New York, April 17, 1961.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I appreciated the opportunity of serving as the United States Representative to the seventeenth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which met in New York February 20 to March 17, 1961. Enclosed is my report on this session./2/

As stated in this report, the work of the Commission proceeded satisfactorily from the standpoint of United States policy interests. Since decisions taken by the Commission were consistent with the position papers provided by the Department of State, we voted for the decisions adopted by the Commission. I believe we were able to achieve our goals in large measure because of the flexibility provided by the position papers with the emphasis placed on broad policy objectives rather than the details and tactics involved.

I would like to add a few personal-political notes to my report. The Human Rights Commission has several built-in advantages for international cooperation. As there are only 18 nations on the Human Rights Commission a group identity soon emerges. Also all nations must seem to be vigorously for human rights, which is another binding force. For instance, we had three unanimous votes in this session. Mr. Morosov, the Russian Delegate, agreed to do a Russian dance on the rostrum for a fourth unanimous vote. Alas, this never came to pass, but on the other votes the Soviet bloc abstained and did not vote against Human Rights principles which the US did support.

At this session I think we got some added marks for sincerity and social concern. For instance, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan put forward a World Freedom from Prejudice Year. As I happened to know some groups in the United States which were working towards the same thing nationally in 1963, we gave this proposal strong support, and stuck by them through thick and thin for which they were grateful and slightly surprised, as our European friends lacked enthusiasm for this idea.

On the item of anti-semitism, we supported the French to keep the word "Anti-Semitism" in the title of a resolution. The Moslem group (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan) in order to eliminate this word had been voting previously with the Russians in order to get a quid pro quo on this point. The Russians must have encouraged them in this bargain. However, when the moment came to vote the Communist bloc voted (with us) to retain the word, thus letting down their Moslem colleagues to their obvious chagrin. It was interesting to me that the Soviet bloc would break with the Moslems and apparent obligations to keep a good propaganda face. Incidentally, the Russians did not enjoy my referring to anti-semitic outrages in Russia recorded in a UN document by B'nai Brith.

Perhaps the most important change in the other nations' attitude toward us was brought about first by Mrs. Roosevelt (who came to visit the Commission). She suggested that the US Government might be reconsidering its view on the ratification of conventions on the basis of individual merit. The Communist bloc had to pretend they were delighted, but were obviously dismayed as it deprived them of their biggest stick against us and loosened a spurious bond with the other nations. I cannot exaggerate the good effect of this news and sincerely hope that we will be able to reconsider this policy of ratification. A change would result in a participation and influence that we have not had in the Commission for eight years.

Our delegation took the initiative on a number of major items considered in the Commission. As a result of this initiative, the three Soviet bloc members of the Commission were isolated on several issues. The enclosed report points out that Poland, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR abstained on three major resolutions adopted-those on advisory services in the field of human rights, periodic reports on human rights, and studies of freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile and the right of arrested persons to communicate with legal counsel and others. The members of the Commission repeatedly rejected efforts of the Soviet bloc countries to delete references to the Secretary General in resolutions adopted.

I believe we maintained excellent working relations with our colleagues on the Commission from five Western European countries, three Latin American countries and six Asian countries. In the case of a particularly difficult resolution on periodic reporting on human rights, we obtained five co-sponsors as a result of considerable personal negotiations, the five co-sponsors being Afghanistan, Austria, France, India and Panama. In the case of the resolution on the expansion of information media, the delegations of Pakistan and the Philippines co-sponsored with us. Venezuela co-sponsored an amendment with us to provide for the study of the right of arrested persons to communicate with legal counsel and with others, and to request the preparation of draft principles on freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile.

In view of the constructive work done by the Commission at this session, I am particularly pleased to have participated in its activities.

Sincerely,

Marietta Tree

SD/A/C.3/242

Washington, September 1, 1961.

DRAFT INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Problem

The Commission on Human Rights worked on the drafting of the proposed Covenants on Human Rights from 1947 to 1954. The original draft of a single Covenant was divided by the Commission in 1952, in accordance with a decision of the General Assembly, into two draft Covenants, one on Civil and Political Rights and the other on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Commission at its spring 1954 session completed the initial drafting of the two texts, which were then forwarded through the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly. There was a general debate on this item at the ninth (1954) session of the Third Committee of the General Assembly. The draft Covenants were then circulated to Governments and the specialized agencies for comment. The Third Committee of the General Assembly at its tenth (1955) session adopted a revised Preamble and Article 1 of the two draft Covenants and decided not to vote on Part II until the substantive articles in Part III of the two draft Covenants were adopted. The Third Committee of the General Assembly at its eleventh (1956-57) session agreed to discuss first the substantive articles of the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and then the substantive articles of the other draft Covenant. The Third Committee at that session revised Articles 6 to 13 of the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At its twelfth (1957) session, the Third Committee revised Articles 14 to 16 of the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights thus completing the consideration of the substantive articles of that draft Covenant. The Third Committee also revised Article 6 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At its thirteenth (1958) session, the Third Committee revised Articles 7 to 11 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; at the fourteenth (1959) session, the Third Committee revised Articles 12 to 14 of this draft Covenant; and at the fifteenth (1960) session, the Third Committee revised Articles 15 to 18 of this draft Covenant. Since the Third Committee was unable to complete the examination of the draft Covenants, the General Assembly decided to continue the consideration of the draft Covenants at its sixteenth (1961) session. See UN document A/4789 dated June 30, 1961 on the current situation relating to the draft Covenants in the Third Committee.

