer. Sincerely, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

No. 414 Cora V. Palmer of Iowa Expresses Her Opposition to US Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Letter to Senator Harold E. Hughes, June 20, 1972 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 June 20, 1972 Honorable Harold E. Hughes Dear Senator Hughes, Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1972.1 The last paragraph of that letter leads me to think that you will not think of this matter until just before it is brought to a vote. It is my understanding that Senators are getting a salary for deep consideration of matters as important as a treaty. Doesn’t a treaty nullify anything in the constitution, Bill of Rights or previous treaties that would prevent its objective from being carried out? I am aware that President Nixon asked for the ratification of the treaty and I am sure that if you select this time to vote for one of his proposals I shall not appreciate it. I heard an educated black male tell Jan Voss on her former TV program that he wished the U.S. would pass the Genocide Convention so that the blacks could sue the United States in the U.N. The definition of Genocide in the convention has deceived many people because most people consider the Webster definition as valid.2 They are not privy to the wording of the treaty because it is not easily accessible. Is this a liberal conspiracy or is there a place to locate the treaty easily? Please explain how the U.N. would determine the horrendous crime of hurting one’s mind? Would the zero birthrate policy of the U.S. be classified as genocide under article D?

Document not in the file. Cf. doc. no. 205.

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

353

Please answer specifically these questions that have been heavily on my heart since about 1954 or 55 when I read of this Convention and its dangers in a Bar Association magazine. Respectfully, Mrs. Charles A. Palmer (Cora V. Palmer)1

No. 415 Marshall Wright of the US State Department Comments on Cora Palmer’s Letter to Senator Harold Hughes, July 7, 1972 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) July 7, 1972 Honorable Harold E. Hughes United States Senate Dear Senator Hughes: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on Mrs. Charles A. Palmer’s letter of June 20, 1972, concerning the Genocide Convention. The Administration strongly supports favorably Senate action on the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. President Nixon requested the Senate to give advice and consent to ratification on February 19, 1970, and said the Senate would thereby “demonstrate unequivocally our country’s desire to participate in the building of international order based on law and justice.” During 1971, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported the Convention favorably and the Administration subsequently submitted to the Congress implementing legislation. Mrs. Palmer’s letter implies that the Genocide Convention might have the effect of nullifying some part of the United States Constitution. This is simply not the case. The Supreme Court has said a number of times that treaties cannot override the Constitution. See, for example, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Moreover, former Attorney General Mitchell went on record on January 26, 1970, that there are no constitutional obstacles to United States ratification of the Convention. Mrs. Palmer is also concerned that blacks could sue the United States in the United Nations under the Convention and that the United Nations would have a role in determining when certain forms of genocide were committed. There is no provision in the Convention which would give the United Nations such a role. Article VIII of the Convention merely allows contracting parties, that is, states, to call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take appropriate action for the prevention and suppression of genocide. This does not change the jurisdiction of the United Nations, but merely confirms the existing situation; members may already go to competent organs in appropriate cases. Similarly, only states, and not individuals, have Cora V. Palmer (1899–2002), parishioner of Waukon, Iowa, Presbyterian Church and member of the American Legion Auxiliary.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

354

access to the International Court of Justice, and thus Article IX of the Convention, which says that disputes between parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention can be submitted to the Court, would not authorize individuals to sue the United States. Another concern expressed by Mrs. Palmer is that Article II(d) might affect birth control efforts. The question was put to former Assistant Attorney General Rehnquist, now Mr. Justice Rehnquist, by Senator Church at the hearings on the Convention and he gave the following response: I think that any birth control effort that might reasonably be contemplated in this country would certainly be a voluntary one, and would likewise be directed toward all individual rather than any particular race. I think it is inconceivable that any sort of birth control effort that would ever receive public approval in this country would violate the provisions of this treaty. Mrs. Palmer asks where the Convention may be located. It appears at page 277 of Volume 78 of the United Nations Treaty Series. It was also printed as a congressional document, Senate Executive B, 91st Congress, Second Session, February 19, 1970. A copy of the Convention is enclosed. I hope the above information will be of assistance in responding to your constituent. Please feel free to call on us for further information. Sincerely yours, Marshall Wright Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Enclosures: 1.  Copy of Genocide Convention 2.  Correspondence returned

No. 416 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reports on the Senate’s Failure to Move forward with the Ratification Process, October 10, 1972 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee October 10, 1972 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Dear Friend: Our hope that the Senate would take action on the Genocide Convention during this session suffered a defeat last Thursday when Majority Leader Mike Mansfield called up the treaty but was unable to get unanimous consent to place a four hour limitation on debate. With the threat of a prolonged filibuster, the Convention became one of the casualties of the Senate’s rush to deal with major legislation on military aid, welfare reform, minimum wage, consumer protection and a host of other major bills prior



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

355

to its adjournment this week. The enclosed story from the New York Times describes vividly the atmosphere surrounding the hassle to end the session by October 14th.1 Nevertheless, those who have worked so hard during the past years can take considerable satisfaction in knowing that the treaty was actually called up for debate for the first time in over two decades. Furthermore, had there been time for a vote, we are confident we could have won. As indicated in the enclosed reprint from the Congressional Record of October 5, Senator Mansfield has again given his assurance that “every effort will be made to bring it up as expeditiously as possible early next year.”2 Although the new timing might mean that we have lost the benefit of some votes that were promised in this pre-election period, we are hopeful that this disadvantage can be overcome. Moreover, the fact that the Convention will again have to be reported out by the Foreign Relations Committee should not present any difficulties since we are quite certain that there will be no need for new hearings and action will be pro forma. Finally, we are pleased to enclose an invaluable article dealing with the past and future prospects for U.S. action on the Treaty by Dr. William Korey, Director of the B’nai B’rith United Nations Office. It appeared as the lead story in the September 26 issue of WORLD magazine.3 We hope that you will make extensive use of this reprint. Copies are available from us at $1.50 per hundred plus postage. Sincerely, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

No. 417 Adde H. Joerndt of Bel Air, Maryland Urges Vice US President Spiro T. Agnew to Denounce the Genocide Convention, April 29, 1973 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) April 29, 1973 Vice President Spiro T. Agnew The White House My dear Vice President Agnew I urge you most strongly to vote against and denounce the abominable Genocide Treaty, which once again is rearing its ugly head and threatening our destruction. Sincerely, (Mrs. P. V.) Adde H. Joerndt Document not in the file. Document not in the file. 3 See William Korey’s magazine article, “On Banning genocide: ‘We Should Have Been the First’” in the same file. 1 2

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

356

No. 418 Senator William Proxmire Inquires with Marshall Wright of the US State Department if US Ratification of the Genocide Convention Might Have Had an Effect on the Situation in Burundi, June 29, 1973 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) June 29, 1973 Mr. Marshall Wright Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Department of State Dear Mr. Wright: Thank you for your letter of June 22, 1973, in which you made several comments concerning a floor speech which I delivered on June 15, 1973, dealing with the Genocide Convention and the situation in Burundi.1 Your letter and the enclosed comments on the Carnegie Report were most informative.2 However, you failed to touch upon the Genocide Convention which was the principle basis of my remarks. Last year the State Department was struggling with ways to meet its humanitarian obligations without antagonizing the Micombero Government or other African nations that considered the events in Burundi purely as an internal affair.3 In retrospect, do you think that passage of the Genocide Convention would have strengthened our hand in dealing with this sensitive situation? I appreciate your further consideration of this matter.4 My warm regards. Sincerely, William Proxmire, U.S.S.

Document not in the file. The opposite of neighboring Rwanda, the Tutsi minority in Burundi governed over the Hutu majority. In the wake of a failed Hutu invasion from Tanzania and attempted coup within Burundi, in late April 1972 the Tutsi dominated army engaged in a systematic mass murder of Hutu. The violence continued through the summer, claiming anywhere between 80,000 and 200,000 lives. 2 Earlier in 1973 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a report, “Passing By: The United States and Genocide in Burundi, 1972.” The report blamed the US government, and specifically the State Department’s African Affairs Bureau, for inaptitude and callousness. 3 Michael Micombero (1940–83), president of Burundi from 1966 to 1976. 4 Cf. doc. no. 420, a reply to Proxmire. 1



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

357

No. 419 Pastor N. Burnett Magruder Inquires with Senator William Proxmire if the Mental Harm Clause in the Genocide Convention Applies to the Soviet Union, July 11, 1973 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 July 11, 1973 The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senator Dear Senator Proxmire: I am writing to inquire of your understanding of Article II of the Genocide Convention as pertains to the phrase “mental harm.” I refer specifically to your insert in the Congressional Record, June 12, 1973. This is my question. I have read the reports issued by the subcommittees of the United States Senate dealing with mental torture and forced “treatment” by the U.S.S.R. and the suppression of political dissent. Would this type of activity of genocidal repression by the Soviet government be banned by the Convention? I would also appreciate any comment on how this could be implemented in the case of a one party police state such as it true in the case of the U.S.S.R. Thank you for any information you can supply. I am cordially yours. Faithfully yours, N. Burnett Magruder1 P.S. I certainly agree with your contention that such calculated cruelty should be banned by any government. I think, however, the Soviets are pursuing this cruelty on a scale unmatched even by the Nazi regime.2

N. Burnett Magruder (1914–2005), pastor of Redeemer Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky and assistant secretary of the Louisville Area Council of Churches. 2 Writing on behalf of pastor Magruder, Proxmire solicited a detailed analysis of the application of the mental harm clause to the Soviet Union from the State Department. On August 22, 1973 Proxmire received a reply from Stanton D. Anderson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. In his reply, Anderson essentially provided the interpretation of “mental harm” as formulated by the State Department in early 1970, without commenting on the present situation in the Soviet Union. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

358

No. 420 Marshall Wright of the US State Department Replies to Senator William Proxmire on Potential Applicability of the Genocide Convention to the Situation in Burundi, July 16, 1973 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) July 16, 1973 Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Dear Senator Proxmire: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of June 29, 1973, concerning Burundi and the Genocide Convention.1 As you know, the Department of State vigorously supports ratification of the Genocide Convention. We are pleased that President Nixon’s initiative of resubmitting the Convention in 1970 is on the verge of resulting in consideration of this important treaty by the full Senate. The Convention defines the crime and declares it to be a crime under international law. The Administration could not support ratification more strongly. With regard to the events in Burundi last year, it is doubtful that the United States having been a party to the Convention would have made any significant difference in our actions. We thought then (and still do) that the answer lay with the African leadership in persuading the Government of Burundi to cease the killings. Quite frankly, there was very little the USG could do to stop the killings while they were taking place. The sole opportunity for immediate action lay with the African neighbors of Burundi. For this reason, the focus of our efforts was the African leadership individually and at the OAU. Unfortunately, they failed to deal with the problem. The role of the United States last year and again this year was one of moral leadership in opposition to the killings in Burundi. The fact the United States was not a party to the Convention on Genocide weakened our position. The Governments of Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, who expressed concern over the events in Burundi, are also not parties to the Convention and this may well have been a factor in their reluctance to act.2 Hopefully ratification by the United States Government and our encouragement of others to do the same would strengthen the opposition to such crimes as took place in Burundi and would serve as a warning against such activities in the future. I hope that this information has been responsive to your inquiry. However, if you have any further questions please let us know. Sincerely yours, Marshall Wright Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations See doc. no. 418. See also a report, “The Genocide of the Hutu in Burundi and Its Aftermath,” distributed by the Rwandan Mission to the United Nations on June 27, 1973 (in the same file).

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

359

No. 421 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reports on the Senate’s Failure to Break a Filibuster against the Genocide Convention, February 11, 1974 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee February 11, 1974 Dear Friend: The Senate’s failure, on February 5th and 6th to break a filibuster against the Genocide Treaty was surely a disappointment. On the other hand, we regard the vote a s “moral victory” in view of the tremendous obstacles we had to deal with. First, we did manage to get well over a majority of the Senate – 60% – to vote in favor of shutting off debate, even though the filibuster had gone on for just a brief time. Moreover, the campaign conducted by the Liberty Lobby and the John Birch Society reached such a fevered pitch that mail and phone calls during the last weeks were running 200-1 against. While many of our groups worked with great energy and dedication our efforts obviously did not measure up to theirs. In assessing the Senate vote, we must remember that the Treaty itself was not defeated. In fact, there were many Senators who favored ratification but would not, for reasons of principle, vote for cloture. Also, of the Senators listed as absent four would presumably have been favorable, which combined with a switch of six votes would have made it possible for us to win this time. Finally, the Treaty remains on the calendar of the 93rd Congress and can be brought back for floor debate any time the leadership feels there is reason to do so. If favorable action is not likely in this Congress, there is the alternative of waiting until after the 1974 elections to reassess our prospects. In this event, the Foreign Relations Committee would, of course, have to report the Treaty out again. We are enclosing a reprint of an Editorial, a Letter to the Editor – signed by four prominent Yale Law School faculty members – and an Associated Press news story from the New York Times that we believe you will find both useful and encouraging.1 We are also sending you the tally on how the Senate voted, in the hope that you will send a note of appreciation to those who voted for cloture, as well as a sharply critical letter to those who voted against it, expressing disappointment that after more than 25 years of support on the part of the American public and a majority of the Senate their vote prevented action on the Treaty and contributed to the failure of the United States to reaffirm its long-standing commitment to human rights based on world law. These Senators should also be told that their vote will be watched carefully next time. This round-up would not be complete without mention of the great fight made by Senators Frank Church, Jacob Javits and William Proxmire and the work of their staff aides, Tom Dine, Pat Shakow and Dick Wegman. A letter of thanks to these Senators for the time, energy and concern they gave would be most appropriate. Documents not in the file.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

360

We will try to schedule a meeting in New York soon to discuss a strategy for the future. In the meantime, I want to express my personal thanks along with those of our Chairman, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, and our Washington Chairman, Hy Bookbinder, to the many, many organizations and individuals who worked so hard for so long to bring us so close to victory. Cordially, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

No. 422 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Informs That the American Bar Association Has Voted to End Its Longstanding Opposition to Ratification of the Genocide Convention by the United States, March 10, 1976 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee March 10, 1976 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Dear Friend: I’m sure you’ll be pleased – if not surprised – to learn that the American Bar Association voted to end its opposition to ratification of the Genocide Convention on February 17 at its House of Delegates meeting in Philadelphia. In reversing its stand, the ABA removed the last and most formidable obstacle to U.S. ratification. There is now renewed hope for favorable action by the Senate. The Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has been asked by Senator Javits to schedule hearings at the earliest possible time. Senator Javits has also given his pledge to “work indefatigably by floor consideration before the summer recess.” Senator Proxmire, unfailing in his daily call for Senate action, will again give substance and leadership to the debate when the Treaty is before the Senate. For information and background, we are enclosing a reprint from the Congressional record of March 4, with Senator Javits’s statement, his refutation of the arguments used most often to oppose ratification, and the full text of the Resolution adopted by the ABA.1 We are also enclosing a strong and supportive editorial from The New York Times suggesting that the “shift in position of the ABA should remove any doubt about the affirmative outcome of the next Senate vote.”2

Document not in the file. Document not in the file.

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

361

We’ll be in touch with you again when we know more about the nature and timing of the debate. There’s a possibility that the Treaty will be voted on without a floor fight but we can’t count on it. If debate is prolonged, and there’s any doubt at all about the outcome, we’ll alert you. We trust that you will be ready to act quickly, should this be necessary. On January 22, in connection with the observance of International Women’s Year, the Senate gave unanimous consent to ratify the Convention of Political Rights of Women. The objective circumstances for acting favorably on the Genocide Convention at this time might be equally compelling, but we must be ready to mount a campaign if this is not the case. It’s good to have a reason to end this long period of silence. Perhaps a celebration is in sight… Cordially, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

No. 423 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Predicts Prompt Senate Action on the Genocide Convention, June 20, 1977 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee June 20, 1977 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties URGENT Dear Friend: Prospects for favorable action on the Genocide Convention are very much brighter than they have been at any time in the past. In fact, support is coming from so many sources it seems fair to say that success or failure depends entirely on what we and our organizations do in the next 2–3 weeks. It is our understanding that the Senate leadership is willing to schedule debate on the Treaty whenever 60 Senators are committed to vote for cloture. A preliminary count indicates that we are 10–12 votes short at this time. Getting these additional votes, perhaps before the summer recess, is an achievable goal, but only with your immediate help in organizing a massive, broadly-based and coordinated national campaign including visits, calls, and mail of sufficient magnitude to exceed or at least match the opposition. If the AD Hoc Committee cannot generate sufficient public support to get these additional votes and hold on to those pledged in the past, the Treaty will not be put on the calendar. Most of you will remember that it was called up for debate for the first and

362

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

only time in February 1974, only to be withdrawn when two attempts to invoke cloture failed. Another defeat would be intolerable, especially at this time when our record on human rights is being scrutinized and challenged in every international forum. Moreover, failure to muster either 60 votes for cloture or two-thirds for ratification would, in our view, signal the end of any hope for action on the Genocide Convention in the future and dim, for a long time, any prospect for consideration of the Convention on Racial Discrimination and the Covenants. The Senate will be in recess July 2–10 which affords an excellent opportunity for many Senators to be seen in their home offices during the holiday week. Personal visits and calls from clergy, political leaders, contributors, lawyers, businessmen and women, campus and other constituent groups should be arranged throughout the week. The need for these visits, calls and letters from constituents cannot be overstated. Each Senator contacted should be asked to vote for cloture in the event of a filibuster, to vote for the resolution of ratification, and to inform Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd of his intention to vote favorably on both. Please send us copies of the letters you send out and the responses you receive, as well as articles, news clippings, and recent resolutions. A copy of President Carter’s May 23rd message to the Senate urging consent to ratify is enclosed. We are also sending you several exceptionally well drafted letters that can be used as models.1 For these examples, we’re indebted to Raymond Nathan of the American Ethical Union. In summary, the American Bar Association’s reversal of its previous position, the Administration’s decision to make human rights a cornerstone of its foreign policy and the obvious pressure on us to bring to the follow-up meetings on the Helsinki Accords in Belgrade a concrete demonstration of our concern for human rights suggest that the time for action has never been better.2 Let’s give it one last push! Sincerely, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary P.S. The Foreign Relations Committee is expected to report the Treaty out favorably for the fifth time, this week. If you’d like a copy of the report, write to Larry Patton in Senator Proxmire’s office.

Documents not in the file. In the summer of 1975 in Helsinki, thirty-five states signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation Europe (CSCE). To implement the provisions of the Final Act, the signatories in October 1977 gathered at a follow-up conference in Belgrade. The meeting in Belgrade concluded on March 4, 1978.

