Mr. MARSHALL. That the provisions of 11(g) are "understood not to have the effect of conferring the complete diplomatic immunity. which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys." Mrs. BOLTON. That refers to 11(g). Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. Mr. LODGE. What does that mean? You are not stating what they should or should not enjoy! Mr. FAHY. Does not 11(g) now cover it? It states: Such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy, except that they shall have no right to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than as part of their personal baggage), or from excise duties or sales taxes. The word "except" limits it. Mr. MARSHALL. We made reference to the Secretary of State's letter to the Speaker, which says: It is the view of the Department of State that this paragraph provides only for privileges with respect to matters other than those specified in the foregoing paragraphs (a) through (f), and does not provide for additional privileges in respect to such matters. Thus, immunity from legal process is confined to limited immunity granted by paragraph (a) and could not be extended under paragraph (g) to provide the complete immunity which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys. That interpretation of 11 (g) which the State Department makes caused us to raise the point, why not write that interpretation into the resolution itself so it would be clear as to what is intended. Mr. LODGE. Even then you are not saying what is included in the immunities, when you say it does not extend complete immunity. Mr. MARSHALL. It means that they have all of the special immunities outlined in the preceding paragraphs, and that they are not to be construed as having complete diplomatic immunity enjoyed by diplomatic envoys, but only those specified in the other language. Mr. FAHY. I think that is not quite what the Secretary said. What he was saying, was that with respect to immunities which arise, and that is one of the particular things referred to in the communication. IMMUNITIES ON RECIPROCAL BASIS Mr. LODGE. May I ask if you could not accomplish what Mr. Marshall suggests with respect to that section if that section 11(g) is cut out, and just specify what you want to do, outlining the privileges and immunities covered in (a) through (f); and just leave out (g). Mr. Chairman, I do not know how long I shall be able to remain, and I would like to say for the record that as an actual fact there is not a day passes in the American Embassy in Warsaw that the personal belongings of Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane and his staff were not inspected. My wife's younger brother was there and said that happened every day, that their personal belongings were subject to a rigid search. And I raise this question, whether the diplomatic immunities to be enjoyed by the various representatives at the United Nations should not be placed on a reciprocal basis. If our diplomats are going to be subjected to intimidations of this kind, I think it is quite proper, since the United Nations is in the United States, that the imuni ties being granted by the United States be placed on a reciprocal basis. I think it is about time for us to be a little more realistic about these matters, and I would like to make the suggestion, that it would seem reasonable to place the immunities on that basis. Mrs. BOLTON. What would be your suggestion? Mr. LODGE. I think we should write a provision in the resolution, that in so far as these immunities are granted to our own diplomats and representatives that they shall apply to the representatives of those countries in the United States. In other words, put them on a reciprocal basis with respect to each country. It could be put in proper legal language. 9 There is nothing offensive about making reciprocal immunities. I think it should be reciprocal and there is no reason why this nation should approve the sort of thing that Ambassador Lane and his staff have had to go through in the past few years in Poland with respect to diplomatic immunity. I think his resignation was a very courageous gesture, and I think we are duty-bound to take cognizance of what he did in order that he might be free to comment on the treatment accorded. Mrs. BOLTON. I am a little bit out of my sphere when we are considering these legal points, and for that reason I perhaps should not be presiding. Mr. LODGE. You certainly are not out of your sphere. Mrs. BOLTON. I do think we want to be very careful of this, because we are dealing with a United Nations situation. Mr. LODGE. I appreciate that. Mrs. BOLTON. And we want the actions of this comittee to be clear so as not to complicate any United Nations matters. The thought sounds perfectly reasonable to me that we could say that these immunities are granted with the understanding perhaps Mr. LODGE [interposing]. "Dependent upon". Mrs. BOLTON. Yes, dependent upon reciprocity from the countries involved extending or granting the same immunities to us. And not only granting them but actually carrying out the immunities. TO PREVENT SOVIET POWER POLITICS AT U.N. AND SUBVERSION IN UNITED STATES Mr. LODGE. That is right. And may I say that it seems to me that we will be in a much more favorable position when we bring the resolution to the floor of the House, because we are in a very difficult position with respect to the United Nations. First, I think we are in a sort of dilemma. You and I, of course, want the United Nations plan to work, but we want to prevent it from becoming a tool of power politics, and that is what one nation and her satellites would like to make of it. This would be one means by which we could in a measure overcome any effort to engage in subversive activities. Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, a career diplomat, was appointed Ambassador of the United States to the Polish Government in Exile in 1944, in London, and moved to Warsaw in 1945. In March 1947 Mr. Lane resigned his ambassadorship in protest over what he termed the unfairness of the Polish elections held in January 1947, for his inability to see some 100 political prisoners who claimed American citizenship, and generally for the Polish Government's "cynical disregard of its international obligations." LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY; LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS Mrs. BOLTON. I would like to have an expression from the other member of the committee, Mr. Javits. Mr. JAVITS. With respect to reciprocal immunities, Mrs. Bolton, I am perhaps not in position to pass judgment on the proposition. On its face it would seem logical. Mr. LODGE. That is right. I am sure you will agree that we cannot legislate in respect to executive matters and what we are doing is-in so far as we can-is with respect to the language in the legislation that is enacted. Mrs. BOLTON. We must consider the practical side of getting the bill through now. Mr. JAVITS. I think the only chance of getting the bill passed now, if it is passed, will be by unanimous consent. Mr. LODGE. I think that is right. Mr. FAHY. May I make a general statement about that suggestion? RECIPROCITY DEBATED; BILATERAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Mr. LODGE. May I