United States Position

1. The U.S. Delegation should participate in the drafting of the Covenants on Human Rights in order that they will be in the best possible language and as consistent as possible with United States constitutional safeguards. Attached as Annex is general guidance to the United States Delegation in the consideration of the remaining substantive Articles 19 to 26 of the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the possible consideration of new articles on property and asylum./2/ It is not expected that the Third Committee will go beyond the consideration of these articles. If the Delegation finds that additional articles will be considered, the Delegation should consult the Department. As explained in UN document A/4789, following the consideration of substantive Articles 19 to 26, the Third Committee will take up the general provisions (Part II of each Covenant), the measures of implementation (Parts IV and V of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Part IV of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and the final clauses (Part VI of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Part V of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

2. In the event there is a proposal to call a plenipotentiary conference to complete the draft Covenants on Human Rights the U.S. Delegation should make known U. S. opposition to the proposal. U. S. opposition to such a proposal rests on several reasons: (a) if the Covenants are to continue to be considered they should be discussed in the Third Committee which has already considered them for some time, (b) the considerable expense involved in having such a conference, and (c) if such a conference is held in New York, it is likely to be attended by permanent representatives of Member States rather than experts. If strong sentiment develops, however, for calling such a conference, the Delegation should request further instructions from the Department. If it appears likely that a proposal for a plenipotentiary conference will be approved, the Delegation should make every effort to ensure that the conference is limited to States Members of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies.

3. In the event it is proposed that the Third Committee continue to meet (after the other work of the General Assembly is completed), the U.S. Delegation should make known U. S. opposition to the proposal. It is the U. S. view that items should be considered and completed within regular sessions rather than having individual items extend the meeting time of any particular Committee of the General Assembly. If strong sentiment develops for doing so, the Delegation should request further instructions from the Department.

New York, May 14, 1962.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It is with pleasure that I submit to you the attached report of the 18th session of the Commission on Human Rights./2/ I take the liberty of adding some personal comments regarding this session.

Periodic Reports on Human Rights. Although the Human Rights Commission in its 18th session deferred a good many agenda items to the Economic and Social Council and to next year's session, one great decision was taken following United States' initiative. In the words of John Humphrey, Chief of the Human Rights Division of the UN, this was "the most revolutionary step ever made in the history of the Human Rights Commission". In a resolution concerning Periodic Reports on Human Rights, we introduced an amendment providing for a "verifying presence" or check on the reports of Member States. Non-governmental organizations in consultative status will now be invited to "submit comments and observations of an objective character on the situation in the field of human rights to assist the Commission. . . ."

At first there was considerable opposition to our initiative stemming from the bloc countries (USSR, Ukraine, Poland), from India and, surprisingly, the Philippines. But after a good deal of parliamentary maneuvering our amendment was adopted with no negative votes. The NGO's were even more surprised by our success and have been sending in congratulations ever since.

My fear is that this amendment might be struck out in the next session of the Economic and Social Council, but we have begun to lobby for it already. Our position is that there is nothing in the US concerning human rights that is not known both at home and abroad due to the "verifying presence" of our free press, and, while other nations have condemned us for our lack of perfection, they have been less than candid about their own deficiencies. This amendment may stir up a hornets' nest, but ought to result in more honest reporting and progress in human rights throughout the world. As W. H. Auden says,

"True democracy begins with free discussion of our sins
In this alone we are all the same
All are so weak that none dares claim,
'I have the right to govern,' or
'Behold in me the moral law,'
And all real unity commences
In consciousness of differences."

I am confident that the NGO's will not press their new privileges too hard to begin with.

Draft Principles of Religious Freedom. The Human Rights Commission devoted many days of hard work to the draft principles on religious freedom and produced an agreement on only five preambular paragraphs, because of the wide and frequently wild differences between those Member States where organized religion has considerable political status and others where organized religion and the state are separated. I am afraid that many years will pass before these draft principles are finally completed in the UN. After discussion with the Pope, I am told, Ex-Ambassador Amadeo of Argentina introduced a vast number of amendments which, inter alia, proposed to delete all references to atheism and divorce, and provided for protection of an established church where one exists, as well as introducing metaphysical concepts, etc. I learned from his successor after he had resigned following President Frondizi's fall, that these amendments stem very largely from his own convictions and not necessarily from his Government. We wonder if they will be offered again next year by the Argentine Government. The Afghan (Moslem) delegate strongly supported the Argentine amendments, but the other Moslem states (Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon) did not follow as enthusiastically.

National Advisory Committees on Human Rights. Judging from the interest evoked in the Commission by the US report on its national advisory committees on human rights (national and state Civil Rights Committees as well as the hundreds of NGO's devoted to human rights) and the comparative lack of government and voluntary committees on human rights in all other countries, the US can afford to be proud. For it is probably the foremost nation in honestly facing its human rights problems and then trying to solve them with the variety of methods at its disposal. Perhaps our Government and citizens could profitably elucidate this point at home and abroad-especially for the benefit of African and Asian states who have not faced up to similar problems in discrimination.