1 2



The Public Campaign Pro and Counter US Ratification

363

No. 424 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Reacts to the Senate’s Failure to Approve the Genocide Convention, August 8, 1977 WAG, 037/3/36, courtesy of the Jewish Labor Committee August 8, 1977 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties Dear Friend: The Senate recessed on Friday without taking action on the Genocide Convention, primarily because the 60 votes needed for cloture had not been pledged. This is clearly a setback for those of us who had hoped that the debate would take place before the recess, but between now and the end of September chances are more than good that the additional votes will be picked up. While estimates vary on the number of additional votes needed for cloture, the mail we’ve been receiving indicates that at least 5 to 7 more votes must be pledged before the Foreign Relations Committee reports the Treaty out, and before the majority leader will schedule it for debate. To put it more clearly, the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate leadership are waiting for the head count to reach 60 before taking any further action. Senators Javits and Proxmire, along with other supporters in the Senate, have made a great effort during these past weeks to round up additional votes, but their job cannot be done without help from our groups. The conservatives in the Senate and the ultraright lobby have again organized a formidable campaign to stop ratification. On the more hopeful side, a powerful and indefatigable team of Senators, aided by the White House, State Department and others, are keeping the issue alive. Furthermore, between now and the first week in October, when the parties to the Helsinki Accord will be meeting in Belgrade to discuss implementation and follow-up, we can reach out across the country for support from people who will want to help strengthen President Carter’s hand in his efforts to raise major human rights issues at these talks. Unless we put our own house in order our credibility is surely open to serious question. According to the mail we have seen, the Senators on the enclosed list have not yet committed themselves to vote for cloture or the treaty. But we believe that with additional encouragement and persuasion there is a good chance some will go our way. The best opportunity for getting the Convention adopted we have ever had, or perhaps ever will have, is right now. Let’s work during these next weeks to get it through. I hope you’re all having a restful and relaxed summer. Cordially, Betty Kaye Taylor Executive Secretary

364

XVI

The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85 (nos. 425–429)

Like all international treaties, the Genocide Convention does not have a retroactive effect. While the Nazi policy of extermination had played a disproportionate role as both a catalyst for and a point of reference in the debates around the convention, other instances of mass violence were mentioned only in passing. If one does not count the discourse on Communist mass crimes, one particular atrocity that aroused strong emotions was the destruction of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey during the First World War. The two superpowers performed a balancing political act as to the question whether or not it constituted genocide. This issue came to a head in the run-up to the fiftieth commemoration of the Armenians’ national tragedy. In the Soviet Union, the discussion was triggered by the Communist Party of Armenia. In November 1964, head of the local party organization, Yakov Zarobian, requested the Communist Party Central Committee in Moscow to approve a series of commemorative events in Armenian SSR. Secretary Zarobian formulated his request using a politically correct language. He presented Russia as a traditional friend of Armenians, who could survive and thrive only within the greater family of Soviet peoples. Staging a formal commemoration of the 1915 genocide would neutralize the “reactionary” Armenian diaspora which, according to Zarobian, used the lack thereof as an argument against the Soviet Union. The commemorative events planned for April 24, 1965, in the Armenian capital of Yerevan were to be held from a “class-conscious, Marxist-Leninist viewpoint.” Zarobian emphasized that none of it was meant to jeopardize the Soviet-Turkish relations, which had been improving of recent (doc. 425). The article in Pravda marking the occasion brought home the points raised by Zarobian. The leading Soviet newspaper framed what happened to the Armenians as a crime of imperialism. Painting a big picture, the authors of the article linked Ottoman Turkey to Kaiser Germany to Nazi Germany to colonial powers and the United States. “The future belongs to socialism, to communism,” concluded the article (doc. 426). Meanwhile in Washington, the State Department took great precautions not to offend the sensitivities of the Turkish Government. In June 1970, counselor of the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey expressed to the State Department his concern over Senator William Proxmire’s recent remarks. A few days earlier, Proxmire gave a speech on the Senate Floor urging US ratification of the Genocide Convention. As an illustration of the kind of situation that the convention meant to prevent, he referred to

366

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. The counselor said that the “facts of the unhappy situation existing between Turks and Armenians in Turkey at the time are disputed, that presently the Armenian community lives prosperously, and that no interest would be served in reviving old quarrels.” State Department officials reassured the visitor that the “administration had no intention of ever referring to the Armenian situation in the context of the Genocide Convention,” which left him satisfied (doc. 427). The official Soviet discourse on the “Armenian Question” remained constant throughout the USSR’s existence. Hence, the article that appeared on April 24, 1975, in Pravda was called “Imperialism as Perpetrator of Genocide.” Weaving the familiar thread from German/Turkish imperialism to Nazi fascism and to contemporary American/Western racism, the article proclaimed the Soviet Union and the “Great” Russian people as the ultimate saviors. As for the Armenians themselves, “they confidently move forward toward fulfilling the cherished ideals of communism” (doc. 428). A discussion that took place in the Kremlin in February 1985 is by far the most extensive, and revealing, document that projects the Soviet dilemma regarding the natural desire of the Armenians to commemorate the suffering they had experienced at the hands of the Turks. Like twenty years earlier, the Communist Party of Armenia proposed organizing additional commemorative events marking the sad anniversary. Like his predecessor, Secretary Karen Demirchan referred to anti-Soviet propaganda waged by the CIA and Armenian émigré organizations as a factor behind his request. Specifically, he wanted to issue a formal resolution on the Armenian genocide at the highest republican level. This time, however, the newly elected Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and his associates could fall back on the earlier experiences with commemoration in Armenian SSR. Back in 1965, the indecision by communist authorities led to public disturbances in Yerevan—unprecedented in the Soviet Union. The head of the KGB supported Demirchan in what he saw as a means of establishing a better population control and seizing the initiative from the diaspora Armenians. But other members of the Politburo disagreed. They did not see the point in the kind of resolution proposed by Demirchan. In fact, it could further ignite nationalist sentiments in Armenia. Still worse, it could damage the relations with Turkey, which just started to improve. Insofar as the Turks had not installed on their territory nuclear missiles targeting the Soviet Union—top communists argued—the only country that might benefit from reviving the issue of genocide was America. One official argued that “we have had much bigger tragedies in our history” while another, the long-serving Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, wondered “just how many days of commemoration  .  .  . would we end up having in our country?” Since the proposal submitted by the Armenian communists was classified, Gorbachev suggested keeping it that way. The Politburo decided to continue with whatever commemorative events had already been in place in Armenia, but not to expand, certainly to avoid issuing a formal resolution on genocide (doc. 429).



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

367

No. 425 Chairman of the Communist Party of Armenian SSR, Yakov Zarobian, Requests the CPSU Central Committee to Approve a Series of Commemorative Events in connection with the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Mass Destruction of Armenians in 1915, November 13, 1964 Genotsid armian: Otvetsvennost Turtsii i obiazatelstva mirovogo obshchestva. Dokumenty i kommentarii, vol. 2, ed. Yuri Barseghov (Moscow: Gardariki, 2005), 15–17. November 13, 1964 Letter of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia to the Central Committee of the CPSU On Commemorative Events in Connection With the 50th Anniversary of the Mass Destruction of Armenians in 1915 April 1965 marks the 50th anniversary of the mass destruction of Armenians. In 1915, during the First World War, the three million-strong Armenian population residing in Western Armenia and in other cities and parts of Turkey became victim to massacre, expulsion, and destruction. This was the manifestation of the misanthropic policy of large-scale genocide carried out by the ruling clique of Sultanate Turkey. The “solution” to the Armenian Question by means of the physical destruction of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey was first attempted in the 1870s–1890s by Sultan Abdul Hamid.1 The Young Turks continued this policy on a larger scale. Their plans emanated from pan-Turkic aggressive designs of the Turkish ruling elites, who seized the Caucasus and certain other territories from Russia. Standing in the way of those plans, according to the Young Turks, were the Armenian people, who have traditionally sought to bind their historical destiny to Russia. Beginning in the spring of 1915, the ruling clique of the Turkey set out to implement what was in practice a genocidal policy, that is, to physically destroy the Armenians. The civilian population, including women, children, and the elderly, became subject to extermination. The Armenian intelligentsia was deliberately destroyed. Prominent Armenian writers Zahrab, Varuian, Siamanto, and many others fell victim to bestial reprisals.2 Renowned Armenian composer Komitas also was a victim of terror.3 Hence about one and a half million Armenians were killed; as many survived by fleeing and [eventually] settling all around the world.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1842–1915) countered the rise of ethnic nationalism in the Ottoman Empire by promoting Pan-Islamism. State-sponsored massacres of the Armenians in 1894–96 claimed anywhere between 80,000 and 300,000 lives. 2 Krikor Zahrab (1886–1915), Daniel Varuian (1884–1915), Siamanto (Atom Yarianian, 1878–1915). 3 Komitas (Soghomon Soghomonian, 1869–1935) developed a mental disorder as a consequence of deportation and imprisonment in 1915; he never recovered. 1

368

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Material and cultural riches, historical and architectural monuments created by the Armenian people over the course of centuries – all this was barbarically destroyed, pillaged, and set alight. Western Armenia was in ruins [opustoshena]. Then the Turkish Minister of the Interior, Talaat Pasha, cynically stated that, what Sultan Abdul Hamid could not accomplish in thirty years was done in three months.1 Turkish nationalists, conniving with western imperialists, sought to “solve” the Armenian Question by destroying an entire people. This [act] was the manifestation of genocide, a cannibalistic solution to the national question. For that reason, while carrying out the policy of extermination vis-à-vis Jews, Slavs, and other peoples of Eastern Europe, Hitler, in August 1939, said that Germans will avoid historical judgment, since “no-one today remembers the extermination of Armenians in Turkey.”2 The horrors experienced by the Armenian people in those years are ingrained in their memory, as well as in the memory of other peoples. Unprecedented atrocities committed by Turkish racists, Armenian pogroms and massacres caused worldwide outrage. Most prominent, progressive public figures raised their voice in protest against those atrocities. In a particularly courageous act, in the face of German imperialism, the remarkable son of the German people Karl Liebknecht raised his voice in his January 1916 speech in the Reichstag, in which he strongly condemned the barbarian policy of the Young Turks and their patrons.3 Maxim Gorky, Valery Bryusov, Anatole France, Romain Rolland, and many others have condemned the monstrous policy of Armenian extermination in their speeches. In the most tragic days in the Armenian people’s history only Soviet Russia acted as its true friend and savior. It came out in defense of the interests of the Armenian people. In December 1917 it promulgated the decree “On Turkish Armenia.” There exists a series of documents that demonstrate how great of an interest V. I. Lenin and his associates (S. Shaumian, S. Kirov, S. Ordzhonikidze, I. Chicherin, and others) showed toward [finding a] solution to the Armenian Question that would meet the expectations of the toiling people.4 At V. I. Lenin’s initiative, Soviet Russia extended fraternal assistance to the Armenian refugees, hosting, despite difficult circumstances, hundreds of thousands of Armenian survivors in the North Caucasus, Crimea, and other parts of the country, providing them with accommodation, provisions, Talât Paşa (1874–1921) was part of the triumvirate that effectively ruled Ottoman Turkey during the First World War. In his official capacity he ordered, on April 24, 1915, the arrest of Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople (Istanbul) and on May 30 introduced the so-called Temporary Deportation Law that led up to the countrywide destruction of the Armenians. According to US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr., Talât made this particular statement when talking to friends. 2 Speaking to his elite generals on August 22, 1939, Hitler conveyed his decision to invade Poland and to brutally murder en masse Polish men, women, and children. “Only thus shall we gain the living space which we need,” stated Hitler, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” 3 A Social Democratic member of the Reichstag, Karl Liebknecht (1871–1919) inquired if “The Imperial Chancellor was aware of the fact that during the present war hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the Allied Turkish Empire have been expelled and massacred?” Referring to Johannes Lepsius, he further spoke of an “extermination of the Turkish Armenians.” 4 Stepan Shaumian (1878–1918), one of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution in the Caucasus; Sergei Kirov (1886–1934), prominent Bolshevik, later head of the Communist Party organization in Leningrad; Sergo Ordzhonikidze (1886–1937), Georgian Bolshevik, later member of the CPSU Politburo; Georgy Chicherin (1872–1936), Soviet Foreign Minister from 1918 to 1930. 1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

369

and financial support. Hence these actions saved the lives of tens of thousands of Armenian refugees. After Soviet power was established in Armenia – thanks to Leninist nationalities policy [leninskaia natsionalnaia politika] implemented by the Communist Party – the Armenian people were able not only to rise from the ashes but also to embark on the path of socialism and communism. Within the fraternal family of Soviet nationalities, the Armenian people have made enormous advancements in the economic, cultural, and scientific spheres. The Soviet Government’s clear expression of care over the destiny of the Armenian people is embodied in the act of organizing systematic repatriation of [ethnic] Armenians to Soviet Armenia. During the Soviet period, some 200 thousand Armenians returned home.1 This is why the great majority of Armenians who survived the massacres and settled all over the world see their future in Soviet Armenia. [Members of] the ca 1.5 million-strong Armenian diaspora annually mark this anniversary under the heading of condemning genocidal policy. In the run-up to the 50th anniversary of the mass extermination of Armenians, progressive Armenian newspapers and magazines abroad have published a substantial number of [related] articles and materials. Various volunteer and cultural organizations of diasporic Armenians have intensified their efforts [zametno aktivizirovali svoiu deiatelnost]. Special 50th anniversary committees were created, and publications in Armenian and foreign languages have appeared. In their desire to mark this date, the reactionary forces in the Armenian diaspora foster selfish and offensive motives. Centering their main argument on the fact that the anniversary of the mass destruction of Armenians has not been commemorated in Soviet Armenia in any form, the counterrevolutionary nationalist party, Dashnaktsutyun, claims that our country has remained indifferent to the memory of hundreds of thousands of our compatriots who died at the hands of Turkish butchers, thus implying that we justify the policy of genocide!2 Based on abovementioned facts, we recommend marking the 50th anniversary by championing the triumph of Leninist nationalities policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the tremendous advancements of the reborn Armenian people in the economic, cultural, and scientific sphere. All this work [commemorative events] should be undertaken in a way that does not jeopardize the policy of improving the USSR’s bilateral relations with neighboring countries, specifically with Turkey, making sure that similar tragedy never happens again.

The Soviet repatriation campaign of 1946–47 proved largely unsuccessful. Out of the 300,000–400,000-strong Armenian diaspora in the Middle East, a group specifically targeted by Soviet authorities, a mere few thousands eventually settled in the Armenian SSR. 2 The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) is a nationalist and socialist political party founded in 1890. The party played a leading role in the creation of the First Armenian Republic in 1918. In the aftermath of the Soviet takeover of Armenia, Dashnaktsutyun reconstituted within the Armenian diaspora. 1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

370

Hence, the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia proposes the following: 1. To ensure that the press and the radio publicize the articles and materials dedicated to that date [April 24, 1915], giving our position on those events from a class-conscious, Marxist-Leninist viewpoint; advertise the struggle of the Soviet Union to achieve world peace in the world, and the policy of friendship among nations consistently carried out by the Communist Party and the Soviet Government; and expose the provocations by the imperialists and their clients, the Dashnaks, who incite national hatred. 2. To organize in April 1965 in Yerevan a meeting of the intelligentsia [predstaviteli obshchestvennosti] dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the event with the following agenda: “The October Revolution and the resurrection of the Armenian people.” 3. To erect in Yerevan an obelisk in memory of the Armenians who perished in the First World War. The obelisk should symbolize the rebirth of the Armenian people. 4. To organize in the spring of 1965 in the Armenian diaspora centers a Soviet film festival and a Soviet Armenian book exhibit. To send for that purpose into the Armenian diaspora a delegation comprised of scientists, writers, and artists, who would then propagandize the achievements of Soviet Armenia. Authorization requested Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia Ya. Zarobian

No. 426 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Identifies the Armenian Genocide as an Imperialist Crime, April 24, 1965 Mkrtich Nersisyan and Nikolai Ushakov, “Genotsid – tiagchaishee prestuplenie pered chelovechestvom,” Pravda, April 24, 1965 Genocide, the Most Heinous Crime Against Humanity Throughout human history, the ruling exploiter class has committed numerous heinous crimes against people fighting for their national and social liberation. One of the most heinous crimes is genocide. Genocide* is an act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a given national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Genocide is engendered by social and class basis of the exploiter society. 1

* “Genocide” comes from the Greek word genos (kin) and the Latin caedere (kill), that is, the destruction of a people or a tribe.



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

371

The policy of genocide reached its peak in the period of imperialism. Its agents developed a sophisticated system for the destruction of targeted population groups. The most explicit and deadly form of genocide is the physical destruction of people belonging to a certain race or nation. That given population group is deliberately subjected to living conditions aimed at its complete or partial destruction. A crass example of genocide is the monstrous atrocities of the Hitlerites responsible for millions of human lives. Genocidal philosophy became in fascist Germany a constituent part of fascism, and was elevated to the level of a state policy. Hitler’s racial theorists implemented this policy during the Second World War. In pursuance of this program, [they carried out] the premeditated destruction of peaceful populations on territories temporarily seized by the German Army. Dozens of death camps cropped up, the crematoria of Auschwitz and the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Dachau began to operate. Racist theorists regarded the extermination of entire nations as a precondition for the development of a “higher, Aryan race,” the master race that would “rule the world.” Most other nations were given a choice – to be annihilated or to become slaves to the Aryans. The Nuremberg tribunal, which established the fact of mass destruction of nations at the hands of fascist monsters, severely punished the chief instigators of genocide. The genocide [carried out] by Hitler’s bandits, as an outgrowth of fascism, was preceded by certain acts of German imperialism and other reactionary forces on the eve of the First World War. As they tried by all means to achieve their objectives in the Middle East, German monopolist interest groups explicitly supported genocide in Turkey. Fifty years ago, the government of the Yong Turks destroyed upwards of one and a half million Armenians. First, the Armenian intelligentsia and the Armenian male population were treacherously destroyed. Next, the perpetrators of the massacre continued with the systematic destruction of women and children. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced to flee abroad. Many of them perished while trying to escape brutal persecution. These instigators of violence caused much suffering to the Turkish people, too. Their crimes aroused a hatred of all of the progressive forces in Turkey, of the large toiling masses. Following the defeat of German imperialism in the First World War, the Turkish people threw them [the Young Turks] out of the political arena. The new Turkey followed an anti-imperialist policy, and established good, neighborly relations with the nascent Soviet state. The Soviet people are sincerely striving to further develop this relationship, to make it even friendlier. Genocide has been condemned and stigmatized by nations worldwide as one of the most heinous crimes against humanity. Under the pressure of world opinion, a special UN General Assembly resolution of December 11, 1946 proclaimed genocide a violation of international law and subject to the condemnation by the civilized world. The UN prepared and passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, at this point acceded to by over 70 states. In accordance with the convention, individuals who commit genocide must be prosecuted whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, state officials, or private individuals. Significantly, a

372

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

number of imperialist states – first and foremost the US – that expressed themselves as against genocide did not ratify the convention. This is not a coincidence. Up until the present day, racial and ethnic subjugation has been widespread in the United States. American reactionaries actively apply racist “theories” to justify the ethnic persecution of the million-strong “colored” population of the US, first and foremost of the Negroes. V. I. Lenin wrote with indignation as early as 1913 that “The position of the Negro in America is unworthy of a civilized country…Shame on America for the plight of the Negro.”1 Racial discrimination affects all aspects of the lives of American Negroes. Their lot is hard, low-paid labor. Many factory owners create barriers to employment of Negroes. The situation in the agricultural sphere is not any better. According to the 1951 petition submitted to the UN by the Civil Rights Congress: “Negroes are the US citizens who have been suppressed, segregated, and discriminated against. Over a long period time they have also been subject to violence and genocide.”2 The rampage of American racists, regarded by a majority of US citizens as a national embarrassment, was preceded by the premeditated mass destruction of Native Indians – the indigenous population of the United States. Forced to live on so-called reservations situated on barren land, they are essentially bereft of means of existence. The American Indians are gradually dying out. Out of the 600-odd Indian tribes that once inhabited the US barely 200 are still in existence. Recent events attest to the fact that American imperialist circles have no problem using a “tactic of destruction” outside of United States borders. It is currently trying to crush the national liberation movement in South Vietnam, and throughout South East Asia. The US imperialists are waging a dirty war against the entire South Vietnamese people, who refuse to surrender to the colonizers, who resort to armed struggle in order to apprehend historical regression. In order to reverse the momentum in the fight against the South Vietnamese patriots, American generals authorized the use of napalm, phosphorus bombs, and even [poison] gas. Colonizers and racists cling to genocide as the means by which they hope to retain their political and economic advantage, to save the remnants of their disintegrating empires. The country in which they act particularly savagely [raznuzdanno] is the Republic of South Africa, whose rulers have pronounced an official state policy of racism. A leader of the South African racists, Verwoerd, once openly expressed his sympathies with Nazi doctrine. He is now implementing it in the RSA. “We want South Africa to remain white,” he stated.3 That can mean only one thing – white domination. Not “guidance” or “supremacy,” but “control” and “superiority.” This vision of “equality” between the indigenous population and the European settlers in the RSA, according

The first quotation is from Lenin’s study, “Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America,” and reads as follows: “Everyone knows that the position of Negroes in America in general is one unworthy of a civilized country—capitalism can grant them neither complete emancipation nor complete equality.” The second quotation concluded his 1913 article, “Russians and Negroes.” 2 Cf. doc. nos. 315–354. 3 Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd (1901–1966), prime minister of South Africa from 1958 to 1966. He is regarded as instrumental in devising and implementing a system of apartheid. 1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

373

to the racists, should be implemented by means of the systematic and premeditated destruction of 13 million Africans. [If the RSA] is fully compliant with these plans, Africans in the RSA are doomed to extinction. The 1950 Suppression of Communism Act and the 1956 Riotous Assemblies Act gave racist authorities the right to destroy any person regardless of his race if he dared to protest, in any form, against the established order.1 These, and similar acts, actually lead to the physical destruction of tens of thousands of the best representatives of the Africa’s indigenous population. In 1962 alone, [courts] in the RSA meted out 384,497 guilty verdicts. In the decade spanning 1951–61 [courts] sentenced a total of 3,896,568 Africans who allegedly “violated” public order. In the past year 401,300 people ended up in prison and further 115 Africans were hanged. There is wide use of genocidal policy among Portuguese colonizers. This policy is being carried out under the banner of “assimilation” of the indigenous populations of Angola, Mozambique, “Portuguese” Guinea, and of other possessions. Especially widely this policy is being implemented in Angola, whose people in 1961 rose up in an armed revolt against the Salazar regime. According to the foreign press, the invaders destroyed over 200 thousand Angolans, mainly children, women, and the elderly. As history demonstrates, [acts of] genocide – however refined and brutal – do not yield the result desired by the imperialists. World nations steadfastly oppose it [genocide]; humankind’s conscience has long condemned it, nailed it to a pillory [prigvozdilo k pozornomu stolbu]. What did Hitlerites gain [by pursuing] a policy of genocide? They sought to bleed the East European and Soviet nations white, so that they would become the slaves of German imperialism. What did they achieve? Twenty years ago they suffered unequivocal defeat. The Soviet social and political system prevailed in the great battle against fascism. Socialism won, too, in a number of East European and Asian countries. The international socialist system continues to exist and grows stronger each day. The Soviet Union has healed the wounds inflicted by war, and is moving forward at high speed [semimilnymi shagami] toward the communist future. As members of the close-knit family of Soviet nations, our national republics have achieved tremendous economic, political, and cultural gains. The blossoming socialist Armenia became a home for all Armenian toilers. Over 200 thousand Armenians [among those] who had wandered around the world returned home and are now taking an active part in building communism. The Soviet Union fights the imperialist policy of hatred and ethnic chauvinism with that of international friendship and brotherly assistance to developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and counters raging racism with proletarian internationalism. While the imperialists and the aggressors try to suppress African and Latin American struggles for national liberation, the Soviet Union and other socialist states offer their unequivocal support to their just fight. Never will the dark forces of

The Suppression of Communism Act formally banned the Communist Party of South Africa yet was often used to silence critics of apartheid. The Riotous Assemblies Act prohibited public gatherings insofar as they were deemed a threat.

