I am attaching a draft letter to the Attorney General prepared for
the signature of General Smith, together with a copy of the tentative Justice
Department proposal for the restriction of “international
organization” aliens, particularly at the United Nations, to which
the draft letter is addressed. The Justice Department memorandum has
been under study within the Department and the United States Mission
to the United Nations, and was the subject of a meeting in my office
with Messrs. Tate and
Meeker of L, Mr. Barbour of EE, and Mr. Ylitalo
of CON.
The draft letter to the Attorney General is not intended to represent
a State Department position which has been agreed to at this time,
as the aforementioned meeting served only to clarify the issues
involved and not to secure agreement on a given course of action.
However it does represent an approach which this Bureau is prepared
to support, and I would like to see if you will agree that it is
adequate as a basis for discussion with the Under Secretary. If this
is agreed to, and if the Under Secretary should determine that this
is the position for the Department to take, he may wish to send a
letter on this order or, alternatively, to discuss the matter orally
with the Attorney General.
[Attachment]
The Acting Secretary of
State to the Attorney General of the United
States (Brownell): Draft Letter
My Dear Mr. Attorney General: Officers
of the Department of Justice who are concerned with your
Department’s participation in the deliberations of the
Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security (ICIS) have developed a memorandum,
dated February 10, 1953, for the Standing Committee on the
subject of restrictions for United Nations personnel. This
memorandum recommends for ICIS
consideration that legislation be sought to authorize the
issuance of visas, in the case of the United Nations, which are
valid only for admission to the United Nations Headquarters
District in New York and the immediate vicinity, and that such
visas be issued in the future
[Page 242]
to persons whose freedom of movement
should be restricted for reasons of security. The proposal
states, in part:
“Security considerations strongly suggest a drastic
limitation of the area in which personnel attached to
the United Nations may reside or travel while in
attendance at or employed by the United Nations. The
investigative efforts of this nation have been thwarted
or seriously impeded, for example, by the purchase by
the Soviet Union of a large estate on Long Island
outside the boundaries of the City of New York.
Surveillances of every type have been thwarted by the
ease with which personnel favorable to the Soviet Union
have been able to take advantage of the Soviet estate on
Long Island to avoid detection. There have been several
investigations of espionage activities engaged in by
United Nations personnel which have been rendered far
more difficult because of the wide area that has to be
covered in any such operation.”
The memorandum of February 10 makes it clear that the proposal is
put forward on behalf of the Department of Justice conferees,
and is not submitted as a proposition of departmental policy. We
in the Department of State greatly appreciate having the benefit
of these preliminary views of the officers of your Department
and have given the proposal careful consideration. As a result
of this consideration, we would like to ascertain if it is the
formal conclusion of the Department of Justice that restrictions
should be imposed on the movements of certain foreign delegation
and Secretariat personnel at the United Nations.
As you know, the only foreign personnel at the United Nations who
have been restricted to date have been a limited number of
correspondents, invitees and representatives of non-governmental
organizations, otherwise inadmissable, who have been issued
visas under the discretionary authority of the Attorney General.
In Washington there has been no restriction of foreign
diplomatic personnel on security grounds, the existing
regulations with respect to the travel of personnel of the
missions of the Soviet Union, Hungary and Rumania having been
adopted as measures of retaliation. For the United States to
enter upon a policy of general restrictions at the United
Nations will have repercussions on our relations with other
members of the United Nations the full measure of which cannot
be gauged at the present moment. At the same time, if it is the
considered opinion of the Department of Justice that confinement
of the movement of certain persons to a limited geographic area
is essential to the conduct of investigations and surveillance
operations necessary in the interest of national security, the
Department of State will concur wholeheartedly in the imposition
of such restrictions.