The Human Rights Commission's Vote for Membership on the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. It may be significant that the US candidate (Mr. Morris Abram) received the unanimous vote of the 21 nations on the Commission for election to this Sub-commission. The next candidates (Poland, USSR, Italy, France, Chile) received only 19 and the United Kingdom 18 votes.

Advisory Services in the Field of Human Rights. As a program for fellowships in the field of human rights was initiated by the US (with 21 co-sponsors), and passed by the 16th General Assembly, we are pleased that several US citizens of distinction and experience in human rights work have submitted applications through the State Department for these fellowships.

Relations with USSR in the Human Rights Commission, 18th Session. Ambassador Morozov, the regular delegate to the Human Rights Commission, appeared only rarely during the session to shoot off a few salvos about colonialism and racial discrimination in the US by implication. His alternate, Mr. Ostrovski, was a young man who seemed rather to concentrate on the issues at hand and showed a willingness to be constructive and cooperative, generally speaking. He and his pretty wife came to all social gatherings of the Commission and were agreeable and gay. My adviser, Martin van Heuven, and myself decided to go to him informally about our concern, and that of many NGO's, regarding religious persecution of the Jews in the USSR. We felt, without much hope, it might help to improve religious rights of the Soviet Jews to ask him to relay our aide-memoire on the subject to his Foreign Office. We have learned that denunciations in open meeting result in long retaliatory speeches and no action.

One afternoon in informal conversation, Marten van Heuven asked Mr. Ostrovski about the recent ban in the USSR on the production of Matzoh bread which is eaten during Passover. Ostrovski said that if we had mentioned this ban in public meeting he had a long speech prepared in riposte, but since we had talked to him privately, he would relay our concern to the Foreign Office. The facts were, said he, that Matzoh flour was available to all in the USSR, and anyone could bake it at home or have it baked at a private bakery. (This would not conform to Jewish ritual.) We informed some of the NGO's of this conversation, and alas, the story in garbled version appeared prominently in all the New York papers.

When next I approached Ostrovski with a short aide-memoire about general discrimination against Jewish religious freedom in the USSR, repeating that we thought it more helpful to approach him privately, he replied that he couldn't listen to me as the newspaper articles had "embarrassed" him. I expressed my regret that the articles had appeared and pointed out that if we had been responsible for them they would have been accurate. He refused my aide-memoire saying he had "trusted" Mr. van Heuven, but the articles were published and now he could not discuss discrimination against the Jews with me further. I told him politely that I was not interested in his reactions but hoped he would transmit my message to the Foreign Office. Then I asked if it would be less embarrassing for him if I gave the aide-memoire to his superior Mr. Morozov. He evaded my question.

Evidently the Soviet Mission to the UN is not too well coordinated because on two occasions Ambassador Morozov made speeches in the Human Rights Commission which were the opposite of speeches by Mr. Ostrovski on the same subject only a few minutes before. I told Mr. Ostrovski that we did not point this out publicly to save him from embarrassment and problems with his superior.

Sincerely yours,

Marietta Tree

Washington, November 20, 1962.

SUBJECT
Human Rights Conventions (in addition to Marriage Convention) which might be considered for ratification (texts attached)/2/

1. Supplementary Convention on Slavery. 39 parties to date, including Soviets.

The Department of Justice is preparing a commentary on this Convention which we hope to have within the week. Article 2 calls for specification of a minimum age for marriage, but in this context such provision might be covered by the 13th Amendment.

The United States is already a party to the Slavery Convention of 1926 and to a protocol making the UN its depository. A copy of the 1926 Convention is attached to the text of the Supplementary Convention, along with pertinent provisions in US Constitution and law.

2. Genocide. 72 parties to date, including Soviets.

This is already before the Senate; it was forwarded by President Truman in 1949. The matter of ratification was reconsidered thoroughly in the Department last Spring, and the White House concurred in the decision not to press for action in the 87th Congress.

Attached to the text are (a) the letter of transmission, (b) the legislative history of consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, and (c) Mr. Dutton's memo to Mr. Chayes, June 19, 1962, on the current situation.

3. Political Rights of Women (a) Inter-American and (b) UN Convention.

(a) The Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women is also before the Senate, on the basis of President Truman's transmission in January 1949. No hearings have been held. This Convention falls wholly within our Federal Constitution; it covers the right to vote and "to be elected to national office", but does not apply to state office or to appointive office. As of last count, 13 LA's had ratified, several more are in process. Women now vote throughout the Americas.

(b) The UN Convention on Political Rights for Women, adopted in 1952, with the U.S. voting for. This includes appointive and all elective office, as well as suffrage. Article 3 refers to "public functions". Some of the parties have made reservations to Article 3 excepting military serv-ice from the requirement for equality for women. If the U.S. became a party, we would probably have to reserve on military and also on jury service.

36 parties to date, including Soviets.