1

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

374

misanthropy and war defeat the forces of progress and peace. Imperialism will not be able to implement its dark design, even with the help of genocide. The future belongs to socialism, to communism.1 M. NERSISIAN, Member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences N. USHAKOV, Doctor of Law

No. 427 The Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C. Deplores a Reference to Armenians in connection with the Congressional Debate on US Ratification of the Genocide Convention, June 18, 1970 NARA, DoS Subject Numeric Files, 1970–73, Social, 59/3042 (SOC 14–7) June 18, 1970 Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation LIMITED OFFICIAL USE Subject: Participants:

Turkish Embassy Interest in Genocide Convention Mr. Necdet Tezel, Counselor, Embassy of the Republic of Turkey Mr. Ronald Bettauer, L/UNA Mr. Jon Greenwald, L/NEA

Mr. Tezel visited Mr. Bettauer and Mr. Greenwald on a matter related to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a convention in force for seventy-five nations and reported by President Nixon to the Senate for advice and consent so that the United States may become a party. Mr. Tezel said that the Congressional Record of June 10, 1970 reported that Senator William Proxmire spoke in favor of ratification by the United States and cited massacres by Turks of Armenians during and after the First World War as an example of the sort of situation that made ratification important. Mr. Tezel expressed concern that this argument was made by a public official and said there might be an unfortunate effect in Turkey if the speech were to be reported in the local press or if the United States Government were to advance similar arguments for ratification. He said that the facts of the unhappy situation existing between Turks and Armenians in Turkey at the time are disputed, that presently the Armenian community lives prosperously, and that no interest would be served in reviving old quarrels.

The original draft of the article by Mkrtich Nersisian put emphasis on the mass murder of Armenians but was subsequently watered down by his assigned coauthor, Nikolai Ushakov. See Nikita Zarobyan and Armen Grogoryan, “Rubikon-65,” Yerevan (April 2006): 139.

1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

375

Mr. Bettauer and Mr. Greenwald assured Mr. Tezel that while individual proponents of the convention were naturally free to say what they wished, the Administration had no intention of ever referring to the Armenian situation in the context of the Genocide Convention. The Genocide Convention grew out of the worldwide reaction to Nazi crimes and is intended as a guarantee against repetition of similar crimes. The Administration does not believe that the Convention is relevant to the Armenian situation. Mr. Bettauer explained the genesis of the Administration’s interest in the convention and outlined some of the arguments that opponents of the convention have made. He said that Senate hearings were held in April and May and that final action was uncertain. He undertook to provide Mr. Tezel with the statements made at the hearings on behalf of the Convention by Administration witnesses and with the Foreign Relations Committee report when it is issued. Mr. Tezel expressed satisfaction with the assurances he had received.

No. 428 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Identifies Imperialism as a Root Cause of Genocide, Talks of Regeneration of the Armenian Nation within the Soviet Union, April 24, 1975 Victor Ambartsumyan, “Imperialism – vinovnik genotsida,” Pravda, April 24, 1975 Imperialism as Perpetrator of Genocide Through their defeat of fascist Germany 30 years ago, the Soviet people defended the independence of their home country, brought liberation to many European nations, and saved world civilization from the brown plague. The Soviet people, socialist countries’ toilers, the entire freedom-loving mankind – all are marking that great anniversary. Victory over fascism profoundly affected the entire course of history [khod mirovogo razvitiia]. It confirmed that the socialist system is the strongest bulwark of peace, democracy, and social progress. It is socialism that provides salvation for the most heinous crimes against humanity, including that of genocide – the mass destruction of entire nations. By crushing fascism, by exposing its misanthropic ideology and practice, the Soviet people crushed also the racist concept of genocide, which Hitlerites elevated to the level of state policy. Building upon the most significant outcome of the Second World War, the UN General Assembly condemned genocide and, as the first such acts, passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The policy of genocide, along with other crimes against humanity, is engendered by social conditions of the exploiter society and becomes part of the ideological and political arsenal of imperialism’s most reactionary forces. Imperialism is the cause of bloody crimes against entire nations. The destruction of entire tribes and nations weighs on its [imperialist states’] conscience.

376

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

The biggest, most blatant act of genocide during the imperialist period is that of the destruction of the inhabitants of Western Armenia six decades ago. Under guise of war, Turkish reactionaries carried out a bloody massacre of the unarmed and defenseless Armenian population. The physical destruction of over one and a half million peaceful citizens was carried out with fanatical brutality. The German imperialism, which at the time exercised an enormous influence on Turkey, essentially sanctioned that heinous crime, and hence is also responsible. A quarter of a century later, Hitlerite fascists outdid their predecessors by inventing horrendous means for the destruction of Russians, Poles, Jews, Czechs, and other nations, by constructing at Auschwitz and Buchenwald gas chambers and open pits for thousands upon thousands of people. Characteristically, when instructing his soldiers to exterminate Slavs, Hitler suggested that they should not concern themselves with history judgment, cynically referring to the supposedly long-forgotten Armenian genocide. Not a single capitalist state made a credible attempt to help protect the Armenian people being destroyed in genocide. Such a humanitarian act would contradict the essence of a society built upon private ownership. [It would go against] the class interests of the bourgeoisie, however much it wished to flirt with public opinion by expressing sympathy with their “brothers in Christ.” The progressive mainstream, eminent figures of the labor and socialist movement, science, literature, and arts – [all of them] poured scorn on the barbarian perpetrators of pogroms. K. Liebknecht, V. Kolarov, F. Nansen, R. Rolland, A. France have repeatedly demanded – in the press, at public gatherings, from parliament’s rostrum – to put an end to [these] shameful crimes.1 The great proletarian writer M. Gorky, indignant, unmasked the bourgeoisie’s tolerance toward genocide. “Incredibly quickly and deftly,” he wrote in 1929 about the tragic events experienced by the Armenian people, “Mrs. ‘humanists,’ idealists, defenders of ‘culture’ – based on greed, envy, slavery, and cynical destruction of people masses – forget such facts. The lies and cynicism of those defenders of ‘culture’ – who are up to their eyes in dirt and blood – lead up to virtual insanity, to the crime that evades appropriate punishment.”2 Not only capitalist countries, but also the [political] parties of the II International set out on a social-chauvinist course, remained deaf to public calls to protect the Armenian people’s basic right to exist. The Bolshevik Party has always resolutely fought against racism and chauvinism, has consistently denounced the ideology and policy of forced assimilation and Speaking at the III Congress of the Communist International in Moscow in 1921, Bulgarian communist Vasil Kolarov (1877–1950) pronounced the Armenian people “victims of fanaticism” who eventually turned their gaze toward Russia and the proletariat. Norwegian polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1861–1930) called the 1915 mass atrocities “unprecedented”; in his capacity as the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees he later led the mission to resettle Armenian survivors. French writer Romain Rolland (1866–1944) repeatedly expressed his support for the Armenians, beginning in the aftermath of the 1894–96 massacres. His countryman and fellow novelist Anatol France (1844–1924) consistently come to the defense of Armenians. “Armenia is dying yet it will survive,” he wrote in 1916. 2 This is a fairly accurate rendition of Gorky’s quotation from his essay in Nashi dostizheniia, the literary journal that he edited. Gorky’s prose is notoriously difficult to translate. 1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

377

genocide. [It] pronounced the equality of all nations and nationalities, and their right not only to existence, but also to self-determination, constantly striving to prevent interethnic discord. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution marked the liberation of all nations and nationalities of Russia from social and ethnic oppression, the emancipation and the revival of their creative genius. Socialism, and only socialism, managed to implement the principle of true humanism and justice, to guarantee the protection of all nations against aggression and genocide, to give them a chance to live a free, peaceful, and creative life. The Soviet Government’s decree “On Turkish Armenia,” signed by V. I. Lenin and adopted in December 1917, is a concrete example of the Communist Party’s nationalities policy. This decree serves as a patent expression of the care that the Soviet power took vis-à-vis smaller nationalities. Yet it was not implemented, due to the machinations of the Caucasus’s counterrevolutionary forces (first and foremost the Armenian bourgeois-nationalist Dashnaktsutyun party) that chose to oppose [derzhavshii kurs na protivopostavlenie] Soviet Russia, thus untying the hands of German and Turkish aggressors.1 Taking advantage of this opportunity, Turkish militarists decided to settle the score with the Armenian population once and for all, to finish off the Armenian people as a nation. The invasion, [which took place] during the first half of 1918, was accompanied by the mass destruction of the population, this time around in East Armenia. During that difficult period, the Soviet Russian government headed by V. I. Lenin did all possible in order to save the Armenian people from imminent demise. The proletarian state provided work and shelter for some half a million Armenian refugees who found sanctuary in the RSFSR; they got access to schools, hospitals, and children’s homes, could publish newspapers and books [in the Armenian language]. The establishment of Soviet power in Armenia proved to be a decisive moment in its centuries-long history. The true social and national revival of the Armenian people began in earnest. At the first congress of Armenian Soviets in early 1922, a prominent revolutionary and party and state official A. Miasnikyan stated that the Ararat Valley, known as the valley of tears, would turn into a valley of roses, a valley of happiness in thanks to the communists, and that they would achieve this in fraternal union with other Soviet nationalities.2 Only within the USSR, with the fraternal help of the Great Russian people and other nationalities [that compose] our country, the toiling people of Armenia were able to heal their wounds, plunging into a heroic struggle for the socialist reconstruction of their homeland. The Soviet power created [the best possible] conditions for the Armenian people to fully develop their creativity and talents. Consistently following V. I. Lenin’s will, the toilers of Armenia – relying on the support of other Soviet nationalities and the guidance of the Communist Party – within a record short historical period created The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or Dashnaktsutyun, was created in 1890 as a nationalist and socialist party. The party played a central role in the establishment, in 1918, of the First Republic of Armenia, which two years fell to the communists. 2 Alexander Miasnikyan (1886–1925) was an Armenian communist and the first head of government of Soviet Armenia. According to Miasnikyan, some 60,000 Armenians perished as a result of the 1920 Turkish invasion. 1

378

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

in the republic advanced industry, modern agriculture, and a wonderful culture – all based on Socialist economic relations. During the Great Patriotic War, with the Soviet state hanging in the balance, our entire multinational people stood up as one in defense of their socialist motherland and the achievements of the October Revolution. Sons and daughters of Soviet Armenia, alongside soldiers and toilers of all nations and nationalities of the USSR, heroically fought against the hated enemy and thus made considerable contributions toward its defeat. Notably, the 89 Armenian Taman Division undertook a glorious warpath from the Caucasus to Berlin.1 While marking the 30th anniversary of the great victory over fascism, the Soviet people profoundly understand that it had demonstrated the fundamental advantages of the socialist system to capitalist one, and compellingly demonstrated the strength of the unbreakable friendship of Soviet nationalities. That victory celebrates the social and political unity of our society, Soviet patriotism and proletarian internationalism, evidence of the invincibility of the free nationalities that comprise the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Our historical achievements were made possible as a result of consistent Leninist nationality policy, thanks to the socialist, mutual assistance of Soviet nationalities, [thanks to] their political, social, economic, and ideological unity. The Armenian people have always kept as the apple of its eye an unbreakable unity and friendship with the Great Russian people, with all of the nationalities of our multinational socialist Motherland. It [the Armenian people] enthusiastically toils to achieve an even greater prosperity, to strengthen the economy and defense, to further increase the Soviet people’s wellbeing. Along with the other brotherly nationalities of the USSR, the Armenian people have fervently embraced the resolutions [adapted] by the April Congress of the CPSU Central Committee. A false sense of ethnic superiority and exceptionalism, or national narrow-mindedness and arrogance are alien to the Soviet people. Naturally, then, people around the world look up, with love and appreciation, to the Soviet Union as a bulwark of international revolutionary struggle and friendship. Mankind has not forgotten, and will never forget, the crimes that threaten its very existence. People of good will should always remember that the danger of new bloody atrocities will remain for as long as imperialism exists. However, no misanthropic act can stop history’s forward march. The Armenian people serve as a convincing example of that. Thanks to the Great October Socialist Revolution, and to the wisdom of the CPSU’s Leninist nationality policy, it [the Armenian people] did not perish, but took their worthy place in the fraternal family of Soviet nationalities; altogether, they confidently move forward toward fulfilling the cherished ideals of communism. V. AMBARTSUMYAN Academician

The author mixes up, wittingly or unwittingly, two different military units: the 89 Infantry Rifle Division—whose second formation was indeed composed of ethnic Armenians—and the more famous 2 Guards Taman Motor Rifle Division.

1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

379

No. 429 The Soviet Politburo Discusses Commemorative Events in connection with the Seventieth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, February 21, 1985 NSA, READD-RADD, R10045 February 21, 1985 Top Secret Only Copy Transcript Meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Chairman: Comrade M. S. Gorbachev Participants: Comrades G. A. Aliev, V. I. Vorotnikov, V. V. Grishin, A. A. Gromyko, G. V. Romanov, M. S. Solomentsev, N. A. Tikhonov, P. N. Demichev, V. I. Dolgikh, V. V. Kuznetsov, B. N. Ponomarev, V. M. Chebrikov, M. V. Zimianin, I. V. Kapitonov, E. K. Ligachev, N. I. Ryzhkov 6.  On Events in Connection with the 70th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide1 GORBACHEV: This question was thoroughly discussed at a meeting of the Communist Party Secretariat. As you all well know, our country did not commemorate the 50th anniversary of the genocide, thus provoking significant backlash. At the time, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov discussed the topic of the genocide’s 60th anniversary. Back then, one planed a series of events, which were approved by the Party Central Committee. Now, on the eve of April 24, 1985, which marks the 70th anniversary of the Armenian genocide carried out by the ruling elites of Ottoman Turkey, the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party has proposed to organize additional [commemorative] events. According to the Armenian party officials, these proposals are meant to negate the accusation of the class adversary, namely that the Soviet Government has, allegedly, not determined its position vis-àvis the genocide. The bourgeois press made a big deal of this issue. The United States House of Representatives passed a resolution designating April 24 as a [National] “Day of [Remembrance] of Man’s Inhumanity to Man and the Armenian Genocide.”2 The French Government and few other countries are moving in the same direction. Given the context, the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party proposes – taking into account our past experience of the 60th anniversary commemoration in This was just one of many issues discussed by the Politburo members at that particular meeting. US House of Representatives Joint Resolution 148 from April 9, 1975 designated April 24 as “National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man.” The resolution addressed all of the victims of genocide, “especially those of Armenian ancestry who succumbed to the genocide perpetrated in 1915…, commemorated by all Armenians and their friends throughout the world.”

1 2

380

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

1975 – that the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of Armenian SSR pass a resolution designating April 24 as a “Day of Remembrance of Genocide Victims,” and that the First Secretary of the Armenian Communist Party deliver a radio and TV address to be reprinted in the local press. I should say outright that, having considered all the advantages and disadvantages of such a resolution issued at the Republican level, we decided at the Secretariat’s meeting to bring this issue before the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU. DEMIRCHAN (First Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia): First of all, I want to state just how difficult and complex this question is. Essentially, it concerns the entire population of the Republic, as well as the Armenian diaspora. One should take into account that close to three million Armenians live abroad (in Lebanon, the USA, France, Syria, Canada, and in several other countries).1 The Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party is analyzing those events linked to the 70th anniversary of the genocide, drawing on past experience in organizing such events. Here, I should remind you that the 50th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in our Republic dangerously escalated when about 100 thousand demonstrators took to the streets, pressuring the Soviet Government to issue a [official] statement outlining its position on the events of 1915. In 1965, the decision was made to build a monument to the victims of the genocide. Anywhere between 200 thousand and 300 thousand people participate in the annual wreath-laying ceremony at the memorial. Taking this into consideration, CC CPSU has instructed us to devise [a series of] appropriate [commemorative] events. As we plan these events, we have in mind exercising more control over the process of commemorating genocide victims. As previously mentioned, the CIA and other subversive organizations have exploited the situation around the genocide’s 70th anniversary. A comprehensive campaign of history falsification was set in motion [by means of] conferences, including international conferences, publications, and TV programs. Someone is even arguing that it was not Armenians who were massacred, but rather Turks by the Armenians who had taken Russia’s side. The Dashnaks have intensified their [campaign] of antiSoviet propaganda. All of this, according to information sent to us through various channels, spell danger, and may destabilize the ideological situation [obstanovka] in the Republic on the day of the 70th anniversary of the genocide. Consequently, we need to implement counter measures, including a resolution that institutes a day of remembrance of the genocide. TIKHONOV: According to this resolution, will this day be marked annually? DEMIRCHAN: Indeed, annually. Generally, we lay wreaths at the monument to the victims of the genocide and hold a moment of silence on an annual basis. In addition, we have been considering a 10–12-minute address by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia. This would be in addition to our annually organized events. Once again, I want to emphasize that our proposals mainly have to do with the ongoing campaign abroad. As of late, the Dashnak Movement has bridged their [internal] differences. Under the guidance of US Intelligence [spetssluzhby], the As of 1979, the population of Armenian SSR was slightly over three million.

1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

381

Dashnaks claim indifference toward the 1915 genocide in both our country and Republic in an attempt to disorient the public and stir-up anti-Soviet sentiments among the Armenians. These sentiments have emerged also in Armenia, mainly via foreign students and those Armenians who immigrated to our Republic. Just recently, as we discussed the CC CPSU resolution to improve the ideological work at the Plenum of the CC of the Armenian Communist Party, we unequivocally stated that the Dashnaks are irreconcilable enemies of Soviet order and Soviet Armenia. I should report that this [statement] instantly made the Dashnaks howl in anger. Turkey plays a very negative role. Specifically, the Ambassador of Turkey to the US pled with the Congressmen to withdraw the decision to establish a day of [remembrance] of the Armenian genocide. Simultaneously, we are facing a terrorist infiltration, as well as attempts to plan terrorist attacks against Soviet diplomatic missions abroad. We believe that our proposals will help us to better organize ourselves, ensuring that the 70th anniversary of the Armenian genocide does not serve anti-Soviet goals. TIKHONOV: Do not you think that your radio and TV address might further exacerbate the hostility between the Armenians and the Turks? DEMIRCHAN: In similar addresses, we typically speak of the achievements of Soviet Armenia, [stressing] that the genocide of the Armenians was organized by the reactionary ruling elites of Ottoman Turkey. GRISHIN: For seventy years we have managed without a resolution of the Presidium of the Republic’s Supreme Soviet, and now we have this proposal to pass [such a] resolution. Do we really need it? DEMIRCHAN: We have been painstakingly analyzing the current situation in the Republic. The thing is that all strata of the Armenian population feel strongly about the genocide. There is practically no family that does not have victims of the genocide among its members. As regards the resolution, it is necessary because of the intense situation fueled by reactionary forces abroad. TIKHONOV: But will not the situation in the Republic be worsened by interference from above? DEMIRCHAN: This issue weighs on the hearts and minds of the Armenian people. In particular, I want to stress that the [commemorative] events planned in the Republic are not aimed at Turkey. Each time we [organize such an event], we have 250–270 thousand people in the streets. We want to control this [spontaneous] reaction. GORBACHEV: Let us hear what the representative of the KGB has to say. BOBKOV, F. D (deputy head of the Soviet KGB): After listening to the presentation of Comrade K. S. Demirchan, I have little to add. I just want to say that prior to 1965 this was not as acute a problem. However, as we know, the 1965 commemoration of the victims of genocide resulted in mass disturbances. As you may remember, a crowd of 5 thousand broke into the theater where the commemorative meeting was being held and committed excesses [uchenila beschinstva]. In the wake [of the disturbances], a monument to the victims of the genocide went up in 1967. Over 200 thousand people gathered for the opening of the monument. The 60th anniversary of the genocide was marked by a few events under the auspices of the Armenian Communist Party, the Presidium and the Council of Ministers of the Republic. According to the

382

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

information we have at our disposal, up to 300 thousand people might take part in the [commemoration] of the 70th anniversary of the genocide. The question arose, what has changed in the intervening period? Let me answer [this question]. First, bourgeois public figures have issued quite a few statements – including those expressed in the anti-Soviet spirit – emphasizing the need to institute a day of remembrance of the genocide. Second, the activities of all sorts of anti-Soviet groups have increased manifold, also in Armenian territory. We had to arrest and/or neutralize [profilaktirovat] about one hundred members of those groups. Third, in a sense, this issue has been exacerbated by Turkish authorities, who even attempted to prove that the genocide was provoked by the Armenians themselves. Fourth, quite alarmingly, is the increase [in the number] of terrorist acts by the so-called Armenian Terrorist Liberation Army. We have arrested a group of foreign students in connection [to this group].1 This is why the additional measures suggested by the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party might contribute to better population control [organizatsia naseleniia] and would enable us to seize the initiative. GROMYKO: We have to deal with this issue calmly [bez emotsii]. Sure, Ottoman Turkey and Tsarist Russia committed a terrible crime. As we know, however, under Lenin, who directed our country for six years, these kinds of questions related to genocide did not arise. PONOMAREV: Turkey experienced a revolution back then. GROMYKO: This was a bourgeois revolution. Hence the question, whether or not we should stress [uvekovechit] such a [negative] attitude toward Turkey. I believe the Dashnaks hate the Soviet power more than the Turks. [The Dashnaks] and their uproar, therefore, should not serve as our [guiding] criterion. Moreover, whatever happens abroad serves a single purpose, that of attracting the Armenian diaspora’s votes. Therefore, in my opinion, the reference to all kinds of campaigns carried out abroad is not warranted. At the same time, naturally, we should allow the public to vent their feelings. Yet, should it be done through a resolution at the Republic’s level? You see, such a resolution would institute an annual day of commemoration. Do we have to unsure this by legal act? Otherwise, just how many days of commemoration – starting from [that marking] the Batu Khan’s invasion – would we end up having in our country?2 As you know, we do not [officially] mark even the [anniversary] of V. I. Lenin’s death.3 That makes me skeptical regarding the necessity of issuing such a resolution. The memorandum of the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party includes the suggestion to print an article about the genocide in the central press. I think [in this particular case] we should not engage our “heavy artillery.” Something has to be done in Armenia, perhaps publishing an address by the First Secretary of The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was a leftist terrorist organization established in 1975 in Beirut, Lebanon. In the late 1970s and early 1980s it carried out a total of forty-six assassinations targeting Turkish diplomats and politicians. 2 Batu Khan was a Mongol ruler and the grandson of Genghis Khan. Between 1236 and 1240 the Mongolian army under his command subjugated what later became Russia. 3 Lenin passed away on January 21, 1924. 1