If restrictions are to be imposed, however, it is the opinion of
the Department of State that an effective program of restriction
can be entered upon without recourse to legislation as
contemplated in the Department of Justice memorandum. The
proposal put forward in the
[Page 243]
memorandum would have the Administration
request special legislation requiring that aliens falling within
Section 101 (a) (15) (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e.,
members of the delegations of foreign governments to an
international organization and alien personnel of the
secretariats of international organizations, and members of
their families and servants, be issued visas limiting them to
travel within the city in which the international organization
meets and travel to and from that city and the port of entry. In
the case of the United Nations, it is proposed that the “city”
be considered as the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New
York. No suggestion is made as to the appropriate area in the
cases of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, the Organization of American
States, and the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, all of which have
their headquarters in Washington. The memorandum further
suggests that the Secretary of State would be authorized to make
exemptions in individual cases.
The legislative approach embodied in the memorandum would appear
to have serious shortcomings. It makes no provision for the
restriction of persons already admitted to the United States. If
restrictions were to be imposed prior to admission only, the
delays in the issuance of visas which would result would not
purchase the degree of protection desired, inasmuch as the
relevant security information would, in many cases, be developed
after admission.
As stated above, it is the view of the Department of State that
adequate authority already exists for the imposition of
restrictions, and the delay which would be involved in the
introduction and consideration of legislation can and should be
avoided if restrictions are deemed to be necessary. In the case
of the United Nations this authority is contained in the
provisions of Public Law 357, 80th Congress. While the authority
is not as explicit in the case of the organizations
headquartered in Washington, we are confident that any necessary
restrictions here could be applied and enforced without great
difficulty. It is assumed that any cases deemed to require
restriction would be occasional only, inasmuch as Czechoslovakia
is the only Iron Curtain country holding membership in an
organization located in Washington. In any event, it is our
understanding that the immediate question exists with respect to
the United Nations alone.
In the imposition of restrictions at the United Nations or
elsewhere, the Department of State would expect the Department
of Justice to notify it of those persons who should be
restricted. While the Department of Justice would undoubtedly
wish to apply the restriction uniformly to all persons within
certain categories, such as delegations of Iron Curtain
countries, it may be helpful toward an understanding that the
restrictions are for the purpose of security rather than
retaliation if they are generally considered as applying to
individuals.
[Page 244]
While the
Department of State would appreciate being informed of the
particulars of each case requiring restriction which falls
outside certain group categories, it would not propose to pass
upon determinations of the Department of Justice in any way.
Once a policy of restriction is decided upon, foreign policy
considerations do not operate to make a distinction as between
individual cases, and any distinction should be based on
security considerations alone. For its part, the Department of
State would attempt to keep the Department of Justice advised of
any information pertinent to the determinations to be made by
the Department of Justice.
The determinations of the Department of Justice that certain
persons or groups of persons should be restricted would be
conveyed by the Department of State, through the United States
Mission to the United Nations in New York, to appropriate
authorities at the United Nations. In the case of members of an
international secretariat, their families and servants, the
appropriate authority would be the Secretary General. This would
also be true in the case of invitees, representatives of
non-governmental organizations, and correspondents. In the case
of members of delegations, their families and servants, the
appropriate authority would be the chief of delegation. The
Department of State would also notify the authorities of the
conditions of restriction and the procedures whereby authority
might be requested of the Department of Justice for travel
outside the area of restriction. If the restrictions, once
imposed, should be violated in any respect, this would be
considered an abuse of privileges of residence within the
meaning of Public Law 357 and the individual would lose his
exemption from the laws and regulations regarding the continued
residence of aliens. As it is assumed that any person restricted
would be one not normally admissible under the provisions of
Public Law 414, 82nd Congress, the removal of his exemption
would make him subject to deportation.
If restrictions are imposed on persons at the United Nations in
New York, the reliability of our statements to the effect that
they are imposed on security grounds may be publicly challenged
when it is recognized that comparable restrictions are not to be
imposed on all diplomatic missions of Iron Curtain countries
here in Washington. We would therefore wish to have the
assistance of the Department of Justice in the development of
such information as may be made public with respect to the
differences in the security situation as between New York and
Washington.
for signature of General
Smith