4. ILO Convention on Freedom of Association.

The Department of Labor is now reviewing this Convention. It is already before the Senate, transmitted by President Truman in 1949. The Federal-State provision of the ILO Constitution would not apply to this Convention.

5. UN Convention on Nationality of Married Women. 27 parties to date, including Soviets.

This Convention falls within US law and practice; it is actually narrower than the Inter-American Convention on Nationality of Women to which the US became a party in 1934. Both texts are attached.

Washington, April 21, 1963.

SUBJECT
Fifteenth Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

PARTICIPANTS
Mrs. Tree, USRep UN Commission on Human Rights
Mrs. Nason, OES

I saw Mrs. Tree in response to her request for information on developments on her suggestion for a Presidentially appointed Committee to promote appropriate observance of the 15th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She had proposed such a committee before her departure in March for the 1963 Session of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

I explained that further thinking seemed to be needed on the function of such a committee. The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO had regularly promoted observance of Human Rights Week in the U.S. and had already developed active contacts with the public schools, many private organizations and information media. It would be important to enhance and strengthen these regular procedures rather than develop a new channel which would appear to bypass them.

Mrs. Tree said she had not realized the full scope of the regular activities when she had made her first suggestion. However, she thought there should be some special effort in connection with the 15th Anniversary, in line with the UN suggestions and our own leadership for this purpose. She also thought it would be very useful to provide some opportunity for the President to endorse Human Rights Week celebrations. She noted that the President had not thus far taken personal leadership except through the proclamation of Human Rights Week.

I agreed that there had been long term interest in obtaining participation by the President in Human Rights Day ceremonies. However, we had not thus far worked out what form would be useful.

Mrs. Tree thought that a committee might wish to develop its own plans and suggestions and that there would be no point in anticipating their decisions to any great extent. Her own interest was in some public pronouncement by the President--uch as reading his proclamation as a broadcast, commenting on the importance of the day in a press conference, possibly bestowing a citation for human rights work well done or some similar action. Mrs. Tree thought a committee might also give thought to proper display of the text of the Universal Declaration in connection with United States Archives as well as at the United Nations. The importance of the Declaration is greatly increased by the large number of new countries coming into the UN and making use of the Declaration in their constitutions and legislation. Since the Universal Declaration has become the symbol of the inherent and inalienable nature of human rights, we should make certain that it is constantly kept in the forefront of public attention.

Mrs. Tree asked whether the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO might not wish to join in recommending appointment of a Presidential Committee to give special attention to the 15th Anniversary from the policy as well as the promotion point of view. I said I thought this might be possible since the National Commission would be having its annual meeting this week. I agreed to report her interest to Mr. Minnich, the Director of the Commission Secretariat./2/

Mrs. Tree also thought she would like to talk personally with Mr. Gardner of IO and appropriate officers in CU to expedite prompt selection of a committee. We reviewed the roster of the present commission and former members. Among these were Archibald MacLeish who had helped draft the Preamble of the Universal Declaration in 1948 and Luther Evans, former Director General of UNESCO and Librarian of Congress, who has long experience in display and archive work. Mrs. Tree felt certain there should be some plan by which a Presidential Committee could strengthen the long term objectives of the UNESCO National Commission as well as the short term interests of the 15th Anniversary.

Washington, June 25, 1963.

Dear Marietta:

Thank you very much for your reports on the 19th Session of the Human Rights Commission. I have been asked to acknowledge also your submission to the Secretary. We appreciate your comments on the issues at stake, and especially on the political setting in which they were considered.

We are, of course, gratified that the draft declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination could be adopted in a reasonably satisfactory form. The draft Declaration will undoubtedly be a major item in the General Assembly next fall, and we should plan accordingly. As always, we are grateful for your careful presentation of United States positions in the Commission and your thoughtful constructive recommendations for further work.

I also have your letter recommending that the United States send an observer to the UN seminar on The Rights of the Child in Warsaw./2/ I agree with you that the United States should have an observer there and I hope very much that you can carry through your plan to attend. We are looking into the possibilities regarding John Means.

It looks more and more as if this next General Assembly will be a kind of Human Rights Assembly, what with the impact of our own domestic situation, the Portuguese and South African racial issues, and your own draft Declaration on Racial Discrimination. I recently gave a speech in Chicago on the Pacem in Terris encyclical. A copy is enclosed./3/

Meanwhile, just so you are not wholly deprived of reading matter, I'm sending along a little essay on the Hot Springs Conference of twenty years ago, which has a couple of passages I think you may find amusing./4/

Warmest regards,

Sincerely,

Harlan Cleveland/5/

Washington, July 8, 1963.

SUBJECT
Future status of special diplomatic service

For the last few weeks the creation of a Special Assistant for Human Rights in the Secretariat has been discussed confidentially and otherwise throughout the Department, in the local press and in a magazine of national circulation (Tab A)./2/ The inference is drawn by the press that a policy advisor is to replace a front line operation.

A Special Assistant for Human Rights is needed. I imagine such a person could stimulate proper consideration by overseas posts for the civil rights program of this Administration; could advise on how much attention to give the human rights aspects of our policy towards Portugal and South Africa; could report on the treatment of Africans in the Sino-Soviet Bloc, the religious question in South Viet-Nam, our human rights posture at the U.N., and matters within the Department which concern human rights.