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

383

the Armenian Communist Party. As for the rest, we should not really give a go-ahead. Say that the Turks had installed on their territory nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union – that would have been a much more dangerous [situation]. In conclusion, I want to say that we have yet to study all of the proposals, and to hold the minimum of events, having carefully considered the necessity of each and every one of them. ZIMIANIN: As the editor [in chief] of Pravda, I have printed editorials on this issue.1 [Those editorials] had just one paragraph on genocide per se. It is pretty obvious that, right now, the US is trying to pit us against Turkey. We cannot let it happen. Although I have not participated in the debates on this issue in the Central Committee’s Secretariat, I believe we have to organize at least some events there [in Armenia]. Yet it should be exclusively public events, not state-sponsored. I am convinced a resolution issued at the Republic’s level would be [regarded] by Turkey as hostile act. It would certainly exacerbate the Soviet-Turkish relations. We gain nothing from it. Comrade K. S. Demirchan and the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party must therefore take the initiative and act from a class-conscious position. Furthermore, all of the events in Armenia should be framed as public events, without any reproaching of Turkey. TIKHONOV: I felt worried when reading the proposals of the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party. Our relations with Turkey have just started improving. During my visit to Turkey, Turkish leaders designated the Soviet Union as a friendly nation, and declared that they would not allow nuclear missiles aimed at our country on their territory. It is obvious to me that a resolution at the Republic’s level would strain Soviet-Turkish relations and, inevitably, would implicate Moscow. May I ask who is going to benefit from that? Clearly, the winners will be the Americans. During my visit to Turkey, its president and its prime minister for a good 40 minutes complained to me about anti-Turkish sentiments in Armenia, referring to the statements by the Republic’s officials. Obviously, we cannot let it pass. We should remember that the Turks control both the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, and that in accordance with the Montreux Convention they can close off the straits.2 I reviewed the 1975 Pravda article on this issue. The [article] had a mere five lines on genocide, and that is enough.3 You see, we have had much bigger tragedies in our country. For example, in Belorussia, every fourth person perished at the hands of the [German] fascists.4 One thing I know for sure, namely that the Americans are terribly upset that our relations with the Finns, the Greeks, and the Turks have improved, and that by using the genocide’s anniversary [as a pretext], they want to spoil our relations with the neighboring countries. Cf. doc. nos. 426, 428. The 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits gave Turkey full military control over the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. According to the terms of the convention, Turkey could close off the Straits to all foreign warships in time of war or under the threat of military aggression. 3 Cf. doc. no. 426. 4 The high proportion of civilian victims and the strength of anti-German partisan movement made Belorussia a centerpiece of the official Soviet narrative of the Second World War. 1 2

384

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

I wish that in Armenia, the Armenian party organization would steadfastly carry out cross-generational work, would better organize ideological [internatsionalnoe] education, would exercise control over the current situation [sobytiia]. It does, therefore, make sense to take a closer look at this issue, taking care of it at a lower level, without venturing into interstate relations. GRISHIN: We understand the sentiments of our Armenian comrades, and their aspiration to enact a day of genocide [remembrance], yet the international situation commands us to proceed with the upmost caution. None of the resolutions passed by the US Congress are in the interests of the Soviet Union and/or Soviet Armenia. Hence, we should not take them into account. I seriously doubt there is a need for a resolution at the Republic’s level designating a day of commemoration of the [Armenian] genocide. We have lived without such a resolution for 70 years, and so we should not adopt one now. Perhaps we should issue a statement in the central press [mozhet byt, sledovalo by i vystupit v tsentralnoi pechati], unmasking the imperialist machinations behind this fueling of nationalist sentiments. One thing is clear: we should already now mobilize the entire Armenian party organization for the purpose of rallying the Soviet people, raising them up in the ideological [internatsionalnyi] spirit. CHEBRIKOV: I want to note that, virtually every year since 1965, we have worked together with the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party on all questions related to the commemoration of genocide. Tension among the Republic’s population is tangible; actually it is quite significant. Indeed, each and every family over there has ancestors who fell victim to genocide. Therefore, in my opinion, we cannot afford to make a U-turn on those [commemorative] events so entrenched in the Republic. Whatever [events] were previously held should probably remain, [making sure] to avoid causing any complications with Turkey, obviously. Here we should take into account that everything [commemorative events], outside of the resolution at the Republic’s level, is already in place in Armenia. We cannot turn our back on those [commemorative] events that the [Armenian] people are used to. As regards our proposals, we should thoroughly think them through, of course, and if necessary, come back to them later. TIKHONOV: Still, we did not have this [problem] in Lenin’s time. CHEBRIKOV: In sum, we should probably retain those [commemorative] events that have been held in the past, without introducing any new ones. GROMYKO: The Republican leadership must do a good job. GORBACHEV: Had we no doubts, the Secretariat would not have broached this question with the CC Politburo in the first place. I think our discussion today has broadened our horizons on this question, and that we made the right decision to bring it up at this meeting. Besides Comrade K. S. Demirchan, no-one yet knows about the submitted proposals, and it should stay so. Generally, it seems, we should not sanction any new [commemorative] events. KUZNETSOV: Rightly so. GORBACHEV: Yet, perhaps, we should not discontinue the previously held events either [otstupat ot togo, chto provodilos ranee]. GROMYKO: One can put a new spin on an old tale, too [Mozhno i staroe provesti po-novomu].



The “Armenian Question,” 1964–85

385

GORBACHEV: We can probably consent to the publication of an article mentioning genocide, yet only in Pravda. As regards the [commemorative] events to be held in Armenia, here we should act from our principled, class position, shifting the focal point from the past onto the achievements of Soviet Armenia, the problems that the Republic and its Communists have yet to solve. In particular, we request that the CC CPSU consider the issue of the future development of Yerevan City. Perhaps we can adopt a resolution with regard to this issue prior to the [forthcoming] anniversary of the genocide. Comrade K. S. Demirchan, I concur with the remark made here today that the Armenian Communists should act more resolutely. If any problems in connection with the anniversary of the genocide come to light, the Republic’s party organization always has the opportunity to raise them before the party’s Central Committee. As it stands, we may formulate the decision of the CC Politburo as follows: to allow the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia to commemorate the forthcoming 70th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in April 1985, through organizing spontaneously constituted public events, seeking guidance from the proposals of the CC of the Armenian Communist Party and the exchange of opinions that took place at the CC Politburo’s meeting. Simultaneously, we may instruct the editorial board of Pravda to print an editorial on this issue, reflecting the historical achievements of the Armenian people as constituents of our Soviet Federation. POLITBURO MEMBERS: Rightly so. Resolution passed.

386

XVII

A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88 (nos. 430–436)

By the early 1980s the longstanding arguments against US ratification of the Genocide Convention started showing cracks. Despite the many proxy wars fought between the Communist and Western blocs, no state had ever evoked the convention and no individual had been charged with genocide. Meanwhile the Soviets kept pestering the United States for not ratifying the genocide treaty. That is what the US Attorney General’s Office was able to establish in December 1983 (doc. 430). Later that month the officials from the Attorney General’s Office discussed the Genocide Convention with their counterparts from the State Department. The State Department was ready to recommend to the President to endorse the convention with certain reservations, or rather “understandings.” The ratification would be an “important symbolic gesture” showing that the United States is “committed to human rights at a time when our principal adversary has repeatedly shown it is not.” The State Department believed that US ratification may benefit President Ronald Reagan both domestically and internationally (doc. 431). The stature of the President would grow also in his dealings with the Soviets, who “have had this vehicle with which to embarrass the US.” Who would have thought that this line of argument came from the president of the ABA, which had been opposed to the Genocide Convention for decades. Wallace Riley was sharing his ideas with the US Attorney General in June 1984, shortly after his trip to the Soviet Union—in itself a remarkable turn of events (doc. 432). As if to confirm what the top American diplomats and lawyers were saying about the Soviet Union, Pravda, in September 1984, poured scorn on US inaction on the Genocide Convention. The Soviet newspaper reported that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations had just rejected the Administration’s proposal to review the question of ratification. The reason was simple, explained Pravda: the US “imperialist circles” had committed genocide against several minorities—Native Americans, African Americans, . . . Mexicans. “In the international arena,” the article continued, “genocide has long been a tool of American imperialism.” Pravda even quoted Senator William Proxmire, who made the case that the United States had no right to lecture other countries on human rights for as long as it had not ratified the Genocide Convention (doc. 433). The Soviet press was indicting “imperialism” for genocide as late as December 1987. As examples, Izvestia cited the war in Vietnam, the Israel invasion of Lebanon (and specifically the massacre at Sabra and Shatila Palestinian

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

388

refugee camps), South Africa, Salvador, Guatemala, Northern Ireland. Curiously, Cambodia under Pol Pot was also on that list (doc. 434). What the Soviets had to say about US non-ratification was picked up by an American Jewish organization that wanted that changed. The US Senate approved the Genocide Convention in February 1986, but implementing legislation had not been passed as yet. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary that same month began hearings on incorporating the treaty in the US criminal code. April 14, the Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust (Yom HaShoah), was seen as an appropriate date to complete the process (doc. 435). It did not happen on that particular day, but on November 4, 1988, when President Reagan signed into law the bill that formally adopted the Genocide Convention. The United States became the ninety-eighth country to do so. As yet another American Jewish organization had commented that the Genocide Convention was both a legal instrument and the symbol of humanism (doc. 436).

No. 430 Office of the US Attorney General Considers whether or Not the United States Should Ratify the Genocide Convention, December 19, 1983 NARA, General Records of the Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General, Kenneth O. Simon (Special Assistant), 1983–84, 60/546 December 19, 1983 [minutes] Meeting w/ TL, TO, RB + Scott Burke1 1.  Why now? State looked at it 1 ½ [years] ago. HA [?] + LA [?] could not agree on whether there should be reservation or not. It just took over a year to put the memo together for no said reasons. Also, we’ve kept saying that the issue under study, a position that is now under study. The ABA + Jewish groups keep naysay this. Is Israel a signatory > Yes. Scott has talked w/ the staffs of a number of Senators, w/no send support. Sen Armstrong agreed to lead the advice + consent process, but only w/ reservations. He has also talked w/ the White House, but conservatives have been opposed. 2.  The treaty’s symbolic. No state has ever invoked it + no one has ever been charged w/ genocide under the treaty. As far as pros are concerned, we are sometimes attacked by the Soviet Union for not ratifying it. 3.  Scott says he believes that it is a close call as to whether we should proceed w view of the possibility that the US might be embarrassed in this forum. He believes that reservations should be stronger. Harold “Tex” Lezar, Theodore Olson, and Ronald Blunt all served as Special Assistants to Attorney General William French Smith in 1983–84.

1



A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88

389

4.  Reservations: no. 1 – falls w/in the expertise of State no. 2 – falls w/in the expertise of DOJ

No. 431 Office of the US Attorney General Recommends Ratification of the Genocide Convention, December 22, 1983 NARA, General Records of the Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General, Kenneth O. Simon (Special Assistant), 1983–84, 60/546 December 22, 1983 MEMORANDUM To: The Attorney General From: Ken Simon Subject: Genocide Convention Scott Burke of the State Department’s Office of Human Rights (headed by Elliot Abrams) med with Ted Olson, Ron Blunt, Tex Lezar, and me on December 19 to discuss the Genocide Convention. State is preparing to recommend to the President that, with certain “reservations,” he endorse, possibly in the form of a joint memorandum from you and Secretary Shultz to the President. The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations shortly after WWII as a response to the atrocities of Nazi Germany. It defies “genocide” as the commission of various specified acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Parties to the Convention undertake to enact legislation necessary to prevent and punish genocide and confirm that genocide is a violation of international law. Disputes relating to the Convention – including disputes regarding the “responsibility of a State” for genocide – must be submitted to the International Court of Justice. The Convention became operative between the signatory nations in 1951, but the United States has never ratified it in treaty form. Although Presidents Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter favored ratification, the Senate has always refused to give its consent. A number of objections to the Convention have been raised over the years, including claims that ratification would result in: (1) the illegal exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction over local matters; (2) the abuse of the treaty power to convert domestic criminal matters into international legal matters; (3) the unjustified submission of American conduct to a world forum; and (4) the possibility that extradition could not be refused on “political offenses” grounds for American servicemen accused of genocide in other countries. On the legal issue, OLC has concluded that is within the federal government’s power to ratify the treaty (Tab 1). With regard to other objections, the State Department believes they can be resolved in the form of “reservations”; i.e., U.S. ratification would be subject to certain express understandings about the meaning and operation of the

390

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

Convention. To this end, Secretary Shultz has decided to recommend ratification if two reservations are passed by the Senate (Tab 2). We believe that if ratification is supported, further reservations are necessary. No nation or individual, however, has ever been accused of genocide under the Convention. Thus, even if some ambiguities are allowed to stand, State argues it is unlikely that problem will result. State argues for ratification on the ground that it would be seen as an important symbolic gesture that the U.S. is committed to human rights at a time when our principal adversary has repeatedly shown it is not. Only a Republican President, perhaps only this President, could obtain ratification. Its passage, therefore, would be advantageous to President Reagan both domestically and internationally as a sign of his unique commitment to human rights. State wants to move as soon as possible, arguing that ratification will be possible only in the early part of the coming year. Nonetheless, since State has taken two years to review the treaty, Burke indicated that he would understand our taking some time to consider the issues. You should be aware that the decision memorandum presented to Secretary Shultz contained a misleading statement regarding DOJ’s position. The memorandum states that in “[State’s legal advisor’s] view, shared by the Department of Justice, the legal and constitutional issues raised in the past have not been well-founded; nevertheless, they may resurface” (Tab 2, p. 2). We are concerned that this statement would be read to mean that Justice presently – as opposed to previous Justice Departments – has no legal objection to the Convention; a meaning that would be erroneous. Obviously, we do not know how Secretary Shultz interpreted the statement, or whether it was important in his decision making process. OLC is now in the process of making a careful review of the relevant issues and will be providing you a more detailed report early in January. For your information, John Cribb compiled a series of news articles from 1970–79 which chronicle the more recent attempts at ratification (Tab 3).

No. 432 Wallace D. Riley of the American Bar Association Argues for Ratification of the Genocide Convention in a Letter to US Attorney General William French Smith, June 4, 1984 NARA, General Records of the Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General, Kenneth O. Simon (Special Assistant), 1983–84, 60/546 June 4, 1984 Honorable William French Smith Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Cc: Prof. John Norton Moore Craig H. Baab, Esq.



A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88

391

Dear Mr. Attorney General: I want to thank you again for your kind efforts on my behalf preceding my recent trip to the Soviet Union with a delegation of ABA officials. I look forward to personally briefing you on our visit with the Association of Soviet lawyers (some of whom we are hopeful will attend the ABA’s Annual Meeting this August), but in the meantime I will only say that it was an instructive and positive visit and that your letter to Ambassador Hartman clearly paved the way for the many kindnesses extended to us in Moscow.1 On a subject of related importance to our government’s dealing with the Soviets, I write to respectfully request that you meet with one of the leaders within the ABA particularly concerned with the current state of relations between the U.S. and the Soviets, Professor John Norton Moore, who is chairman of the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security. John recently returned from El Salvador where he traveled at the request of the President to observe the recent elections. Immediately prior to that trip he was a representative of the President at the recent meeting in Athens concerning implementation of the Helsinki Accords and violations of those accords by the Soviets. John’s committee, among whose members are Secretary of the Army Jack Marsh and Ambassador Max Kampelman, has been working very closely with our Governmental Affairs Group in an effort to seek a Senate vote on advice and consent to ratification of the Genocide Convention. It is my understanding that this issue may now be before you for a decision, following the favorable decision on ratification by the Secretary of State. Consequently, I would very much appreciate it if you could find an opportunity in your very busy schedule to meet briefly with Prof. Moore on my behalf concerning the Genocide Convention and any assistance the American Bar Association might offer you in your consideration of it. Although this treaty has been pending before the Senate for some 35 years it is one which, if approved during this year, would add immeasurably to the stature of the President, both domestically and in his dealings with the Soviets and other foreign powers. Ambassador Kampelman recently has advised us that the failure of the U.S. to ratify this treaty was frequently thrown in his face by the Soviets as an indication that the U.S. is not serious about observing the international rule of law norms and is less concerned about the basic rights of citizens around the world than is the Soviet Union. It is most unfortunate that the Soviets and other Eastern Bloc nations have had this vehicle with which to embarrass the U.S. I was pleased to read of your delivery May 15th to the Israeli Ambassador of the records developed by the Department of Justice in seeking to locate and prosecute war criminals who participated in the Holocaust.2 Your consideration and hoped-for approval of the pending treaty would be a further step in moving the community of nations away from such atrocities and toward a system of international rule of law. The President’s public endorsement of ratification of the treaty would send a clear signal to our citizens and to those of all other countries.

1 2

Arthur H. Hartman (1926–2015), US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1981 to 1987. Meir Rosenne (1931–2015), Israeli Ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 1987.

392

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

After considering this request I would appreciate it if your staff would communicate directly with Mr. Craig H. Baab in the ABA’s Governmental Affairs Group (331-2213) whom I’ve asked to coordinate the scheduling of the meeting between you and Prof. Moore. I thank you in advance for your courtesy in this matter, and I look forward to briefing you on our trip to Moscow. Sincerely yours, Wallace D. Riley

No. 433 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Pravda Condemns the US Government for Dragging Its Feet on Genocide Convention, Quotes Senator William Proxmire, September 16, 1984 Vitaly Gan, “Razygrali fars,” Pravda, September 16, 1984 A Farcical Performance The US Administration and its allies in Congress performed a shameful farce, offensive to the international community’s [collective] interests. According to a report from Washington, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations rejected the administration’s proposal to review the question of ratification of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide by the United States. To remind, this document was passed by the UN 35 years ago, shortly after the defeat of Nazi Germany, when nations pledged to prevent the repetition of the nightmarish Nazi policy of the extermination of millions of people. Although the US signed the convention, it had done so just to keep appearances. It [the convention] has remained unratified for decades, whereas the American ruling elites apparently do not regard themselves legally bound to follow its provisions. The key to explaining this position can be found in the “service record” of the US imperialist circles – stained with the blood of its own people, of populations of countries near and far. [History supplies] numerous examples of genocide against indigenous American Indians – who are reduced to a dying breed on their native land – Negroes, Mexicans, and other ethnic minorities deprived of rights by racism. Guilty without charge, they became the victim of an inhumane, socio-economic terror. In the international arena, genocide has long been a tool of American imperialism. Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Near East – they all had experienced genocide, past and present, [in the form of] American dirty wars. The White House’s disgrace is even greater, as their politicking and manipulation directly affect an international treaty urgently needed by the people. What about the Administration itself? Many in the US understand its motives fairly well. The top brass never seriously considered pursuing ratification of the convention. In the run-up to the



A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88

393

presidential elections, it proved rather tempting to sway the voters, to pass black for white, that is, to pass off the aggressor as a gentleman. The State Department’s spokesman may argue ad nauseam that “our country [i.e., USA, V. G.] is totally committed to the prevention and punishment of genocide,” which is frankly insincere. Furthermore, it is a done deal, as the White House’s proposal [for US ratification] was “successfully” put to rest by its own allies on Capitol Hill. A noted American senator W. Proxmire argues that the “United States has a dubious right to lecture [puskatsia v rassuzhdeniia] on human rights around the world due to the fact that it has consistently refused to ratify one of the groundbreaking documents within this domain – the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.” That is right. Vitaly GAN

No. 434 An Article in the Soviet Newspaper Izvestia Indicts Imperialism for Genocide, December 9, 1987 V. Mikheev, “Verdikt mirovogo soobshchestva,” Izvestia, December 9, 1987 The Verdict of the International Community The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide was passed on December 9, 1948. The premeditated mass destruction of peoples of different nationality and creed [chuzhezemtsy i inovertsy] – fueled by aggressive designs and religious or other types of ideological intolerance – has left enduring scars in history. In Antiquity, conquerors put to the sword entire “disobedient” tribes. The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire gave their blessing to acts of terror against the Balkan nations and to massacres of Greeks and Armenians, thus hoping to cement their rule. Spanish conquistadors, by fire and sword, converted to their faith the aboriginal Indians of Central and South America. If freedom-loving people did not want to endure a miserable existence under foreign yoke, the colonizers issued them a death warrant. Sometimes it [the violence] was concealed behind slogans that sounded justified to the common person. German Nazis might at one time talk about the struggle of the “SS crusaders” against “Asiatic Bolshevism” and another revealed their own misanthropy by openly calling for the extermination of the “lower races.” Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Buchenwald – fascist death factories became synonymous with genocide. When the last shots of the great battle against fascism were fired, the international community resolved to condemn genocide, and to take measures toward its prevention and punishment through a document of international law. That is the purpose of the resulting 1948 convention. There was hope that this stain [pozornoe iavlenie] on the body of the civilized world would disappear forever from XX-century politics [spisok politicheskikh realii].

