292. Letter From the Representative to the UN Commission on Human Rights (Tree) to Secretary of State Rusk1
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 [Page 644] 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 [Page 645] 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,