The operation which I direct should maintain close contact with such a Special Assistant for Human Rights--if that is the name--just as we maintain close relations now with the Bureau of African Affairs, for example. But to place Special Protocol Services under someone dealing exclusively with human rights is to destroy a good deal of our effectiveness. Not only have we claimed up to now that we cater to all the needs of all the diplomats, but we do in fact--and we also protect the interests of many Americans with legitimate complaints against diplomats. These cases can involve Africans, Asians, Europeans or our hemispheric neighbors. Many of the problems which we try to solve do not have a thing to do with human rights. In certain instances our relationship is and should be much closer to the Legal Advisor's office than to any other area in the Department.

Incidents involving racial discrimination, which affect diplomats or other visitors, naturally enter into this broad context. But Africans and Asians now come to us with their many problems without feeling that they alone have all the troubles since we also help European and other diplomats besides the Afro-Asians.

The functions of Special Protocol have very little to do with the substance of Protocol, as Mr. Duke has pointed out numerous times (Tab B). To a certain degree ours are functions which have grown out of the recent diplomatic explosion and the resulting need to assist many small embassies whose staffs are here mostly to observe rather than to transact much business. I believe Special Protocol should be separated from Protocol and placed directly under the Under Secretary (U) as a small office with a unique function. I believe the name should be changed to Office of Special Diplomatic and Visitor Services. Ours is a line function.

I respectfully submit these considerations for your scrutiny without meaning in any way to belittle the need you may have for a Special Assistant for Human Rights.

New York, July 16, 1963.

SUBJECT
18th GA--Human Rights

Mr. McKitterick (OES) has told me that Harlan Cleveland is eager to have a "klieg light" approach by the United States to human rights at the 18th GA.

In giving some very preliminary thought to this question, the following occur to me:

1. Open Societies. You are familiar with this proposal elaborated a few years ago but never presented as a package. I think it might be time to take another look at this idea in the light of new developments.

2. Emphasis on the right of independent organizations. This is clearly a fundamental difference between a totalitarian and a free society. The very existence of organizations like CORE and the NAACP, not to mention the Communist Party of the USA and the John Birch Society, testify to the deep-rooted nature of this right in the United States. Its denial to African students in Bulgaria precipitated the serious incidents which developed there. This is a concept which should appeal to the Africans and Asians; it is not an issue bearing a cold war label. Indeed, the right of independent organizations, whether of trade unions or of political groups, has often been a key element in the attainment of independence around the world.

3. Declaration on Freedom of Information. The United States launched this proposal at ECOSOC four years ago. A declaration has been approved by ECOSOC, but the Third Committee of the General Assembly has not yet acted upon it. According to a decision of the Third Committee last fall, freedom of information is to get priority treatment at the forthcoming session.

It seems to me that emphasis on the foregoing aspects of human rights would put the spotlight on areas in which the United States is relatively strong and the Soviets relatively weak. Obviously we would make no attempt to evade the question of racial equality--on the contrary, I assume we would continue to meet it by full and frank exposition--but I think there is a certain tactical advantage in emphasizing general principles in areas where we are strong.

Thank you very much for your letter of July 10./2/ I am glad that my draft made a modest contribution to your speech at ECOSOC which, by all accounts, was most successful.

On July 22, 1963, President Kennedy forwarded three human rights conventions to the Senate for advice and consent to their ratification. The conventions were: the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (18 UST 3201), ILO Convention No. 105, concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor (320 UNTS 291), and the United Nations Convention on the Political Rights of Women (27 UST 1909). For text of the President's message to the Senate, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1963, page 586.

Washington, September 4, 1963.

SUBJECT
Proposal for a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights

I am concerned about the proposal in the Strategy Paper (which is elaborated in the Bilder-Nason memorandum defining terms of reference) to establish a United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights "to investigate and report to the General Assembly on how the members of the United Nations are fulfilling their obligations under Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter." The arguments against the proposal contained in L/UNA's lineup of pros and cons and in Finger's memorandum of August 29, strike me as well taken. In addition, I should like to point out a number of other serious political risks inherent in the proposal. Moreover, I see no reason to incur these risks, since I believe that we can derive the same political advantages by following the alternative course of strengthening the executive arm of the United Nations to take action in specific human rights situations, rather than establishing new United Nations machinery.

I.

A permanent United Nations Commissioner, armed with a staff and a roving mandate as "watchdog" for the General Assembly, would be tempted to encroach on politically sensitive areas and to compound the problems that we have faced in the General Assembly and the Committee of 24 on racial issues. The natural ambition of such a man will be to take on juicy political issues which promise a harvest of publicity and of favorable notices from the Afro-Asian majority in the United Nations. The Commissioner's authority to initiate investigations and engage in "fact finding" wholly at his discretion, which is the essence of the proposal, is particularly open to abuse. He will tend to interpret his mandate in the broadest manner, and to intervene in domestic human rights situations by making studies and issuing reports with the imprimatur of the United Nations. We might find ourselves faced with the kind of free-wheeling and grandstanding operation that has characterized the Committee of 24.