394

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

In the past decade, however, there have been instances of unprecedented cruelty by the creators and practitioners of imperialism’s neocolonial politics. In lieu of gas chambers and crematoria there come Agent Orange herbicide, cluster and phosphorus bombs, napalm, and weapons that leave houses intact, but kill their inhabitants and everything that moves. “To bomb them back to the Stone Age!” as one American general defined the goal of the Vietnam War.1 The civilian population became the main target: living quarters, schools, hospitals, and pagodas became subject to “carpet bombing”; Huey helicopters conducted “headhunts”; criminals [karateli] set entire villages on fire and spread defoliants over [rice] plantations, that is to say, sought to exterminate the Vietnamese nation, if not by means of killer metal then by means of starvation. The aggressor was defeated. But the monstrous crimes that bear the label “made in USA” will not fade away: 15 million dead, wounded, and maimed. As appalling are the crimes of the Israeli occupiers. The murder of several thousand Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila should be added to their bloody account. As a result of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 1982, tens of villages, three large cities – Tyre, Nabatieh, and Sidon – and 14 Palestinian refugee camps were wiped off the face of the earth. 30 thousand Lebanese and Palestinians were killed, and 70 thousand wounded; among the victims were in the first place children, women, and the elderly. In Salvador, shock battalions and pro-fascist units such as “squadrons of death” implemented a scorched earth policy. US-produced bombs and artillery shells filled with pesticides, defoliants, and white phosphorus targeted the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the insurgents. Instances of genocide, which are defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a certain national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such,” occurred in South Africa, Guatemala, Ulster, etc. Yet, never in the postwar years was genocide carried out on such a scale and with such barbarian sophistication [s takoi varvarskoi izoshchrennostiiu] as in the long-suffering Kampuchea. The clique of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary has methodically destroyed the Kampuchean people. Some were beaten to death with metallic rods and hoes, others were buried alive, incinerated, fed to crocodiles, and executed in cold blood. Marriages were banned, and the cohabitation of husband and wife prohibited; the country’s economy, health system, educational system, national culture – everything was brought to ruin. The modern cannibals took some three million lives. Genocide occurs in different forms, yet it always remains the greatest political crime – a crime against humanity. It [genocide] is a challenge to moral law and to the spirit and objectives of the United Nations, which had adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. This international document calls on us to safeguard the equality and sovereignty of all countries and nations, and fundamental human rights.2 V. MIKHEEV3 General Curtis Emerson LeMay (1906–1990), US Air Force Chief of Staff, had argued that he was misquoted in his threat to North Vietnam during the escalation of warfare in the early 1960s; allegedly, he only said the United States had the capability to “bomb them back into the Stone Age.” 2 Due to ambiguous syntax, this sentence may read as if the author regarded equality and national sovereignty among those fundamental human rights. 3 No further information about the author available. 1



A Final Push for the UN Genocide Convention, 1983–88

395

No. 435 National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC) Urges the United States to Enact Legislation on the Genocide Convention, February 22, 1988 WAG, 25/138/15, courtesy of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs February 22, 1988 National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council Memorandum To: NJCRAC and CJF Member Agencies From: Don Lefton, Chairman, and Rae Ginsburg, Vice-Chairman Re: UNFINISHED WORK: IMPLEMENTING THE GENOCIDE TREATY BY  YOM HASHOAH, APRIL 14th Despite an unseemly foot-dragging of almost 40 years, the final step for operating approval of the Genocide Treaty has not yet been taken by the United States. The treaty was ratified by the Senate 2 years ago, but implementing legislation to incorporate the treaty into the U.S. criminal code was never taken. During the NJCRAC Plenum Session in Los Angeles, last week, we heard about hearings in Washington by the Senate judiciary committee on identical bills no. S1851 or HR807, to include the Genocide Treaty into the U.S. law. Delegates were urged to write and call senators, urging rapid passage of these bills. Today’s New York Times editorial (copy enclosed) is a most appropriate follow-up; it urges that the Congress not delay any further and utilize April 14th, 1988, the recognized Day of Remembrance to the Victims of the Holocaust (Yom Hashoah), to take the final step and overcome this long time embarrassment to the United States.1 As recent as December 10th, Human Rights Day, TASS – the Soviet press agency – took the opportunity to remind the world that the United States had not yet fully recognized the Genocide Treaty. All communities are urged to communicate quickly with their Senate and House Representatives with telegrams and letters requesting that the legislation be passed on or about April 14th. Please utilize the publicity for municipal and state-wide observances of the Days of Remembrance that CRC’s are forwarding to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities in the coming weeks, to also distribute copies of this editorial with a request for speedy passage by the Congress. Please send copies of your correspondence to Abraham J. Bayer at NJCRAC.

1

Document not in the file.

396

Documents on the Genocide Convention, Volume 2

No. 436 B’nai B’rith International Commends US President Ronald Reagan on Signing the Genocide Convention into Law, November 7, 1988 WAG, 25/138/1, courtesy of B’nai B’rith International November 7, 1988 B’nai B’rith International Dear Friends, On Friday November 4, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the bill formally adopting the Genocide Convention by the United States. The adoption of this historic measure is a major accomplishment for human rights advocates everywhere. Launched in the wake of the Holocaust, the Convention has now been adopted by 97 countries. Its provisions serve not only as legalistic proscription against a heinous crime but also as an important symbol that men and women of good will stand together – worldwide – in a constant vigil against any of the horrific manifestations of genocide. How appropriate it was that President Reagan signed the measure on the eve of Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass” in Germany and Austria which led to the Holocaust.1 Dr. William Korey, B’nai B’rith’s Director of International Policy Studies, has for nearly three decades been one of the leading figures in the campaign for Senate ratification and adoption of the Convention. In this paper, Dr. Korey traces the history of the Convention up to its historic passage in the Senate in October 1988.2 I hope this paper will serve as a resource on this important international document. Sincerely, Seymour D. Reich, President Thomas Neumann, Executive Vice President

1

2

A German-wide anti-Jewish pogrom of November 9–10, 1938 was instigated and largely carried out by the Nazi Party paramilitaries, the SA. An estimated 1,000 synagogues and 7,000 Jewish businesses were destroyed, ninety-one Jews killed and further 30,000 arrested during the pogrom. See William Korey’s paper, “Genocide Treaty Ratification: Ending an American Embarrassment,” dated November 7, 1988 in the same file.

Further Reading Chalk, Frank, “The United Kingdom Genocide Act of 1969: Origins and Significance,” unpublished article (2002), http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/UKGenocideAct.pdf. Cooper, John, Raphael Lemkin and the Struggle for the Genocide Convention (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2008). Dhokalia, Ramaa Prasad, The Codification of Public International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1970). Elder, Tanya, “What You See Before Your Eyes: Documenting Raphael Lemkin’s Life by Exploring His Archival Papers, 1900–1959,” Journal of Genocide Research 4, vol. 7 (December 5, 2005): 469–99. Fein, Helen, “Discriminating Genocide From War Crimes: Vietnam and Afghanistan Reexamined,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 1, vol. 22 (Fall 1993): 29–62. Finch, A. George, “Editorial Comment: The Genocide Convention,” American Journal of International Law, 4, vol. 43 (October 1949): 732–38. Galchinsky, Michael, Jews and Human Rights: Dancing at Three Weddings (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). The Genocide Convention: Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, January 23, 24, 25, and February 9, 1950 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1950). Genocide in Cambodia: Documents From the Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, ed. Howard J. De Nike et al. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000). Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 99th Congress, 1st Session, on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, March 5, 1985 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1985). Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 91st Congress, 1st Session, on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970). Horne, Gerald, Black Revolutionary: William Patterson and the Globalization of the African American Freedom Struggle (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2013). Horne, Gerald, Communist Front? The Civil Rights Congress, 1946-1956 (Rutherford, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1988). Irvin-Erickson, Douglas, Raphaël Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). Korey, William, An Epitaph for Raphael Lemkin (New York: The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee, 2001). Kunz, L. Josef, “The United Nations Convention on Genocide,” American Journal of International Law 4, vol. 43 (October 1949): 738–46. LeBlanc, J. Lawrence, The United States and the Genocide Convention (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991). Lemkin, Raphael, “Genocide: A Commentary on the Convention,” Yale Law Journal 7, vol. 58 (June 1949): 1142–60.

398

Further Reading

Martin, H. Charles, “Internationalizing ‘the American Dilemma’: The Civil Rights Congress and the 1951 Genocide Petition to the United Nations,” Journal of American Ethnic History 4, vol. 16 (Summer 1997): 35–61. Metzl, F. Jamie, Western Responses to Human Rights Abuses in Cambodia, 1975–80 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996). Morsink, Johannes, “Cultural Genocide, the Universal Declaration, and Minority Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 4, vol. 21 (November 1999): 1009–1060. Patterson, L. William, The Man Who Cried Genocide: An Autobiography (New York: International Publishers, 1991). Robinson, Nehemiah, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (New York: World Jewish Congress, 1960). Schabas, A. William, Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Siegelberg, L. Mira, “Unofficial Men, Efficient Civil Servants: Raphael Lemkin in the History of International Law,” Journal of Genocide Research 3, vol. 15 (2013): 297–316. Simpson, A. W. Brian, “Britain and the Genocide Convention,” British Yearbook of International Law 1, vol. 73 (2002): 5–64. Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin, ed. Donna-Lee Frieze (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). de Waal, Thomas, Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015). We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People. A Petition to the United Nations, ed. William L. Patterson (New York: Civil Rights Congress, 1951). Weiss-Wendt, Anton, A Rhetorical Crime: Genocide in the Geopolitical Discourse of the Cold War (Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018). Weiss-Wendt, Anton, The Soviet Union and the Gutting of the UN Genocide Convention (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2017).

List of Persons Abbott, Joe

member of the Australian Parliament for the Country Party, 1940–49

Abrams, Elliott

Assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1981–85

Acheson, G. Dean

US Secretary of State, 1949–53

Adenauer, Konrad

Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949–63

Agnew, T. Spiro

Vice President of the United States, 1969–73

Aiken, George

US Senator (R-VT), 1941–75

Aldrich, H. George

Deputy Legal Adviser of the US State Department, 1969–76

Allen, P. Ward

official in the Office of European Affairs of the US State Department; adviser to the US delegation to the UN General Assembly, 1951–52; Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs (1970)

Álvarez del Vayo, Julio

Spanish socialist politician; founder of the far-left Unión Socialista Española in 1951 (1952)

Ambartsumyan, Victor

president of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1947–93; member of the Central Committee of the Armenian Communist Party, 1948–89

Anderson, H. David

British Foreign Office official (1965)

Anthony, Hubert Lawrence

member of the Australian Parliament for the Country Party, 1937–57

Armstrong, Patrick

first clerk of the Parliamentary Group for World Government, House of Commons, est. 1947 (1965)

Armstrong, L. William

US Senator (R-CO), 1979–91

Arosemena, Alcibíades

President of Panama, 1951–52

Austin, R. Warren

US Ambassador to the United Nations, 1947–53

Baldwin, N. Roger

American pacifist; founder and executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1917–50; cofounder of the International League for the Rights of Man, in 1942 (1952–53)

400 List of Persons Bamberger, J. Bernard

rabbi of Shaaray Tefila Congregation in New York City, 1944–71

Barrett, W. Edward

Assistant US Secretary of State for Public Affairs, 1950–52

Bayer, J. Abraham

staff member of the International Commission of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (1988)

Beazley, Kim Edward

member of the Australian Parliament for the Labour Party, 1945–77

Beckett, W. Eric

Chief Legal Adviser of the British Foreign Office, 1945–53

Beedle, Peter

Assistant Secretary of Probation and After Care Department of the British Home Office (1965)

Beresford-Stooke, George

British Governor of Sierra Leone, 1947–52

Berlin, A. Gerald

director of the Commission on Law and Social Justice of the New England Division of the American Jewish Congress (1951)

Bethune, Mary

See McLeod Bethune, Mary

Bettauer, J. Ronald

official in the Bureau of United Nations Affairs of the US State Department (1970–71)

Bevin, Ernest

British Foreign Secretary, 1945–51

Biddle, Francis

US Attorney General, 1941–45; American judge at IMT, 1945–46; chairman of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1950–53

Birkinshaw, L. Philip

British Deputy Governor or Sierra Leone, 1949–52

Blake, Harry

associated with the National Community Relations Advisory Council (1953)

Blunt, L. Ronald

Special Assistant to the US Attorney General, 1983–84

Bobkov, Philipp

deputy head of the KGB, 1983–85

Bookbinder, “Hy” Hyman

representative of the American Jewish Committee in Washington, DC, 1967–86

Brandweiner, Heinrich

professor of international law at Graz University, 1948–52; member of Austria’s Peace Council; head of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Brash, Robert

British Foreign Office official, joined in 1949 (1950–51)

Bricker, W. John

US Senator (R-OH), 1947–59; partner in Bricker, Evatt, Barton & Eckler law firm, 1943–45, 1959–86

List of Persons

401

Brierly, James Leslie

professor of international law at All Souls College in Oxford, 1922–47; member of the International Law Commission, 1948–52

Bunche, Ralph

professor of political science at Harvard University, 1950–52; Nobel Peace Prize winner, 1950; worked for the US State Department and the CIA

Burke, W. Scott

Deputy Assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (1983)

Byrd, C. Robert

US Senator (D-VA), 1959–2010; Senate Majority Leader, 1977–81

Cahill, M. L.

official in the United Nations Department of the British Foreign Office (1953)

Calwell, Arthur

member of the Australian Parliament for the Labour Party, 1940–72

Cameron, Archie

member of the Australian Parliament for the Liberal Party, 1945–56

Caradon, Baron

See Foot, Hugh

Carey, Archibald Jr.

US alternative delegate to the UN General Assembly, 1953–56

Carter, Jimmy

President of the United States, 1977–81

Case, P. Clifford

US Senator (R-NJ), 1955–79; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Cates, M. John Jr.

staff member of the Office of UN Social and Economic Affairs of the US State Department, 1947–51

Cavalieri, Luigi

lawyer in the Italian Supreme Court; deputy head of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Chai Kyn Hiung [?]

Deputy Prosecutor General of North Korea in the early 1950s

Champion, S. Reginald

British Governor of Aden, 1945–50

Chang, M. John

Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States, 1950

Cheetham, N. J. Nicolas

head of Southern Department of the British Foreign Office, 1951–52

Chebrikov, Victor

head of the KGB, 1982–88; candidate member of the Politburo, 1983–85

Chevalier, Stuart

attorney in California (1952)

Church, Frank

US Senator (D-ID), 1957–81; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

402 List of Persons Churchill, Winston

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1940– 45, 1951–55

Chuter Ede, James

British Home Secretary, 1951

Cohen, Benjamin

Assistant UN Secretary General for Public Information, 1946–54

Connally, Tom

US Senator (D-TX), 1929–53

Conquest, Robert

staff member of the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office, 1948–56

Cook, A. Howard

chief of Public Services Division in the US State Department (1953–54)

Cooper, J. Sherman

US Senator (R-KY), 1956–73; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Cordier, W. Andrew

Executive Assistant to the UN Secretary General, 1946–61; special representative of the UN Secretary General during the Korean War, 1950–53

Corley Smith, T. Gerard

Counselor to the UK delegation to the United Nations, ECOSOC, 1949–52

Creech Jones, Arthur

British Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1946–50

Cribb, T. E. John

US Justice Department official during the Reagan administration (1983)

Crosby, G. Ben

Assistant Chief of the Division of Public Liaison in the US State Department (1951)

Cushman, E. Robert

professor of government at Cornell University, 1923–57

Darr, W. John

Secretary of the World Peace Council, 1950–52

Davis, Lester

Executive Secretary of the Chicago chapter of the Civil Rights Congress (1951)

Day, Cecil

External Affairs officer in the New Zealand High Commission in London in the 1950s (1950)

Dembowitz, Morris

rabbi in Philadelphia, 1953–98

Demirchan, Karen

First Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia, 1974–88

Denlinger, Sutherland

head of Publication and Periodical Services in the UN Department of Public Information (1950)

Dennis, Eugene

General Secretary of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA, 1945–59

Dent, W. Albert

President of Dillard University, 1941–69

Denton-Thompson, G. Aubrey British Colonial Office official, 1945–69 Deutsch, Alex

cofounder and president of the Deutsch Company in Los Angeles; donor to civil rights causes (1952)

List of Persons

403

Deutsch, P. Eberhard

attorney in New Orleans; active member of the American Bar Association (1970–71)

Dickerson, Angie

Assistant Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress (1952)

Dickerson, B. Earl

member of the Communist Party USA; prominent African American attorney (1951)

Dilliard, L. Irving

editorial page editor of St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1949–60

Dirksen, Everett

US Senator (R-IL), 1951–69

Dobriansky, E. Lev

President of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, 1949–54

Douglas, C. R. Francis

British Governor of Malta, 1946–49

Douglas, O. William

Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1939–75

Du Bois, W. E. Burghardt

civil rights activist; cofounder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in 1909; stood trial on political charges, 1951 (1951–52)

Duff, H. James

US Senator (R-PA), 1951–57

Duggan, C. Joseph

US Assistant Attorney General, Executive Adjudications Division, 1951–52

Dulles, John Foster

member of the US delegation to the UN General Assembly, 1950; US Secretary of State, 1953–59

Duncan, F. David

official in the UN Political Department of the British Foreign Office (1950–51)

Dunjee, Roscoe

publisher and editor of Black Dispatch in Oklahoma City, 1915–54

Easterman, L. Alexander

Political Secretary of the World Jewish Congress (1952)

Eden, Anthony

British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 1940–45

Ehlers, Hermann

President of the German Bundestag, 1950–54

Eisenhower, D. Dwight

President of the United States, 1953–61

Eliot, L. Theodore, Jr.

Executive Secretary of the US State Department, 1969–73

Engel, Katherine

President of the National Council of Jewish Women, (Mrs. Irving M. Engel) 1949–55

Epstein, Harold

affiliation unknown (1953)

Ervin, Sam

US Senator (D-NC), 1954–74

Evatt, Herbert Vere

Foreign Minister of Australia, 1941–49; President of the UN General Assembly, 1948–49

404 List of Persons Fahy, Charles

Senior Legal Adviser of the US State Department, 1946–47

Falle, Samuel

head of United Nations Department of the British Foreign Office, 1963–67

Feise, Winifred

civil rights activist; testified on behalf of Willie McGee at Jackson, Mississippi, in July 1950 (1952)

Ferebee, C. Dorothy

civil rights activist; president of the National Council of Negro Women, 1949–53

Fisher, S. Adrian

Legal Advisor of the US Department of State, 1949–53

Fisher, Geoffrey

Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945–61

Fitzmaurice, G. Gerald

Legal Adviser of the British Foreign Office, 1945–60

Flood, J. Daniel

US Representative (D-PA), 1949–53

Foot, Hugh

British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, British Ambassador to the United Nations, 1964

Foote, Wilder

Director of Press and Publications Bureau in the UN Department of Public Information, 1946–60

Forster, Arnold

General Counsel and Human Rights Director of the Anti-Defamation League, 1946–79

Foster, Z. William

Chairman of the Communist Party USA, 1945–57

Frazer, John Jr.

staff member of the Free Europe Committee (1954)

Fulbright, J. William

Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1959–74

Gahagan Douglas, Helen

US Representative (D-CA), 1945–51

Gan, Vitaly

correspondent of the Soviet Telegraph Agency in New York; Pravda columnist (1984)

Gaster, Jack

British solicitor; member of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Geller, Victor

associated with the National Community Relations Advisory Council (1953)

Gest, B. John

member of Philadelphia Bar Association and critic of the Genocide Convention in the United States (1971)

Ginsburg, Rae

Vice Chairman of the International Commission of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (1988)

Gladwyn Jebb, Hubert Miles

UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1950–54

Gold, Ben

member of the Communist Party USA; president of the International Fur and Leather Workers Union, 1937–54

List of Persons

405

Goldberg, J. Arthur

Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the Jewish Labor Committee; Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1962–65

Goldklang, M. Jack

Adviser in the Office of the Legal Counsel of the US Justice Department (1970)

Gorbachev, Mikhail

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1985–91

Graham-Harrison, Francis

Assistant British Under Secretary of State in charge of Criminal Department, 1957–63

Graydon, Gordon

member of the Canadian Parliament for the Conservative Party, 1935–53

Green, John Raeburn

member of St. Louis Bar Association (1951)

Green, F. Theodore

US Senator (D-RI), 1937–61

Greenwald, Jonathan

official in the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs of the US State Department, 1970–72

Grew, C. Joseph

American career diplomat; retired from the State Department in 1945 (1952)

Grigaitis, Pius

Executive Secretary of the Lithuanian American Council (1950–52)

Grishin, Victor

member of the Soviet Politburo, 1971–86

Gromyko, Andrei

First Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister, 1949–52; Foreign Minister, 1957–85; Member of the Soviet Politburo, 1973–88

Gross, A. Ernest

Legal Adviser of the US State Department, 1947–49; US representative on the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), 1948; deputy head of the US delegation to the United Nations, 1950–53

Grossman, Aubrey

member of the Communist Party USA and civil rights attorney (1951–52)

Gullett, B. S. Henry

member of the Australian Parliament for the Liberal Party, 1946–55

Gutterridge, A. C. Joyce

Legal Counselor of the UK Mission to the United Nations, 1959–63

Hallstein, Walter

State Secretary of the West German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1951–58

Hammarskjöld, Dag

Secretary General of the United Nations, 1953–61

Harlow, N. Bryce

Counsellor to the US President, 1969–70

Hart, G. V.

