Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1939, General, The British Commonwealth and Europe, Volume II

840.48 Refugees/1736: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Kennedy) to the Secretary of State

London, July 13, 1939—6 p.m.
[Received July 13—3:43 p.m.]

988. From Pell. My 985, July 13, 3 p.m. On the assumption that the Administration is not prepared to consider the principle of governmental participation in the financing of refugee work or to ask Congress for appropriations for this purpose we submit for your consideration the following suggestions as to the position and tactics which might be adopted after Mr. Taylor’s arrival.

1. The British at this point might consider asking us to agree to associate ourselves with them, or as a minimum not to oppose them, in raising with the Committee the principle of governmental participation in refugee financing. They are not yet asking us to accept the principle, although of course if we fail to object at the outset, and the onus at this stage is placed on us alone, we will appear to have given our tacit approval to the principle.

2. There is every reason to believe that the French who in the last few days have been active in Brussels, The Hague, and elsewhere on the Continent will be vigorously opposed to the suggestion that even the principle be raised at the Committee. If we are to take a negative view it is clearly to our advantage, in consequence, to avoid a situation where we will be in sole opposition to the British plan if at least part of the brunt of opposition if not the major part will be borne by others.

3. Mr. Taylor might in the preliminary conversations with Winterton agree that the financing of settlement may ultimately exceed the resources of existing private agencies and that new sources of capital must be found. He would hold, however, that in view of the statement in the original investigations to the Evian meeting that governments would not be called upon to incur any responsibility for the financing of migration, our Government could not properly now attempt to induce other governments to accept such responsibility. The United States has made and is continuing to make by far the largest contribution of any country in admitting refugees for permanent residence. This movement is being financed by the immigrants themselves, by their relatives or friends, or by organizations having a direct interest in the refugee problem. In addition these organizations are contributing very large sums to be spent in foreign countries for the relief and temporary maintenance of refugees there. These means of financing are the natural ones in that they put the burden on those having the greatest interest. To ask the general public and its representatives in Congress, most of whom have no direct interest in the problem other than a remote humanitarian one, to approve expenditures for this purpose would be Utopian. He would express the view (as we already have done) that, in view of the magnitude of current expenditures for relief of American citizens at home, any attempt to secure from Congress appropriations for the relief of aliens abroad would not only be utterly futile but would arouse bitter hostility toward the admission of refugees and contribute to the development of anti-Semitism. He would emphasize (and we regard this as the essence of the position) that any discussion of participation by our Government in the financing of settlement would be premature at least until a definite opportunity had been found and definite plans formulated for settlement on an exceedingly large scale. In this connection he could point out that the larger the scale of settlement the lower the cost upon settler and that “group” settlement would be so expensive and of such minor importance as to make it unworthy of his successor. Unless the British Government were prepared to give assurances that something far different from “group” settlement were contemplated for British Guiana there would not appear at the present time to be any opportunity for a settlement on a scale sufficient to warrant consideration of governmental participation. If the British chose to reconsider their entire position on the refugee problem they would of course be at liberty to do so but no blame for the present situation in the countries of refuge could be attached to Evian or the Committee in as much as it has constantly been made clear from the outset that the whole effort was to be made within the limits of existing immigration laws and practices and without governmental responsibility for financing it.

4. We could express reluctance to oppose the British at a time when they had taken such a generous forward step in the refugee work and agree that Winterton’s statement might at least be discussed at the officers’ meeting and that the discussion whether it should come before the full Committee should rest with the officers.

We would appreciate not only your comments on these suggestions but also instructions as to the position to be taken at the officers’ meeting and at the full meeting if the proposal gets that far. [Pell.]

Kennedy