Moreover, pressures on the United Nations Commissioner from the Afro-Asian majority and from many of the lobbies will tend to direct his attention to human rights problems in our societies rather than in those of the bloc or the Afro-Asians. Apartheid, the treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam, the denial of political rights in the Republic of Korea are obvious areas in which the United Nations Commissioner and his staff would be persuaded to intervene.

What is to keep him out of Puerto Rico? Denied a hearing before the Committee of 24 will not the Puerto Rican petitioners be likely to appeal to the human rights commissioner? Technically we could not oppose this on the same ground that we have used to keep the Puerto Rican nationalists out of the colonialism committee, namely that the Puerto Ricans have chosen self-determination in the form of association. What is to prevent the commissioner from hearing the petitioners and issuing a report on United States compliance with Articles 55 and 56 in Puerto Rico?

Or, for that matter, what is to prevent the United Nations Commissioner from undertaking an investigation of the United States racial situation next time the headlines flaunt an incident in Birmingham or Cambridge or Chicago? Even if we succeeded in blocking such moves--as we probably could--the anti-UN lobby in the United States would have a field day every time an African leader called on the Commissioner to intervene in the United States racial situation.

But, would not this risk be counterbalanced by the political gains we could hope to get when the commissioner acted to spotlight human rights violations in the bloc? I doubt it. Certainly we can expect our citizenry to press the commissioner to investigate, for example, violations of human rights by the GDR authorities at the Berlin wall and the mistreatment of religious minorities in the USSR. The initial impact of a Soviet refusal to let the investigators in will be damaging in Moscow. But the more lasting effect will be the diversion of frustration into resentment against the Administration and the Department for failing to "force" the United Nations to do something about human rights violations in the bloc. Powerless to act in the closed societies the United Nations Commissioner will naturally want to earn his keep and maintain his self-respect by busying himself where he can--in the open societies of the West.

II.

I believe the same objective envisaged in the proposal for a United Nations Commissioner could be achieved by adapting and strengthening existing United Nations machinery. Any scheme to be workable and politically acceptable to us must contain two elements that are missing from the Commissioner proposal. First, the system must be so designed as to selectively employ investigating and reporting mechanisms in specific instances. Second, the investigating and reporting activities of any United Nations representative must flow from the authority of the Secretary-General, acting either under his implicit constitutional authority or on the basis of an explicit mandate from the General Assembly or the Security Council. What we certainly do not want is the establishment of another autonomous United Nations institution armed with a broad fishing license from the General Assembly. Instead what appears to be called for is the adaptation to the human rights field of the kind of machinery and administrative style that is invoked when the Secretary-General assumes peacemaking or plebiscitory assignments on behalf of the United Nations.

Our preference should therefore be for strengthening the resources and broadening the options open to the Secretary-General, so that he can select and adapt the instrumentalities that suit particular cases. Such a system has proved politically and administratively sound in the past, and would put us in a much better position to exercise some influence on the Secretary-General's choice of representatives and procedures. The Secretary-General should be able to call both on his staff and on neutral and experienced diplomats outside his own establishment to accomplish this task.

I would therefore suggest that in place of a United Nations Commissioner, we consider taking the initiative, on an appropriate occasion during the 18th General Assembly discussion of human rights, in proposing that the United Nations executive capacity to act in the human rights field be strengthened in the following way:

a. To enable the Secretary-General to take on broader functions in the field of human rights, expand the staff of the Under Secretary for Social and Economic Affairs by the addition of experts who could advise the Secretary-General on problems arising in connection with both advisory and investigative activities of the United Nations.

b. Include in the staff personnel who would be available to the Secretary-General to undertake investigations and make reports on all human rights problems with which the Secretary-General is charged.

c. Request and authorize the Secretary-General to set up a panel of distinguished world figures, with the appropriate academic, judicial and administrative experience and background in various fields of human rights, so that they would be available to him for assignment as his special representatives as occasion requires.

Thus, one could envisage the Secretary-General at the request of interested members and with the approval of the South Vietnamese government naming a special representative to visit South Vietnam to observe and report on the treatment of Buddhists, thus deflecting a premature call for General Assembly consideration. In the Berlin situation, to take another example, we might want to involve the United Nations in the human rights aspects without engaging the United Nations in the basic political issues of Berlin. We could consider the possibility on an appropriate occasion of a General Assembly request to the Secretary-General to send a special representative to Berlin to report on the humanitarian aspects.

Many other instances will come to mind. The main point is that we can expect in the future that the functions of the United Nations in human rights matters will be expanded, and that they will be broadly interpreted to include racial situations with political dimensions. We should encourage the Secretary-General's involvement, rather than that of another General Assembly committee or commissioner both of which are likely to cause us more political trouble than recourse to the tested facilities of the Secretary-General. Our effort should therefore be directed toward broadening the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and giving him the staff and facilities to do the job. Such a staff would work with the human rights commission and supplement its activities, particularly in studies and reporting. But when the staff undertakes human rights assignments with political aspects--and this would definitely include any investigative activities--it would be administratively controlled by the Secretary-General who would accept political responsibility for its work.

Washington, September 27, 1963.