Assistant Legal Adviser in the British Home Office (1965)

Hartman, H. Arthur

US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981–87

406 List of Persons Hastie, H. William

judge on the US Court of Appeals, 1949–72

Hathorn Hall, John

British Governor of Uganda, 1945–52

Hauser, E. Rita

US representative on the UN Commission on Human Rights, 1969–72

Heath, R. G. Edward

Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, 1960–63

Heinaru, Ilmar

Chairman of the Baltic Nations Committee of Detroit (1954)

Held, Adolph

National Chairman of the Jewish Labor Committee, 1938–69

Henry, H. David

official in the Office of Eastern European Affairs of the US State Department, 1950–51

Hetherington, Thomas

official in the British Law Officers’ Department, 1962–75

Hewitt, E. Warren

head of Legal and Human Rights Affairs in the Bureau of International Organizations Affairs of the US State Department, 1969–74

Hickerson, D. John

Assistant US Secretary of State for International Organizations Affairs, 1949–53

Higgs, L. Randolph

Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Eastern European Affairs of the US State Department, 1951

Hight, Betty

a personal friend of Eleanor Roosevelt; employee of the US Treasury Department (1950)

Hildyard, H. T. David

Legal Advisor in the British Foreign Office (1948–50)

Hinkel, V. John

US Army colonel and public relations consultant (1950)

Hobson, Henry Arthur

British Consul General in New York, 1951–53

Hogan, A. Charles

Director of the ECOSOC Secretariat’s Nongovernmental Organizations Section, 1946– 66 [?]

Holder, C. Oscar

official in the Office of European Regional Affairs of the US State Department (1950)

Hooson, Emlyn

member of the British Parliament for the Liberal Party, 1962–79

Hope, C. Peter

British Foreign Office official, joined in 1946 (1951–52)

Horm, Arvo

Executive Secretary of the Estonian National Council in Stockholm, Sweden, 1948–96

Horn, Arnold

See Horm, Arvo

Hughes, Emrys

member of the British Parliament for the Labour Party, 1946–66

List of Persons

407

Hughes, E. Harold

Governor of Iowa, 1963–69; US Senator (R-IA), 1969–75

Huijsman, B. J. Nicolas

British Colonial Office official (1949–50)

Humphrey, P. John

Director of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division, 1946–66

Hutson, T. H.

British Home Office official (1949)

Jackson, John Edward

British Foreign Office official, joined in 1946 (1952)

Jacquier, Marc

lawyer in the Court of Appeals in Paris; member of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Janner, Barnett

member of the British Parliament for the Labour Party, 1945–70

Javits, K. Jacob

US Senator (R-NY), 1957–81; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Johnson, B. Lyndon

President of the United States, 1963–69

Johnson, J. E.

British Home Office official (1965)

Kaganovich, Lazar

member of the Soviet Politburo, 1930–57

Kampelman, Max

US Ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1980–83

Kemežaitė, Birutė

Lithuanian American musician from Chicago (1952)

Kerno, S. Ivan

Assistant UN Secretary General in charge of the Legal Department, 1946–52

Kersten, J. Charles

US Representative (R-WI), 1951–55; chairman of the US House Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression and the Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR, 1953–54

Key, E. Edward

British Foreign Office official (1962)

Van de Kieft, Johan

member of the Dutch Parliament for the Labor Party, 1945–52

Kihss, Peter

reporter for the New York Herald Tribune, 1943–52

Kim Il Sung

leader of North Korea, 1948–94

Kimber, Gurth

Official Secretary of the British High Commissioner in Australia, 1946–50

Kissinger, A. Henry

US National Security Adviser, 1969–75

Kizis, Mary

Director of the Lithuanian American Information Center (1952)

Klarfeld, Myer

Chairman of the United Warsaw Ghetto Memorial Committee (1962)

408 List of Persons Knauth, Theodore

former chief of Religious Affairs in the Office of the US Military Government in Germany (1951)

Kohler D. Foy

Director of the Voice of America, 1949–52

Korey, William

Director of B’nai B’rith International’s United Nations Office, 1960–86

Kosygin, Alexei

candidate member of the Soviet Politburo, 1946–48

Krylov, Sergei

Soviet member on the ICJ, 1946–52

Kujawa, A. Bethel [?]

President of the San Diego County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs (Mrs. Edwin Kujawa) (1970)

Kułakowski, Felicia

President of the Polish Women’s Alliance of America (1951)

Kunz, L. Josef

professor of international law at Toledo University, 1934–60

Kuznetsov, Vasili

candidate member of the Politburo, 1977–86

LaRue, G. William

Second Secretary of the US Embassy in Panama, 1951– 52

Lefton, Donald

Chairman of the International Commission of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (1988)

Lemkin, Raphael

Polish American legal scholar; inventor of the word genocide and champion of the Genocide Convention (1949–59)

Lezar, J. Harold

Special Assistant to the US Attorney General, 1983–84

Lie, Trygve

Secretary General of the United Nations, 1946–52

Limb, C. Ben

Permanent Representative of the South Korean observer mission to the United Nations, 1951–60

Lipman, J. Eugene

Director of the Commission on Social Action of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1953–61

Lloyd, Selwyn

British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, 1951–54

Lodge, Henry Cabot Jr.

US Senator (R-MA), 1947–53; US Ambassador to the United Nations, 1953–60

Logan, W. Rayford

professor of history at Howard University; observer for the NAACP at the Sixth UN General Assembly, 1951

Magruder, N. Burnett

pastor of Redeemer Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky (1973)

Mallalieu, L. Edward

member of the British Parliament for the Labour Party, 1931–74

List of Persons

409

Mansfield, J. “Mike” Michael

US Representative (D-MT), 1943–53; US Senator, 1953–77; Senate Majority Leader, 1961–77

Maslow, Will

General Counsel of the Commission on Law and Social Justice of the American Jewish Congress, 1945–84

Mattox, Tilde

President of the Los Angeles County Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs (1970)

Maxwell Fyfe, David

British Home Secretary, 1951–54

Mayhew, Christopher

Parliamentary British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 1945–50

McCarthy, Joseph

US Senator (R-WI), 1947–57; chairman of the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 1953–54

McClintic, H. Stephen

US Consul in Martinique, 1951–54

McDonald, James Grover

US Ambassador to Israel, 1949–50

McFall, K. Jack

Assistant US Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, 1949–52

McGrath, J. Howard

US Attorney General, 1949–52

McLeod Bethune, Mary

civil rights activist; founder of the National Council of Negro Women (1951)

McMahon, Brien

US Senator (D-CT), 1945–52; chairman of the Subcommittee on Genocide of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1950

McNulty, Anthony

Assistant Legal Adviser to the British Colonial Office, 1947–50

Menzies, Robert

leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, 1944–49

Merrill, T. Frederick

US State Department official (1954)

Mikheev, V.

Soviet journalist affiliated with Izvestia [no further information available] (1987)

Miles, E. Omer

Ukrainian American attorney, Chairman of the Ukrainian Manifestation Committee, Cleveland, Ohio (1951)

Mindszenty, Jósef

head of the Catholic Church in Hungary, 1945–73; in 1949 sentenced to life imprisonment on trump-up charges (1949, 1953)

Mitchell, N. John

US Attorney General, 1969–72

Moerens [?], Marie-Louise

Belgian lawyer; member of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Molotov, Vyacheslav

Soviet Foreign Minister, 1939–49, 1953–56

410 List of Persons Montagu, Ashley

professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, 1949–55; rapporteur for UNESCO on the issue of race, 1950

Moreton, O. John

British Colonial Office official, 1946–60

Moriarty, J. Michael

Assistant Secretary at the British Home Office (1962)

Morris, Robert

publisher and editor of a rightwing Twin Circle; critic of the Genocide Convention in the United States (1971)

Morozov, Platon

Soviet representative on the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide, 1948

Multer, J. Abraham

US Representative (D-NY), 1947–67

Murray, Philip

President of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1940–52

Murray, Ralph

head of the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office, 1948–51

Nersisian, Mkrtich

Vice President of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1950–60, 1965–77

Neumann, Thomas

Executive Vice President of B’nai B’rith International, 1988–91

Newsam, Frank

Permanent British Secretary of State, 1948–57

Nixon, M. Richard

President of the United States, 1969–74

Noble, N. Andrew

Assistant British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1949–51

Noel-Baker, Philip

British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, 1947–50

Nowak, John

President of the West New York Division of the Polish American Congress (1952)

Núñez Portuondo, Emilio

Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations, 1952–58

O’Connor, K. Kenneth

Attorney General of Kenya, 1948–51

O’Connor, L. Roderick

Assistant to the US Secretary of State, 1953–54

Olson, Theodore

Assistant US Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, 1981–84

Orekhov, Boris

Soviet journalist affiliated with Pravda [no further information available] (1970)

Orlov, L. Myer

attorney at law in Boston; partner in law firm Fox & Orlov (1949)

Ormerod, C. Richard

British Commonwealth Relations Office official (1950)

Osman, Arthur

President of Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America trade union, 1948–53

List of Persons

411

Panyushkin, Alexander

Soviet Ambassador to the United States, 1947–52

Parrott, C. Cecil

head of United Nations Department of the British Foreign Office, 1950–52

Patterson, M. John

chief of the Division of Public Liaison of the US State Department, 1947–52

Patterson, P. Robert

judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, until 1947; member of the US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention (1952)

Patterson, L. William

National Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, 1946–56

Pearson, Drew

American journalist; host of a show on NBC Radio, 1941–53

Pearson, B. Lester

Foreign Minister of Canada, 1948–57

Peck, H. John

Head of the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office, 1951–53

Pedersen, F. Richard

member of the US delegation to the United Nations, 1953–69

Pell, Claiborne

US Senator (D-RI), 1961–97; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Pella, V. Vespasian

Romanian expert on international criminal law; coauthor of the UN Secretariat draft Genocide Convention, 1947; president of the International Association of Penal Law, 1946–52

Perlman, B. Philip

US Solicitor General, 1947–52

Perry, Pettis

member of the Communist Party USA since 1932; secretary of the party’s Negro Commission, 1948–54

Phillips, L. Orie

chief judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1929–74; active member of the American Bar Association (1970)

Phleger, Herman

Legal Adviser of the US State Department, 1953–57

Player, O. William Jr.

official in the Bureau of Public Affairs of the US State Department, 1950

Ponomarev, Boris

candidate member of the Soviet Politburo, 1972–86; head of the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee, 1957–86

Popper, H. David

Deputy Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs of the US State Department, 1951–54

Pritt, Denis Nowell

President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1951–59

412 List of Persons Procházka, Vladimír

member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, 1949–54; chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee

Proxmire, William

US Senator (D-WI), 1957–89

Pridham, R. C. Kenneth

head of United Nations Department of the British Foreign Office, 1965–68

Raynor G. Hayden

United Nations Adviser in the (Office) Bureau of European Affairs of the US State Department, 1948–50

Reading, Eva

Marchioness of Reading and President of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, from 1947 (1951)

Reagan, W. Ronald

President of the United States, 1981–89

Reed, Maurice Ernest

Legal Secretary in the Law Officers’ Department, Royal Courts of Justice (1951)

Rehnquist, William

Assistant US Attorney General for Legal Counsel, 1969–71

Reich, D. Seymour

President of B’nai B’rith International, 1986–90

Rhee, Syngman

President of the Republic of Korea, 1948–60

Richardson, “Beah” Beulah

American poet, playwright, and author; associated with the Civil Rights Congress (1952)

Riley, D. Wallace

member of the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, 1979–80, 1982–85

Rodrigues de Britto, Letelba

Brazilian lawyer; member of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Robeson, Paul

American singer, actor, and civil rights activist; associated with the Civil Rights Congress (1951–52)

Roberts, C. Walter

British Minister to Romania, 1949–51

Rogers, P. William

US Secretary of State, 1969–73

Roosevelt, Eleanor

US delegate to the UN General Assembly, 1945–52; US representative on the UN Commission on Human Rights, 1947–53; chair of the commission, 1946–52 (Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Roosevelt, D. Franklin

President of the United States, 1933–45

Rosenberg, N. James

Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights of the National Conference of Christians and Jews; chairman of the US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention, 1948–59

Rosenne, Shabtai

Legal Adviser to the Israel Foreign Ministry, 1948–62

List of Persons

413

Rostow, V. Eugene

professor of constitutional law at Yale University, 1937–55

Rousseau, Charles

professor of law at Paris Institute of Political Science, 1945–72; Assistant Legal Adviser of the French Foreign Ministry (1951)

Royce, N. David

British Foreign Office official, 1949–71

Rozmarek, Charles

President of the Polish American Congress, 1944–68

Rudd, Gordon

lawyer in the Criminal Department of the British Home Office (1968)

Rudduck, W. Hazel

President of the Indiana Council of Church Women (1949)

Rusk, Dean

Deputy US Under Secretary of State, 1949–50

Russell, Francis

Director of Bureau of Public Affairs of the US State Department, 1945–53

Sampson, S. Edith

alternate US delegate to the UN General Assembly, 1950–53

Samuels, Gertrude

editorial board member of the New York Times, 1943–75

Sanders, William

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of United Nations Affairs of the US State Department, 1950–53

Sandifer, V. Durwald

Deputy Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs in the US State Department, 1948–54; a senior adviser to the US delegation to the United Nations

Santa Cruz, Hernan

President of the ECOSOC, 1950–51

Sapozhnikov, Valentin

First Secretary in the Foreign Ministry of Ukrainian SSR, 1952–57

Savitskas, Olga

Secretary of the Lithuanian American Council, Ansonia, CT chapter (1952)

Schachter, Oscar

Senior Legal Counselor in the UN Secretariat’s Legal Department, 1946–53

Schnee, Alexander

First Secretary of the US Embassy in Czechoslovakia, 1950–51

Schwelb, Egon

Assistant Director of the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Division, 1947–62

Schweppe J. Alfred

Seattle attorney; chairman of the ABA’s Committee on Peace and Law through United Nations; dean of the University of Washington Law School (1951, 1970–71)

Scott, H. Paul

British Foreign Office official (1962)

414 List of Persons Scott, Hugh Doggett, Jr.

US Senator (R-PA), 1959–77

Seamans, Harry

official in the Division of Public Liaison of the US State Department (1951)

Seyersted, Finn Johannes

member of the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations, 1946–49

Shawcross, Hartley

Attorney General for England and Wales, 1945–51; member of the UK delegation to the United Nations, 1945–49

Shecter, E. Louis

Chairman of the National Commission on Ratification of the Genocide Convention (1962)

Shen Chun-ju

first President of China’s Supreme People’s Court; vice-president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (1952)

Shepilov, Dmitri

head of the Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee, 1948–52

Sheridan, Leslie

head of the Editorial Section of the Information Research Department, British Foreign Office, joined in 1949 (1950)

Sherman Cooper, John

alternate US delegate to the UN General Assembly, 1950–51

Shultz, P. George

US Secretary of State, 1982–89

Silver, George

member of the Jewish Labor Committee (1953)

Simon, O. Kenneth

Special Assistant to the US Attorney General, 1983–84

Šimutis, Leonard

President of the Lithuanian American Council (1950, 1952, 1954)

Sloan, F. Blaine

Personal Assistant to the Assistant UN Secretary General for Legal Affairs, 1948–58

Smith, H. Alexander

US Senator (D-NJ), 1944–59

Smith, Corley

UK representative on the ECOSOC, 1949–52

Smith, C. Ferdinand

Jamaica native; member of the Communist Party USA; cofounder of National Maritime Union (1952)

Smith, L. K. Gerald

founder of an anti-Semitic organization Christian Nationalist Crusade, in 1942; critic of the Genocide Convention in the United States (1971)

Smith, William French

US Attorney General, 1981–85

Smith, Willis

US Senator (D-NC), 1950–53

Sparkman, John

US Senator (D-AL), 1946–79; US representative to the Fifth UN General Assembly, 1950

List of Persons

415

Stacey, F. C.

staff member of the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office (1950)

Stalin, Joseph

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1922–52

Stavropoulos, A. Constantin

Assistant UN Secretary General for Legal Affairs, 1953–55

Stern, William

director of the English speaking division of the Workmen’s Circle, 1946–63

Stevens, B. Roger

Deputy British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa), 1958–63

Stevenson, R. John

Legal Advisor of the US State Department, 1969–73

Stewart, Alistair

member of the Canadian Parliament for the Conservative Party, 1945–58

Stikker, Dirk

Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, 1948–52

Strang, William

Permanent British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 1949–53

Suslov, Mikhail

member of the Soviet Politburo, 1952–82; member of the Secretariat, 1947–82

Symington, Stuart

US Senator (D-MO), 1953–76; member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Taft, A. Robert

US Senator (R-OH), 1939–53

Taylor, Betty Kaye

founder and Executive Secretary of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties of the American Jewish Committee, 1964–81

Tezel, Necdet

Counselor of the Turkish Embassy in the United States, 1966–71

Thomas, Peter

British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 1961–63

Thomson, George

British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, 1964–66

Thorp, L. Willard

Assistant US Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, 1946–52

Tikhonov, Nikolai

member of the Soviet Politburo, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, 1979–85

Tobias, H. Channing

member of the NAACP’s board of directors; US alternate delegate to the Sixth UN General Assembly, 1951

Tokaev, Grigory

former Red Army officer and Soviet defector, in 1948 (1950)

416 List of Persons Tower, John

US Senator (R-TX), 1961–85

Trager, H. Bernard

Chairman of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, elected in 1954 (1954)

Trikamdas, Purshottam

senior advocate in the India Supreme Court; member of the International Commission of Jurists (1959)

Truman, S. Harry

President of the United States, 1945–53

Unwin, Keith

Minister for Social and Economic Affairs in the UK delegation to the United Nations, 1962–66

Ushakov, Nikolai

senior scholar of international law in the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1950–67

Vaidyla, Michael

Treasurer of the Lithuanian American Council (1952)

Vaillant-Couturier, Marie Claude

member of the French Communist Party; Secretary General of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, 1946–54

Vallat, A. Francis

Legal Adviser in the British Foreign Office, 1954–68

Vandenberg, H. Arthur

US Senator (R-MI), 1928–51

Varga, Béla

President of the Hungarian National Council, 1947–71

Verwoerd, F. Hendrik

Prime Minister of South Africa, 1958–66

Vest, S. George

Second Secretary of the US Embassy in Canada, 1952–54

Volodin, S.

Soviet legal scholar [no further information available] (1954)

Vorspan, Albert

official in the National Community Relations Advisory Council (1953)

Vyshinsky, Andrei

former Soviet Prosecutor General; Foreign Minister, 1949–53

Waddams, M. Herbert

General Secretary of the Church of England’s Council on Foreign Relations, 1945–59

Wadsworth, James Jeremiah

deputy chief of the US delegation to the United Nations, 1953–60

Wasilkowska, Zofia

judge on the Polish Supreme Court, 1948–53; member of the investigation commission dispatched to Korea by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952

Wasseter, Francis

President of the New York Division of Polish American Congress (1952)

List of Persons

417

Webb, E. James

US Under Secretary of State, 1949–52

Weimer, N. Marian

secretary in the Office of United Nations Social and Economic Affairs of the US State Department, 1951

Welch, W. Robert

founder of a rightwing organization The John Birch Society, in 1958; critic of the Genocide Convention in the United States (1971)

Wenner, A. Michael

Second Secretary of the British Embassy in the United States, 1951–53

White, Walter

Executive Secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1931–55

Wiley, Alexander

US Senator (R-WI), 1939–63; Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1953–55

Wilkinson, Peter

staff member of the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office (1950)

Williams, Chester

assistant to the US Mission to the United Nations (1951)

Williams, W. Thomas

member of the British Parliament for the Labour Party, 1961–81

Willis, E. Frances

First Secretary of the US Embassy to the United Kingdom, 1947–51

Wilson, A. Duncan

Assistant British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Eastern Europe, United Nations Organization, Disarmament), 1960–64

Wilson, Harold

leader of the British Labour Party, 1963–76

Wright, L. Edward

president of the American Bar Association, 1970–71

Wright, W. Marshall

Assistant US Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, 1973–74

Yergan, Max

member of the Communist Party USA; from 1948 turned increasingly anticommunist in his views (1951)

Younger, G. Kenneth

Parliamentary Secretary of the British Home Office, 1947–50; Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, 1950–51; member of the Parliament for the Labour Party, 1951–59

Zarobian, Yakov

First Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia, 1961–65

Zimianin, Mikhail

Chief Editor of Pravda, 1965–76; Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, 1976–87

Zuckerman, T. Jacob

leader of the English speaking division of the Workmen’s Circle, 1935–54

Index accession  14–16, 20–1, 26–31, 33–4, 36–41, 79, 85–6, 88, 92–3, 95, 97–9, 107, 112, 121, 201–3, 273–4, 281–304, 371–2. See also ratification Acheson, Dean G.  47–50, 63–4, 105, 124–30, 132, 137–8, 141–3, 172, 189, 231, 250–2 Aden  5, 23, 26 Adenauer, Konrad  159, 194 Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor  130, 139, 142, 149–51. See also forced labor, Soviet Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide  174 Ad Hoc Committee on the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties  326, 350–2, 354–5, 359–63 Africa  147, 250, 255, 298, 308, 314, 356, 358–63, 372–3 African Americans  68, 117, 129, 132, 157, 212–13, 217–62, 328–30, 335, 348, 352–3, 372, 392 Africans  111–12, 302, 373 Afro-American  217–18, 254 aggression, crime of  181, 204, 298– 300, 303 Agnew, Spiro T.  355 Akmakjian, Hiag  281–2, 287 Albania  22 Aldrich, George H.  321–4 Allen, Ward P.  131–3, 316–17 Allied Declaration (1942)  35 Allied High Commission  42 Álvarez, Alejandro  85, 87–8 Álvarez del Vayo, Julio  189 Ambartsumyan, Victor  375–8 American Association for the United Nations  53–4, 190. See also World Federation of United Nations Associations American Bar Association (ABA)  50–1, 64, 116, 172, 180, 242, 245, 253, 308–9,