SUBJECT
Civil Disobedience and the UN

I suspect we should be pretty cautious for the time being on human rights issues in the UN and particularly about drawing analogies between peaceful change and orderly procedures at home and within the UN context.

As I read it, the Southern whites know what they're doing: the resistance in Alabama, the rising toughness of the cops, the failure to carry out the agreement in Birmingham, and the general delaying tactics on the Hill are designed to force the Negroes to move into more militant action. There now appears to be a good chance it will work.

I am told that Martin Luther King is on the verge of endorsing civil disobedience. If this happens, it could split the Negro movement wide open. Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and the other good moderates could be swept aside by the Farmers, Baldwins, Rustins and worse. In the process, the white liberals could be driven out of the movement.

Then all the Eastlands and Thurmonds would have to do is discover that the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee has been penetrated by communists (which already could be the case).

If, in fact, the militants get control, and if the government is forced to turn against the major Negro organizations over the issue of civil disobedience--meaning cops carrying Negroes off airport runways and so on-our job of selling orderly procedures and democratic institutions to bring about peaceful change will hardly be facilitated in the UN.

This is only to suggest that perhaps we'd better play by ear. It may also be that we should keep in closer touch with Justice.

Washington, undated.

PROPOSAL FOR A UN RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS

In line with your statement before the General Assembly, I believe the United States should take the initiative during the current session in proposing more effective human rights machinery in the United Nations in the form of a permanent UN Rapporteur on Human Rights.

At the present time, the United Nations has no effective way of considering current human rights problems in a world-wide context. This is due primarily to the absence of up-to-date information. The Human Rights Commission receives various reports, but these are summaries of official documents, usually bland and incomplete, and already some months old by the time the UN can process them. No objective analysis of current happenings is available, with the result that the General Assembly debates "hot issues", such as apartheid, without the benefit of previous consideration in the Commission or the restraint and balance which might be imposed by an overall presentation of progress and problems in the human rights field.

Various suggestions have been advanced to deal with violations of human rights, including a UN Court similar to the European Court of Human Rights, a UN Committee to hold hearings and assess blame, and even a UN Attorney-General with power to call governments to account. We have rejected these suggestions because we do not believe the United States should be made subject in any way to the judgments of an outside body. Moreover, the need is to stimulate responsible--and if necessary remedial--action at the domestic level through the influence of an informed public opinion. We believe the most effective way of meeting this need will be by establishing a permanent Rapporteur on Human Rights in the UN, who can provide an annual report on the current status of human rights and be available for consultation with the Human Rights Commission.

The Rapporteur would be an elder statesman who would merit recognition as an independent expert. For his report he would draw on outside sources as well as government reports, but he would hold no hearings and make no on-the-spot investigations. He would work under the general direction of the Human Rights Commission. His statement would provide a basis for regular discussion, and should broaden awareness and concern throughout the UN beyond the present preoccupation with race problems in South Africa and the United States.

In addition, the Rapporteur could be available to the Secretary General for advice on human rights aspects of UN activities in economic and social development, and for good offices in response to requests from Member States.

It is recommended that the U.S. Delegation in the General Assembly be authorized to consult with other Delegations regarding the above-described rapporteur, with a view to support and possible co-sponsorship.

Washington, undated.

SUBJECT
Human Rights Initiative in the General Assembly-Proposal for a Permanent Rapporteur on Human Rights

Attached herewith is my memorandum proposing a permanent UN rapporteur on human rights in follow-up of the President's speech in the General Assembly./2/

You recall that we discussed some of the elements in this proposal with you during preparation of his speech last September.

Also attached is a memorandum to you from Mr. Chayes expressing some doubts. Mr. Dutton has associated himself with this statement./3/

I believe the doubts expressed by Mr. Chayes are met in large meas-ure in my underlying statement. However, I would like to comment on certain specific points:

1. We have several defenses against the rapporteur being pressed into making investigations of U.S. racial problems. In the first place, he would work under the direction of the Human Rights Commission, the composition of which is relatively favorable from the western point of view. Moreover, most members of the Commission--and indeed of the UN generally--will be reluctant to establish precedents or give the rapporteur authority which might be turned against them at some later time.

2. The existence of a human rights rapporteur will provide no additional opportunity for US negro leaders to make use of the UN system to expose grievances. The rapporteur would not receive complaints or petitions; he would not hold hearings or conduct independent investigations. Our race situation is already known to all through our public press; on occasion agitators have circularized all UN Delegations in New York with negro housing and other complaints. The rapporteur should help protect us against sensational charges.

The UN receives thousands of letters each year from individuals or groups alleging human rights violations. These are made available to the Human Rights Commission for information (usually without the signature to safeguard the writer), but the Commission does not discuss or take action on the basis of these communications. The Rapporteur would have similar access. Negro leaders can add to the total of these communications if they wish, and the Rapporteur could report on their substance in his discretion. However, if the matter were of importance, he would have access to similar information in the public press, and would find it easier to make use of a public source.

So far as the General Assembly and other UN bodies are concerned, any Delegation is free to propose an agenda item on any subject, including a race problem. This situation would not be changed one way or the other by the existence of a human rights rapporteur, but the objective nature of his reports should discourage efforts to embarrass the United States on race grounds.