312, 314, 320, 325, 333, 337–8, 344, 353, 360, 362, 388, 390–2 American Bill of Rights  8, 61, 320, 332, 335–6, 352 American Declaration of Independence  187, 231 American Federation of Labor (AFL)  51, 59 American Journal of International Law  175–6, 308 American Legion  179 American Peace Information Center  238 Americans  8, 51, 54–5, 68, 105, 126–9, 134, 137, 187–8, 193, 212, 231–3, 235–6, 238, 242–4, 249, 254–5, 257–8, 260, 309, 321–3, 325, 329–30, 333–6, 338–9, 343–4 Andorra  23 Angola  373 anti-Semitism  19, 59, 106, 145–9, 232, 330–1, 334–5, 348–50 “An Appeal to the World” petition (1947)  238 Arabs  149, 335 Arab states  47–8, 108. See also names of individual countries Archbishop of Canterbury  29, 186, 273 Argentine  36 Armenia  367–85 Armenians  6, 179, 267, 270, 367–85, 393 Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia  382 Armstrong, Patrick  297–302 Armstrong, William L.  388 Arosemena, Alcibíades  124 Asia  57, 121, 147, 180, 204, 213, 236, 239, 255, 272, 302, 308, 314, 373 “Asiatics”  110, 112, 204 asylum, the right to grant  4, 29–30, 32, 37–8, 40, 93–4, 97–9, 155, 202, 283, 285 Athens  391

Index Attlee, Clement  9, 11, 33, 111 Auschwitz death camp  193, 205, 265, 376, 393 Austin, Warren  117, 200 Australia  3–5, 17–20, 40, 75, 77, 82, 94–7, 183, 265, 270, 272, 296 Austria  210, 396 Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944)  178 bacteriological warfare in Korea, allegations of  164, 209–14 Bahamas  25 Baker, Josephine  232 Baldwin, Roger  63, 189 Balkans  57. See also names of individual countries Balkars  121, 162 Baltic states  23, 57, 105, 110, 112, 133–4, 147, 163, 171, 180, 267. See also names of individual countries Bamberger, rabbi Bernard J.  274 Barbados  23, 25 BBC  5–9 Beckett, Eric  29, 81, 85, 89–92, 98 Beedle, Peter  293 Beijing  210 Belgian Congo. See Congo Belgium  211, 271 Belgrade  362–3 Bell, Peter L.  124 Belorussia  23, 75, 82, 84, 156, 202, 383 Belorussians  127 Ben-Gurion, David  47–8 Berlin  174, 221, 253 Berlin, Gerald  53 Bermuda  14, 23 Bethune, Mary  237 Bettauer, Ronald J.  336, 374–5 Bevin, Ernest  107 Biafra  312, 316, 332 Biddle, Francis  63 birth control  10, 15, 352, 354 Black Dispatch  246, 256 Black Panthers  328–9, 332, 337, 340 Bobkov, Philipp  381–2 Bonn  41–3, 194 Bookbinder, “Hy” Hyman  351, 360 Bosnia  108 Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)  310, 338

419

Brandweiner, Heinrich  210 Brazil  133, 210, 271 Brezhnev, Leonid  379 Bricker Amendment (1951)  54, 58, 63, 65–6, 161, 325 Bricker, John W.  54, 60, 66, 161, 191, 319–25 Brierly, James L.  5–9 British Cabinet  3, 21–3, 26, 28–30, 36–8, 41, 43, 93–4, 97–8, 109, 122 British Guiana  25 British Honduras  25 British Parliament  9, 16, 31–5, 38–41, 79, 184, 282, 285–91, 294–5, 301–3 British Solomon Islands  26 British Western Pacific Territories  23, 26 Brunei  25 Buchenwald concentration camp  371, 376, 393 Budapest  252 Buddhists  112 Bulgaria  18, 22, 82, 84, 125, 129, 135, 146, 156, 183, 267 Bulgarians  127 Bunche, Ralph  234 Bundestag  41–3, 158–9 Burundi  290–1, 356, 358 Byrd, Robert C.  362 Calley, William L.  339–40 Cambodia  183, 272, 394 Canada  3, 35, 40, 55–6, 85, 184, 296, 331, 380 Capell, Frank A.  345–7 Carey, Archibald (Jr.)  64–5 Carter, “Jimmy” James  362–3, 389 Carto, Willis  345, 349 Case, Clifford P.  336–7, 347 Castro, Fidel  347 Cates, John M. (Jr.)  237, 240 Caucasus  112, 122, 127, 367–8, 377–8 Cavalieri, Luigi  210 Ceylon  3, 22, 40, 183, 296 Chang, John M.  198–203 Chebrikov, Victor  379, 384 Chechens  108–12, 121, 162, 164 Chicago Daily Tribune  241–5 China  23, 82, 141, 150, 163–5, 204, 209–12, 214, 312

420 Index Chinese  127, 210–12, 239 Christians  6, 48, 57, 61, 105, 127, 138, 180, 199–200, 202–3, 209, 268, 335 Church, Frank  318, 336–8, 347, 354, 359–60 Churchill, Winston S.  123, 126 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints  341–2 Chuter Ede, James  26 CIA  163–5, 380–1 Cicero race riot (1951)  232, 244, 253 Civil Rights Congress  129, 212–13, 217–18, 220, 222, 224, 228, 232, 237–41, 243, 246–7, 250–1, 254, 257, 260, 262, 372 Clark, Harvey E.  245 Clark, Tom C.  244 Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind  116, 120, 136, 181–5, 187–8, 298, 300, 303 codification of international law  6–8, 271 Cohen, Benjamin  174, 176–7 Cohen, Maxwell T.  276 Collier’s  275 colonial application clause  4, 28, 81, 88, 92, 96–7, 156 Colonial Office, British (CO)  13–15 colonies  5, 9–15, 20–1, 23–8, 78, 81, 88, 110–11, 156, 169–70, 239, 242, 302. See also non-self-governing territories Commonwealth Relations Office, British (CRO)  3–4, 17, 24, 77 Communist bloc countries  4, 17, 29, 31, 37, 56–7, 76–7, 79, 81, 94–5, 110, 115, 117, 124–5, 129–31, 133–41, 145–52, 157, 163, 169–70, 180, 182–3, 242–3, 254, 283–4, 296, 300, 314, 318, 327, 332, 334, 337, 373, 391. See also names of individual countries Communist Party  158; Australia  20; China 163–4; France 111; Soviet Union 104–5, 187, 367–70, 377–85; USA 219, 228–30, 251 Conferences for the Unification of Penal Law  271 Congo  316, 327, 332 Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)  51, 54–5, 59

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)  302 Connally, Tom  63, 171, 200, 269, 334 Connally Amendment (1946)  337 Conquest, Robert  108–13 Cook, Howard A.  65–7 Cooper, Sherman J.  140, 336–7, 347 Costa Rica  183 Council on Foreign Relations  345, 347 Courtney, Phoebe  347 Covenants on Human Rights  58, 60, 64, 67, 125, 147, 171–3, 175–7, 179–81, 183–6, 189–93, 204, 269–70, 296, 320, 322–4, 333, 335, 340, 362. See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights Creech Jones, Arthur  26–8 Crimean Tatars  4, 108, 112, 121, 127, 147, 162, 164 crimes against humanity  18, 51, 153, 185, 300, 302–3, 370, 375, 394 Cuba  161–2, 171–2 cultural genocide  4, 52, 152, 156, 170 Cushman, Robert E.  259–60 Cyprus  24 Czechoslovakia  18, 58, 75, 78, 82, 84, 146, 156, 183, 202, 332 Czechs  127, 138, 231, 233, 267, 376 Dachau death camp  193, 205, 253 Daily Express  112 Dalai Lama  165 Darr, reverend John W.  312 Dashnaktsutyun Party  369–70, 377, 380–2 Davis, Angela  329–30 Davis, Benjamin J.  232 Davis, Lester  244–5 Davis, Ossie  329 Day, Cecil  77 Demirchan, Karen  380–1, 383–5 Denlinger, Sutherland  177–8 Denmark  271, 299–300 Dent, Albert W.  258 Denton-Thompson, Aubrey  24 dependent territories. See non-selfgoverning territories

Index deportations, Soviet  108–12, 121–7, 129–30, 134–6, 140, 161, 171, 182, 187 DePugh, Robert B.  349 Derrick, John  232 Detroit race riot (1943)  253 Deutsch, Eberhard P.  325, 337–8 Dickerson, Angie  246–7 Dillard, Irving  266 Dirksen, Everett  116 Dixiecrats  253 Dobriansky, Lev E.  106–7 Dobruja Tatars  113 Doctors’ Plot (1953)  146 domestic legislation  7, 12–16, 20–1, 24– 7, 29, 32, 36–7, 39–40, 42–3, 49–51, 54, 56, 93, 97–9, 121, 126, 129, 139, 154–5, 195, 238, 283–5, 291–2, 296–7, 301–3, 310–16, 318, 322–4, 333, 337–8, 353–4, 389. See also universal jurisdiction Douglas, Francis C. R.  11 Douglas, William O.  229, 234–6 Drost, Pieter N.  287 DuBois, William E. B.  232–4, 238–40, 249, 260 Duff, James  116 Duggan, Joseph C.  190–1 Dulles, John Foster  57–8, 60–6, 160–1, 171, 308 Duncan, David F.  33–4, 112–13, 201–2, 273 Dunjee, Roscoe  246, 256 Easterman, Alexander L.  35–6 Eastern Europe  104, 135–40, 149, 157, 368, 373 East European émigré organizations in the United States  126–7, 129, 134, 137–8, 145, 158, 231, 243; Association of Free Jurists of Estonia and Lithuania 159; Czechoslovak National Council of America 124; Estonian National Council 171; Hungarian American Federation 124; Hungarian National Council 122–4, 126, 133; Lithuanian American Council 105, 118–20, 124, 131–3, 136–7, 145; Lithuanian American Information Center 132, 145; Polish American Congress 115– 16, 124, 140–1, 193–4; Polish Women’s

421

Alliance of America 116–17; Ukrainian Congress Committee of America 106–7, 145; Ukrainian Manifestation Committee 187–8 East Germany  209 Ecuador  75, 82, 183, 270 Eden, Anthony  35 Egypt  133 Ehlers, Hermann  159 Eisenhower, Dwight D.  63, 140–1, 152, 183, 308, 325, 344, 347, 349 Eliot, Theodore L. (Jr.)  320–1 El Salvador  183, 391, 394 England  83, 169–70, 282. See also United Kingdom Estonia  122, 171 Estonians  127, 131, 138, 171, 241 Ethiopia  75, 183, 265, 270 Europe  35, 48, 57, 117, 147, 163, 231, 239, 255 Evatt, Herbert V.  5, 17–19, 272 expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe  158–9 extradition  6–7, 16, 24, 27, 29, 36–8, 98–9, 155, 285, 295–6, 303–4, 309–10, 322, 324, 337–8, 389 Fagan, Myron C.  348–9 Fahy, Charles  171 Falkland Islands  25 Falle, Samuel  291–2 Falusy, Aloysius  124 fascism  4, 78, 103, 111, 153, 155–6, 169– 70, 219, 221, 226–7, 231, 245, 254, 343, 348, 366, 371, 373, 375, 378, 393–4 FBI  254, 346 Federation of Republican Women’s Clubs  312–13, 315–19 Feise, Winifred  247 Ferebee, Dorothy C.  237 Fiji  25 Finch, Eleanor H.  308 Finland  22, 383 First World War  367, 370–1, 374 Fisher, Adrian  269 Fitzmaurice, Gerald  15–16, 31, 76–7, 80–1, 84–9, 91–3, 96–8, 300 Flood, Daniel J.  131–4, 189–90 Foote, Wilder  177

422 Index forced labor, Soviet  104–5, 110, 120, 122, 125, 130, 134, 139–40, 142, 149–51, 161, 193. See also Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor Foreign Office, British (FO)  15–16, 23–4, 27–31, 33–4, 36–42, 61–2, 76–7, 79, 84–94, 96–9, 107–14, 120–2, 126, 201–2, 273–4, 282–304 Forster, Arnold  326 Foster, William Z.  228–30 France  82–4, 150, 183, 211, 264, 270, 272, 379–80 Free Europe Committee  145, 157–8, 160–1 Fujii v. California (1952)  54, 147, 179, 191 Fulbright, William J.  69, 309, 327, 336–40 Gahagan Douglas, Helen  171 Gambia  25 Gan, Vitaly  392–3 Gandhi, Mohandas K.  164 Gaster, Jack  211 General Federation of Women’s Clubs  179 Geneva  120, 162, 164, 185, 207 Geneva Convention of 1949  194 genocide, etymology of the word  6, 52, 153, 272, 352 “Genocide in Lithuania”  119 Germans  10, 19, 112, 149, 158–9 Ghana  296 Gibraltar  24 Gilbert and Ellice Islands  26 Goebbels, Joseph  146 Goldberg, Arthur J.  338, 360 Gold Coast  25 Goldstein rabbi, Israel  205 Gorbachev, Mikhail  379–82, 384–5 Grayson, Josephine  233 Great Britain. See United Kingdom Greece  267 Greek children, transfer of  116–17, 127, 267 Greeks  122, 137, 383, 393 Green, John Raeburn  235 Green, Theodore  269 Greenwald, Jonathan  374–5

Gregory, Dick  329 Grew, Joseph C.  129–30 Grigaitis, Pius  118–20, 124, 131–3 Grishin, Victor  379, 381, 384 Gromyko, Andrei  80, 379, 382, 384 Gross, Ernest A.  136–7, 154–5, 172 Grossman, Aubrey  218, 248, 261 Groveland Two  232, 253 Guadeloupe  257 Guatemala  183, 270, 394 Guinier, Ewart  249 Gutteridge, Joyce A. C.  282, 287 Gypsies. See Roma Gypsy Lore Society  264–5 The Hague  42, 83, 335 Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907  82, 210 Haiti  183 Hammarskjöld, Dag  214 Hargis, Billy J.  344 Harlow, Bryce N.  319–24 Hartman, Arthur H.  391 Hastie, William H.  237 Hauser, Rita E.  316, 320, 336–8 Heath, Edward R. G.  286, 289–90, 292, 294 Heinaru, Ilmar  66–7 Held, Adolph  52 Helsinki Accords (1975)  362–3, 391 Heppner, Elizabeth  148 Herreros  260 Hersey, John  275 Hewitt, Warren E.  336–8 Hickerson, John D.  57–8, 129–30, 188, 191–3 Higgs, Randolph L.  106–7 Hight, Betty  268 Hildyard, David  4, 16, 23, 28–31, 76–7, 79 Hinkel colonel, John V.  106–7 Hiss, Alger 333 Hitler, Adolf  67, 136, 149, 174, 253, 255, 291, 308, 314, 334–5, 350, 368, 376 Hoague, Francis  308 Hogan, Charles A.  207–8 Holman, Frank E.  48, 172, 242 Holocaust  391, 395–6

Index Home Office, British (HO)  15–16, 24, 26–31, 36–8, 41, 79, 93–4, 97–9, 122, 133, 273–4, 282–8, 291–6, 303–4 homicide  10, 154, 297 Honeycutt, Edward  232 Hong Kong  24 Hope, Peter  39, 113, 126, 273 Horm, Arvo  171 Hottentots  63 House Committee on Un-American Activities  259–60, 349 Hughes, Emrys  32–3 Hughes, Harold E.  352–4 Huijsman, Nicolas B. J.  14–15, 28 human rights  67, 125, 128–30, 134–5, 139–40, 142, 144, 150, 161, 165, 170–3, 179–81, 191–3, 206, 268, 296, 338, 362, 390, 393, 396 L’Humanité  252 Humphrey, John P.  175–7 Hungarians  127, 138, 158, 161–3 Hungary  18, 22, 94–5, 122–5, 129–30, 133–5, 146–7, 156, 161–4, 264, 274, 327, 332 Hunt, Haroldson L. (Jr.)  346 Hutson, T. H.  4, 24 Hyderabad  23 Iceland  75, 183, 270 Ieng Sary  394 India  3–4, 111, 150, 164–5, 171, 271–2, 296 Indonesia  23, 108, 271 Information Research Department  108–14, 120–2 Ingram, Rosa L.  232 Ingush 121, 162 International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)  164, 183, 209–12, 219–22 International Association of Penal Law  182–3, 185 International Commission of Jurists  163–5 International Court of Justice (ICJ)  4, 32, 36, 39, 42, 74, 78, 81–99, 115, 133, 156–7, 162, 184, 284, 297–300, 311, 314–15, 318, 337–8, 389

423

International Criminal Court (ICC)  13, 195, 299–303, 311–12, 314–15, 318, 332, 334–5, 337, 354 International Labor Organization (ILO)  82, 84, 150–1 International Law Commission (ILC)  4, 7, 76, 89–91, 136, 181–2, 184–6, 302 International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT)  6–7, 133, 155, 174, 181, 187, 194, 210–11, 219, 229, 245, 253, 264, 314, 371 International Military Tribunal for the Far East  155, 210 International Press Service  148 International Year for Human Rights  293 Iraq  48, 300 Ireland  22, 296 Iron Curtain countries. See Communist bloc countries Israel  47–8, 83–4, 99, 146, 183, 270, 388, 391, 394 Italy  22, 210, 271 Izvestia  121, 393–4 Jackson, Robert K.  219, 229, 245 Jamaica  23, 25, 112 Janner, Barnett  32, 34, 38–41, 79, 284–5, 287–95 Japan  204 Jarema, Stephen J.  106 Javits, Jacob K.  327, 336–8, 347, 359–60, 363 Jebb, Gladwyn  109, 198–9, 201 Jewish organizations  29, 61, 388; American Jewish Congress 53, 60, 145, 152, 184, 204–5; Anti-Defamation League 326, 342–50; B’nai B’rith 355, 396; Canadian Jewish Congress 184; Jewish Labor Committee 51–2, 54–5, 59, 152, 326, 350–2, 354–5, 359–63; Jewish War Veterans of the United States 152; Littauer Foundation 145; National Community Relations Advisory Council 59–61, 152; National Council of Jewish Women 65–6; National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council 395; Union of American Hebrew Congregations

424 Index 152; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America 152; United Synagogues of America 152; World Jewish Congress 35–6, 205 Jews  5–6, 35–6, 47–8, 51–2, 55, 57, 61, 67–8, 121, 127, 138, 145–9, 152, 245, 253, 264–5, 268, 274, 291, 331, 334–5, 338, 348–50, 368, 376 Jim Crow  218, 224, 229, 232, 245, 255 Johnson, Lyndon B.  325, 347, 389 Jones, Claudia  232 Jones, Elwyn  295–6 Jordan  22–3, 84, 183, 270 Kalmyks  121, 162 Kampelman, Max  391 Karachai  121 Kashmir  23, 164 Katyn massacre (1940)  58, 127, 140–1, 193, 267 Kefauver report (1951)  236, 259 Kelly, Robert  232 Kennedy, John E.  67–8, 296, 347 Kennedy, Robert F.  346–7 Kenya  9–11, 23, 26, 358 Kerno, Ivan  73, 75, 84, 205–7 Kersten, Charles J.  126–8, 137–44 Kersten amendment  58. See also Mutual Security Act Key, Edward E.  288 KGB  381–2 Khrushchev, Nikita  162 Kihss, Peter  243 Kimber, Gurth  18 Kim Il Sung  212 Kissinger, Henry A.  313, 320–1, 339–40, 347 Klarfeld, Myer  67–8 Klemmer, Conrad  124 Knauth, Theodore  208–9 Knesset  47–8 Korea  22, 141, 180, 183, 193, 198–214, 220, 255. See also North Korea Koreans  127 Korean War  198–214, 220, 233, 239, 249, 255 Korey, William  355, 396 Krock, Arthur  162 Krylov, Sergei  85

Kunz, Joseph L.  175–6 Kuznetsov, Vasili  379, 384 Lake Success  47, 105, 172. See also United Nations Laos  183, 272 Latin America  88, 272, 302, 373, 392–3. See also names of individual countries Latvia  105, 122, 171 Latvians  127, 131, 138, 241 League for the Rights of Man  189 League of Nations  82–3, 271 Lebanon  184, 380, 394 Leeward Islands  23, 25 Lemkin, Raphael  51, 53, 117–20, 133, 145–8, 157–8, 161–3, 170–3, 177–86, 189–95, 203–5, 241–3, 245, 264–78 Liberia  183, 270 Libya  108 Lie, Trygve  33, 80, 171. See also UN Secretary General Liechtenstein  22 Limb, Ben C.  205–9 Lincoln, Abraham  19 Lithuania  119, 122, 131–3, 136–7, 171 Lithuanians  105, 118–20, 127, 131–3, 136–7, 241 Lloyd, Selwyn  35 Lodge, Henry Cabot (Jr.)  53, 66, 116, 159–60, 269 Logan, Rayford  237, 241 London  33, 335 London Agreement (1945)  174 Lumumba, Patrice  327 Luxembourg  271 lynching  154, 180, 232–3, 236, 244–5, 250–1, 253, 255, 259 McCall, sheriff Willis  244 McCarran Internal Security Act (1950)  219, 232, 250 McCarthy, Joseph  62–4 McCarthyism  330 McFall, Jack K.  137–40, 142–4 McGee, Rosalie  233 McGee, Willie  232, 261 McGinley, Conde  349 McGrath, Howard J.  53–4, 247, 256

Index McMahon, Brien  51–2, 116, 179, 190, 266, 269–70 McNulty, Anthony  14 Madrid  271 Majdanek death camp  265, 393 Maktos, John  172 Malaya  23, 25 Malik, Charles  8 Mallalieu, Edward L.  301–3 Mallard, Robert  232 Malta  11, 25 Manion, Clarence  346 Mansfield, “Mike” Michael, J.  130, 134, 140, 354–5 Marsh, Jack  391 Martinique  257 Martinsville Seven  232, 253 Masaoka v. California (1952)  191 Maslow, Will  53, 60 Mauritius  25 Maxwell Fyfe, David  133, 273–4 Mayhew, Christopher  29 Medina, Harold  232 “mental harm” clause  11, 13, 146, 238, 253, 308, 312, 314, 318, 322, 324, 327–8, 334–5, 337, 357 Menzies, Robert  17–19 Mexicans  392 Mexico  271 Middle East  371, 392 Miller rabbi, Irving  205 Mindszenty, Cardinal Jósef  18–20, 146 Mitchell, John N.  313, 318, 321, 323, 353 Molotov, Vyacheslav  104–5 Monaco  22, 183, 270 Mongolia  22 Montague, Ashley  132 Moore, Harry T.  245–6, 254 Moore, John N.  391–2 Moreton, John  4 Moriarty, Michael J.  288 Morozov, Platon  172 Moscow  33, 335, 391 Mozambique  373 Multer, Abraham J.  267–8 Murphy, Carl  217 Murray, Philip  54–5 Muslims  4–5, 57, 108, 112, 147 Mussolini, Benito  19

425

Mutual Security Act (1951)  130, 134, 140 My Lai massacre (1968)  316, 319, 339–40 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)  237–8, 240–1, 245, 254 national legislation. See domestic legislation Native Americans  337, 372, 392 NATO  170, 194 Nazi Germany  68, 115, 121, 125, 235, 252–3, 265, 291, 334–5, 371, 375, 389, 392, 396 Nazi mass crimes  7, 35, 51–2, 55, 61, 67–8, 121, 153, 155–6, 163, 235, 245, 252–3, 264–5, 267, 291, 314, 334–5, 338, 357, 371, 375–6, 392–3 Nazis  6–7, 67–8, 111, 121, 153, 163, 174, 219, 314, 393 “The Negro in American Life” (1952)  252 Negro people. See African Americans Nepal  22 Nersisyan, Mkrtich  370–4 Netherlands  23, 84, 114–15, 284, 300 New England  53 New Hebrides  26 Newsam, Frank  93–4, 98 New York City  106, 186, 232, 246–7, 249, 320, 329, 351, 360 New York Times  117, 146, 157, 162, 171, 173, 208, 230–33, 242, 249, 269–70, 355, 359–60, 395 New Zealand  3, 76, 284, 296 Nicaragua  133 Nigeria  14, 25 Nixon, Richard M.  308–9, 312–25, 327–8, 331–3, 339–42, 344–5, 347–53, 358, 374, 389 Nobel Peace Prize  277 Noble, Andrew N.  31 Noel-Baker, Philip  17 non-self-governing territories  74, 81, 94, 96, 156, 169, 284, 297. See also colonies North Borneo  23, 25 Northern Ireland  394 Northern Rhodesia  25

426 Index North Korea  198, 200, 209, 212. See also Korea North Vietnam. See Vietnam Norway  75, 171, 183, 265, 270 nuclear weapons  32, 181–2, 341 Núñez Portuondo, Emilio  161 Nuremberg Charter  6, 195 Nuremberg principles  171, 174, 178, 181–2, 185, 194–5, 337 Nuremberg trial. See International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg Nyasaland Protectorate  24 O’Connor, Kenneth K.  9–10, 58 Ordas, Bishop Lajos  20 Orekhov, Boris  329–30 Organization of African Unity (OAU)  358 Organization of American States  84 Ormerod, Richard  24, 77 Pakistan  3–4, 40, 108, 111, 164, 271, 296 Palestinians  394 Panama  123–4, 171, 183, 239, 270, 272 Pan-American Union  82 Panyushkin, Alexander  73–4 Paris  49, 84, 129, 132–4, 170, 172, 187–8, 190, 229, 237–8, 240–1, 246, 249, 252, 258, 265, 335 Parrott, Cecil C.  15, 31, 77, 97–9 Pat, Jacob  59 Patterson, Robert P.  139 Patterson, William L.  212–13, 217–36, 238–41, 246–52, 254, 256, 258–60 Pauker, Ana  171 Pavlov, Alexei  180 peace offensive, Soviet  150, 182–3, 210 Pearson, Drew  170–3 Pearson, Lester B.  55–6, 184 Peck, John H.  109–10 Peekskill race riot (1949)  232–3, 253 Pell, Claiborne  336, 338, 347 Pella, Vespasian  170–1, 182–3, 189 Perlman, Philip B.  139, 191, 242, 269 Perry, Pettis  230, 232 Persian Gulf states  23. See also names of individual countries Persians  122 Peru  133

Philadelphia  320, 360 Philippines  83–4, 183–4, 270 Phillips, Orie L.  325 Phleger, Herman  58 Player, William O.  106 pogroms  6, 146 Poland  18, 57, 82–4, 141, 146, 156, 172, 183, 211, 295 Poles  116, 127, 137, 141, 158, 163–4, 189, 193, 231, 233, 241, 264, 267, 376 political groups  4, 52, 114–15, 158, 184, 313–15, 318, 327, 337–8, 357 Pol Pot  394 Ponomarev, Boris  379, 382 Pope Pius XII  183 Popper, David H.  189 Portugal  22, 373 Portuguese Guinea  373 Potsdam Agreement (1945)  19 Prague  146, 335 Pravda  105, 329–30, 370–8, 383, 385, 392–3 Pridham, Kenneth R. C.  292–4, 301–3 prisoners of war  125, 209, 337 Pritt, Denis N.  219–22 Procházka, Vladimír  78 Proxmire, William E.  356–60, 362–3, 374, 393 Rascher, Sigmund  265 ratification  15, 28, 30–6, 38–40, 49–50, 55–69, 75, 79–80, 82, 84–8, 91–2, 94–5, 97, 107, 115–16, 119, 123, 125–6, 130, 133, 135, 137–9, 142, 144, 146–7, 149, 152–3, 157–60, 170, 172–3, 176, 180, 183–4, 187–8, 190, 193, 198–201, 203–5, 238, 241, 250, 253–5, 265–6, 270–2, 283–4, 293, 296, 308–63, 371–2, 374, 388–96. See also accession Reading, Eva  186, 273 Reagan, Ronald W.  389–91, 396 Rehnquist, William  354 Reid v. Covert (1957)  323, 338, 353 reservations  15, 29–32, 36–7, 39, 56, 60, 73–99, 115, 156–7, 162–3, 179, 183–4, 202–3, 283–4, 296–7, 308, 314, 337, 389–90 Rhee, Syngman  199 Richardson, “Beah” Beulah  247

Index right-wing organizations in the United States  342–50; American Nazi Party 67, 350; Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation 343; Christian Crusade 68, 344–6; Christian Educational Association 349; Christian Nationalist Crusade 348–9; Cinema Educational Guild 333–6, 348–9; John Birch Society 68, 343–5, 359; Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 348; Ku Klux Klan 232–3, 253, 259; Liberty Line Houston 327–9; Liberty Lobby 331–2, 338–41, 344–5, 349, 359; Life Line Foundation 344, 346; Manion Forum 344, 346; Minutemen 68, 349; National Socialist White People’s Party 348, 350; National States Rights Party 348–9; Patriotic Party 349; United Klans of America 348–9 right-wing publications in the United States  343–50; American Mercury 345, 349; American Opinion 345; Christian Crusade Weekly 346; Common Sense 348–9; Conservative Viewpoint 348–9; Councilor 348–9; Cross and the Flag 349; Dan Smoot Report 344, 346; Fiery Cross 349; Herald of Freedom 345–6; Independent American 345, 347; John Birch Society Bulletin 344; Liberty Letter 338–41, 345; Life Lines 346; Mindszenty Report 343; NS (National Socialist) Bulletin 350; Red Line 343–4; Review of the News 345; Tax Fax 347; Thunderbolt 348–9; Truth Seeker 330–1, 348, 350; Twin Circle 343–4; Wanderer 343–4; Washington Observer Newsletter 345; White Power 348, 350 Riley, Wallace D.  390–2 Robeson, Paul  232–3, 237, 250, 252–6 Rockwell, George L.  67, 348, 350 Rogers, William P.  309, 313, 316–18 Roma  264–5 Romania  22, 82, 84, 107, 112–14, 125, 129, 135, 146–7, 156, 182–3, 189, 267 Romanians  127 Roosevelt, Eleanor  124–5, 130–1, 134, 138, 140, 193, 213, 242–3, 259, 267–8 Roosevelt, Franklin D.  63, 267–8, 345

427

Rosenberg, James N.  117 Rosenne, Shabtai  84 Ross, Charles G.  49 Rousseau, Charles  84 Royce, David  40–1 Rozmarek, Charles  116, 124, 268–9 Rubin, Jerry  328 Rudd, Gordon  303–4 Rusk, Dean  138, 308 Russia  18, 49, 63, 122, 146, 171–2, 180, 209, 241–2, 270, 312, 327, 341, 367. See also Soviet Union Russians  122, 131, 242, 376, 378 Rwanda  290–1, 358 Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, massacre at (1982)  394 St. Helena  25 St. Louis Post Dispatch  266–7 Salazar, António de Oliveira  373 Sampson, Edith  234 Samuels, Gertrude  269–70 Sanders, William  128–30 San Marino  22 Santa Cruz, Hernan  207–8 Sapozhnikov, Valentin  195 Sarawak  25 Saudi Arabia  183 Saxons  113–14 Schachter, Oscar  205–8 Schwelb, Egon  173–5 Schweppe, Alfred J.  242, 308–9, 313–15, 337–8 Scott, Hugh Doggett (Jr.)  285–6, 336–7 Scott, Paul H.  288–9 Scott, reverend Michael  260 Seamans, Harry  237, 240 Second World War  67, 110, 115, 156, 162, 204, 244, 314, 371, 375, 378, 389 Selassie, Emperor Haile  19 Seychelles  25 Seyersted, Finn J.  171 Shawcross, Hartley  7, 16, 28, 81, 300 Shecter, Louis E.  69 Shelton, Robert  349 Shepilov, Dmitri  104–5 Sheridan, Leslie  109, 111 Shultz, George P.  389–91 Sierra Leone  12, 23, 25

428 Index Šimutis, Leonard  105, 120, 131–3 Sinclair, Upton  235 Singapore  23–5 Slánský trial (1952)  146 slave trade  18–20, 212 Slavs  6, 153, 368, 376 Sloan, Blaine F.  177–8 Slovaks  127, 138 Smith, Alexander  116 Smith Act (1940)  219–20, 222, 232, 250 Smith, Corley  120 Smith, Ferdinand C.  248–50 Smith, Gerald  348–9 Smith, Ian  298 Smith, William French  388–92 Smith, Willis  192, 269 Smoot, Dan  344, 346–7 Snipes, Macio  232 Somaliland  23, 25, 112 South Africa  3–4, 157, 284, 372–3, 394 South East Asia  111, 372, 392 South Vietnam. See Vietnam South West Africa  260 Soviet bloc. See Communist bloc countries Soviet Constitution  155 Soviet Foreign Ministry  80, 169–70 Soviet penal code  155 Soviet Politburo  162, 187, 379–85 Soviet Union  4, 18, 22–3, 30–3, 36, 49, 56–60, 63, 68, 73–84, 94–5, 97, 104–12, 115–22, 124–44, 146–63, 169–72, 180–3, 186–7, 193–5, 199, 202–3, 209, 214, 230–3, 241–3, 254, 267, 270, 296–7, 312, 327, 341, 357, 367–85, 388, 391, 395 Spain  22 Sparkman, John  180 Stalin, Joseph  80, 136, 162, 242, 308, 314 Stavropoulos, Constantin A.  214 Stern, William  59 Stevens, Roger B.  286 Stevenson, John R.  313–15, 317–19 Stikker, Dirk  115 Stockholm  171 Stockholm conference (1950)  182–3 Stowe, Harriet Beecher  235 Strang, William  93, 98–9 Streicher, Julius  146 Sudan  300 Suslov, Mikhail  379

Swabians  113–14 Sweden  35, 271, 291 Switzerland  23 Syria  48, 380 Taft, Robert  116 Tanganyika. See Tanzania Tanzania  25, 358 Taylor, Betty K.  326, 350–2, 354–5, 359–63 Teitelbaum, Isidore  205 Tel Aviv  47–8 Tezel, Necdet  374–5 Thomas, Peter  289 Thomson, George  292, 294–5, 297–302 Thorp, Willard L.  172 Tibet  23, 163–5, 204, 316 Tikhonov, Nikolai  379–81, 383–4 Tobias, Channing H.  229, 234, 237, 241 Tokaev, Gregory  111 Tonga  26 “To Secure These Rights” report (1947),  259 trade unions  55, 59 Trager, Bernard H.  152 Transjordan. See Jordan Treblinka death camp  393 Trenton Six  232, 261 Trikamdas, Purshottam  164–5 Trinidad  25 Truman, Harry S.  49–50, 63, 117, 135, 137–8, 175–6, 200–2, 209, 236, 242, 249, 265, 389 Turkey  108, 183, 270, 367–9, 371, 374–7, 379, 381–3 Uganda  12–14, 20–1, 23, 25, 358 Ukraine  23, 57, 75, 82, 156, 187, 195, 202 Ukrainians  106, 127, 137, 186–8, 267 UN Charter  7, 54, 57, 108, 135, 138, 142–3, 147, 150, 164, 179–80, 195, 206, 251, 311, 333–5 Uncle Tom’s Cabin  235 UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR)  172, 180, 192–3, 300–3, 316, 319–20 UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)  4, 104, 120, 130, 134, 139–40, 142, 150–1, 164–5, 171–2, 192, 206–8

Index UN General Assembly  3–5, 7–8, 16–19, 21, 32, 34, 36, 40, 47, 49–50, 52, 57–8, 66, 75, 77–8, 81, 83–4, 88–9, 91, 93–5, 97, 121, 124–6, 128–30, 132–5, 137–9, 141–4, 146, 150–1, 153–6, 160–2, 169–71, 173–4, 178, 180–1, 183–5, 187–8, 190, 195, 198–9, 201, 203, 206, 218, 231, 237–8, 240–1, 243, 251–2, 258, 265, 271, 283, 285, 298, 300–3, 319, 322–4, 375 Union of South Africa. See South Africa United Kingdom  4, 7, 9–10, 14, 19–24, 27–41, 56, 61–3, 73–6, 83, 90–3, 97–9, 108–14, 121, 126, 133, 150, 156–7, 169–70, 183–4, 198–9, 201–3, 221–2, 265, 273–4, 281–304; delegation of 7, 21–2, 29, 32, 36, 40, 74–6, 79–82, 84–5, 89–91, 93, 97, 156–7, 169, 184, 201–3, 211, 271, 281–3, 291, 302, 321, 333 United Nations  7–9, 15, 17–18, 20–2, 29–30, 33–5, 42, 48, 50, 52, 54, 57–8, 61, 67–8, 73–5, 87–8, 106–7, 109, 112, 116–17, 120–1, 128–9, 131, 134–8, 142–4, 147, 150–1, 153–7, 162, 164–5, 171, 175–82, 184–5, 187, 189, 191–2, 194, 199–200, 202–4, 206, 208, 210–14, 218, 220, 229–32, 237–42, 246, 249–50, 254–5, 260, 265, 271–2, 281, 284, 290, 293, 298, 302–3, 311, 319, 322, 324, 327–9, 334–6, 338, 349, 351–4, 389, 394 United States  47–69, 73, 82, 84, 104–8, 115–17, 124–45, 147–52, 154–7, 159–61, 164, 169–72, 175–6, 179–83, 187–95, 200–1, 204–5, 208–14, 217–62, 265–72, 274, 284, 296–7, 308–63, 372, 374–5, 379–81, 383–4, 388–96 Universal Declaration of Human Rights  8–9, 19, 48, 54, 125, 147, 169–70, 175–6, 272. See also Covenants on Human Rights universal jurisdiction  13, 49–50, 155–6, 297–304, 309–16, 318, 322–4, 327–9, 331–5, 337, 353–4, 389. See also domestic legislation UN Resolution 96(I) (1946)  34, 153, 178, 181, 334, 371 UN Secretariat  75–6, 82, 89, 151, 173–9, 241 UN Secretariat Draft Genocide Convention  174

429

UN Secretary General  15, 21, 29, 31, 34, 42, 77, 79–85, 90–2, 95, 135, 171, 202, 206–8, 214, 251. See also names of individual secretary generals UN Security Council  22, 206–7, 311, 337 UN Sixth Committee (Legal)  4, 32, 64–5, 76, 89–90, 156, 174, 195, 300 Unwin, Keith  302 Uruguay  271 US Attorney General’s Office  53–4, 190–1, 244, 262, 317–18, 388–90 US Board of Economic Warfare  268 US Committee for a UN Genocide Convention  117 US Congress  49–50, 62, 126–8, 134, 141, 179, 189, 191, 239, 311–12, 314, 318–19, 322, 324–6, 331, 336, 339, 341, 343, 346, 354, 359, 379, 384, 392, 395 US congressmen  58, 126–30, 134, 141, 335, 381 US Constitution  8, 50–1, 54, 64, 139, 179, 192, 245, 251, 310–11, 317, 318–24, 327–9, 331–8, 341–2, 344, 353 US Department of Justice  54, 192, 269, 318, 389–91 US Department of State  31–3, 47, 55–8, 62–5, 68–9, 78, 106–7, 124–44, 148–51, 159–61, 170, 172, 175–6, 180, 188–93, 195, 233–4, 237, 240–1, 245, 250–2, 254, 257–8, 308, 313–23, 332, 336–8, 353–4, 356, 358, 363, 374–5, 389–90, 393 Ushakov, Nikolai  370–4 US President  49–50, 57–8, 63, 66–7, 117, 135, 137–8, 141, 200–1, 260, 297, 313–15, 318, 321, 328, 351, 389–91. See also names of individual US presidents US President’s Committee on Human Rights  232, 259 US Senate  49–50, 52, 57–8, 60–1, 63–4, 117, 119, 125, 135, 137–8, 141, 152, 157, 170, 172, 175–6, 188–90, 192–3, 200–1, 253, 259, 265–7, 296–7, 311, 313, 317–18, 320–1, 323, 326, 331–6, 338–40, 344, 350–5, 358–63, 374, 389–91, 395–6 US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations  51–2, 62–3, 68–9, 116, 157, 179, 190–1, 200–2, 269, 309, 316, 318,

430 Index 326, 336–8, 343, 345, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359–60, 362–3, 375, 392 US Senate Committee on the Judiciary  64–6, 395 US Senate hearings on US ratification of the Genocide Convention  116, 138–9, 179, 266–70, 308, 321–3, 336–8, 354, 375 US senators  59, 63–4, 137, 190, 266, 269–70, 316, 328, 332, 328–9, 335, 340, 343–4, 352, 359–62, 388 US Supreme Court  51, 191, 229, 234–5, 239, 244, 310, 320, 323, 325, 338, 353 Vaillant-Couturier, Marie Claude  213–14 Vallat, Francis A.  89–90, 92, 282, 287, 295–6 Valuchek, Andrew  124 Vandenberg, Arthur H.  171 Varga, Béla  123–4, 126, 133, 274 Vatican  23, 183 Verwoerd, Hendrik F.  372 Vienna  249 Vietnam  183, 272, 309–10, 316, 319, 331, 337–40, 372 Vietnam War  309–10, 316, 319, 331, 338, 394 Vinnitsa, mass executions at (1937–41)  127 Voice of America (VOA)  105, 107, 133, 252, 254 Volga Germans  121, 127 Volodin, S.  153–7 Vorspan, Albert  60–1 Vyshinsky, Andrei  80, 105, 181–3, 187, 214 Waddams, Herbert M.  273 Wallace, George  349 Wall Street  229, 236 Warsaw  276 Warsaw ghetto uprising  35, 54–5, 67–8, 235, 265 Washington, DC  69, 118, 182, 201, 238–9, 246, 259, 328, 333, 340–1, 344–5, 349–51, 392, 395

Washington Post  242 Wasilkowska, Zofia  211 Webb, James E.  131–3, 180 Webster’s Dictionary  52 We Charge Genocide book and petition (1951)  129–30, 217–62, 329–30, 337, 372 Western Europe  220 West Germany  41–3, 158–9, 194–5, 208–9, 269, 291 White, Walter  237, 240–1, 245, 254, 256 White House  63, 180–1, 348, 363, 388, 392–3 Wiley, Alexander  157, 269 Williams, Chester  237 Williams, Thomas W.  293–4 Willis, Frances E.  31–3 Wilson, Harold  292, 294–5 Windward Islands  25 Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF)  172, 213–14, 255 Woodard, Isaac  232, 244, 253 Workmen’s Circle  59 World Federation of Democratic Youth  172 World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)  29. See also American Association for the United Nations World Peace Council  210, 212 World War I. See First World War World War II. See Second World War Wright, Edward L.  338 Wright, Marshall  354, 356, 358 Yerevan  370, 385 Yergan, Max  234 Younger, Kenneth G.  32–4, 39 Yugoslavia  108, 114, 125, 140, 183, 265 Zanzibar  23–5 Zarobian, Yakov  267–70 Zech-Nenntwich, Hans W.  291 Zimianin, Mikhail  379, 383

 431

432

 433

434