3. While it is true that racial matters will continue to be a "hot issue" in the United Nations, there is no reason why we should not take steps to enlarge the scope of human rights considerations. Indeed, Mr. Chayes concedes this in suggesting possible advantage "through more aggressive use of the Human Rights Commission . . .". For the United States to benefit by such use, it seems to us essential that the Commission be equipped with up-to-date and objective information.

4. Our proposal at this time is to ask the General Assembly to establish the rapporteur post in principle, leaving detailed implementation to the Economic and Social Council next summer. Selection of the rapporteur, on the nomination of the Secretary General, would require confirmation by the General Assembly next fall. The rapporteur would accordingly not be able to take any action which could influence civil rights legislation now pending in Congress.

As for the effect of introduction of the proposal in the General Assembly, we expect to keep this in low key and to move only in association with a number of co-sponsors.

Washington, November 16, 1963.

Dear Burke:

As you know, the Secretary of State has invited you to a meeting in his office at 3:00 on Monday, November 18th, to discuss a proposal for a permanent Human Rights Rapporteur in the United Nations system.

The essence of the issue is whether we ought to take this step during this General Assembly (that is, in early December), to carry out the indication in the President's UN speech that the United States Delegation would have proposals to make in this area.

The Secretary is particularly anxious to consider the relationship between the substance and timing of this proposal and the Federal Government's domestic civil rights program, including the legislation now pending on the Hill.

Perhaps the best preparation for this meeting would be our internal documentation on the matter, which includes our original proposal as agreed with Governor Stevenson and embodied in a draft Memorandum to the President, a supplementary memorandum by Abe Chayes expressing some doubts, and a brief rebuttal thereto.

With warmest regards,

Sincerely,

Harlan Cleveland/2/

On November 20, 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted unanimously Resolution 1904 (XVIII), a Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. For text of the resolution, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, pages 152-156. Extracts from the text of Ambassador Stevenson's address to the General Assembly after the resolution's adoption are printed in U.S. Participation in the UN, 1963, pages 250-251.

Following approval of the declaration, the General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 1906 (XVIII) urging "absolute priority" for preparation of a draft convention on the elimination of racial discrimination, to be ready for the 19th session of the General Assembly in the fall of 1964. (UN Document A/1555)

Washington, December 11, 1963.

SUBJECT
Comments on "Resolution on Freedom to Travel"

Reference is made to a request from your office for brief comments on the Resolution on Freedom to Travel adopted and submitted by the United States Section of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom./2/

There is attached a statement which sets forth our comments and views on this Resolution. It has been cleared with the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.

FREEDOM TO TRAVEL

The Department is in complete agreement with and follows the guarantee contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." It is also our view that restriction on travel is an inroad and a hindrance to the free exchange of information upon which our domestic society depends. It follows, therefore, that restrictions on the travel of our citizens to certain countries or areas abroad should be and are imposed only when such travel constitutes a serious threat to our foreign policy or other national interest.

The designation from time to time of certain countries or areas of the world as forbidden to United States citizens who desire to travel there falls within the power to conduct foreign affairs. The decision to restrict is in and of itself a foreign policy determination and every citizen should do his part to aid in the implementation of this policy.

It is axiomatic that the conduct of foreign affairs necessarily involves flexible measures and policies which must be reviewed and adjusted to meet changing conditions. The Department has under constant review the countries or areas which are restricted to U.S. travellers and makes changes in the designations when warranted.

The policy of restricting travel of U.S. citizens to certain designated countries or areas does not mean that no U.S. citizens can travel to those areas. Specially validated passports have been and are being issued to travellers when the travel is regarded as being in the best interests of the United States. In the implementation of our foreign policy and especially in relation to Communist China, an arrangement exists whereby news-gathering agencies with a demonstrated interest in reporting foreign news have designated news representatives who are authorized to travel to Communist China. With the exception of two rather atypical cases, the Peiping regime has refused visas to all American correspondents to enter that area. Family members of United States citizens imprisoned in Communist China have also been issued passports valid for travel to Communist China, and usually are permitted to enter.

In the case of Cuba, the important current reason for closely controlling travel to Cuba is that the United States and other governments of this Hemisphere are engaged in a cooperative effort to isolate Cuba in order to limit the Castro regime's ability to promote subversion in other countries and to prevent the consolidation of communism in Cuba. The Castro regime is bringing Latin American trainees to Cuba, instructing them in subversive techniques, including guerrilla warfare, and returning them to their countries to initiate or support subversive movements.

Legitimate newsmen and other news media personnel have been issued specially validated passports to enable them to observe the Cuban scene and keep the American public informed on the true situation there. Also, American Red Cross personnel and others travelling for humanitarian reasons have been granted passports validated for travel to Cuba. It should be noted, however, that the Castro regime, through its control of visas, determines which persons may enter Cuba. In many instances persons who have passports validated for travel to Cuba have had their visas refused or long delayed because the Castro regime did not want them to enter Cuba,

The Department desires to emphasize to the National Board of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom that the decision to place such restrictions on travel is a supplementary phase in the conduct of foreign affairs and that it will contribute to our ultimate objectives of world peace and stability, reduction of tensions, and resistance to Communism.