just make this statement before you begin, that this is the second question I have raised so far this morning, on which I would like to have your opinion. The first one was with respect to the language “immediate vicinity", and then the question with respect to reciprocity of immunities. Mr. FAHY. I do not think we should put such a provision as that in, Mr. Lodge, because if we were dealing with Russia alone that would be one thing, but we are dealing with 54 or 55 members of the United Nations. Mr. LODGE. May I answer that suggestion? Mr. FAHY. May I finish my answer? Mr. LODGE. I would just like to point out that we wrote such a provision in the Mundt bill 10 which also dealt with all the other nations. We put in there reciprocity. Mr. FAHY. But that is something else. Mrs. BOLTON. I think this is very different. Mr. FAHY. Yes. I may say that I am not unsympathetic to your views about the Russian situation at all, Mr. Lodge. But we have got to conduct ourselves somewhat differently from them in the face of their choice of the United States as a place to function in what we hope is an extremely worthwhile venture. And we invited them here, unanimously, in December 1945, and they selected the United States as the place to come. Now if we were to make a treaty covering immunities in our relations with Russia, I think that would be one thing, but we are dealing with all the nations who are members of the United Nations. And we are using here a rather old concept of a diplomatic provision covering 10 Mr. Mundt's bill, H.R. 3342, 80th Congress, provided funds for broadcasts by the Voice of America for and other State Department cultural activities, including educational exchange programs to counter anti-American propaganda that was blamed on Communists. The bill thus expressed a certain "doctrine of reciprocity," according to its sponsor. After strenuous funding objections were overcome in the House, the bill was finally enacted as Public Law 402, "The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948," Jan. 22, 1948 (62 Stat. 6). 71-567-7618 immunity in connection with the work of the United Nations, and the suggestion, I am afraid, would offend a lot of the other nations. I think that is important. We must handle our own security with the United Nations inside our country, and I think that is the thing we have got to consider, and that it is not going to depend on the words which are suggested. We have got to handle the security matter in some way. But do not let us go before the General Assembly this September, which is going to have to pass on a great many important matters, from all standpoints, and have the people there thinking-and I am not talking about Russia-but there are going to be a great many things voted on in this meetnig of the General Assembly, and we have got to maintain our position among them to the fullest extent possible. And let us not create an atmosphere among them in the gathering that would be unfavorable to ourselves and which might affect adversely much more important things than is involved in this suggestion. I do not think we can take up with the United Nations questions relating to our diplomatic relations to Warsaw or Moscow. I think they have to be taken up separately and perhaps handled in some other way. Mr. LODGE. May I comment on what you have just said. Mr. FAHY. Certainly. Mr. LODGE. I do not agree with you, Mr. Fahy, that it will offend. The important fact in the world today is unfortunately not the United Nations but the Paris Conference.11 That is a hard, relentless matter. The United Nations may ultimately operate, but at the moment it is the Paris Conference, and as you have indicated, there are some 14 nations that have accepted, and 8 nations which have not. And let me make this point: I have never believed that there will be war because we happen to say some harsh things, things which someone may think will offend, nor do I believe there will not be a war because we say nice things, say things not to offend. I do not believe that is the way war comes. I think this would be a realistic recognition on our part of our own national security. I would like to know what precedent was set with respect to the League of Nations at Geneva. How did they arrive at their conclusion with reference to immunity matters. And additionally, I would like to know what the legislation was with respect to the United Nations, concerning this particular matter. We are legislating with respect to the United States. And if we want to put in a provision that they are to be granted complete immunity, as to any place, if that were possible, I would not raise this objection, but it seems only appropriate to me that the language included in the resolution should be clear and specific, because we are dealing with a matter which affects our national security. And I would like to suggest to you that you disillusion yourself with respect to the intention of peoples in the world, and that relates in particular to one group, and I think this is a matter that involves national security. Mrs. BOLTON. What can you think of in the way of making it possible to clarify this, Mr. Fahy? 11 Secretary of State Marshall's proposed plan for European recovery was the subject of a European Economic Conference which met in Paris July 12-15, 1947, and was attended by 16 European countries. Soviet-bloc countries refused their invitations, thus heralding the Cold War division of Europe. Germany and Spain had not been invited. DIPLOMATIC PROPRIETIES AND POTENTIAL ABUSE Mr. FAHY. On the question of the immediate vicinity, I would just say that it is incredible that the Congress of the United States would say that they can come to 42d Street and no further, where there is no place to live and no place to work, and stop right there; you have got to give some immunity. Mrs. BOLTON. What is your suggestion? Mr. FAHY. We say "immediate vicinity", and there maybe a better way of saying it, but the principle is there and it is perfectly sound. Mrs. BOLTON. Could you say "within the limits to be decided upon"? Mr. FAHY. Yes, something like that might be all right. Mrs. BOLTON. "Within the limits to be decided upon," and then you can pick out certain residential areas where complete immunity can be granted. Mr. LODGE. May I suggest to the lady that there is no limitation upon the number of people that can be brought in under this resolution. They can bring in 300 a day; there is no limitation. I think that is a very important matter. Mr. FAHY. I think that would obviously be abuse of the provision. Mrs. BOLTON. That it would be a what? Mr. FAHY. That would be an abuse of the provision. Mr. LODGE. Have you seen any lack of desire on the part of the Soviet Republic not to abuse the most essential provisions of the United Nations or of the Security Council? Have you any assurance they will not abuse that immunity privilege? Mr. FAHY. I can say that we could stop them from bringing in 300 a day. Mr. LODGE. If that happens, we should reach it by legislation rather than by administration, should we not? Mr. FAHY. You might write in that it may not be abused. Mr. LODGE. But you do not define what abuse means. Mr. FAHY. NO. Would you want that in? RECIPROCITY AND RETALIATION Mr. MARSHALL. If I may, Mrs. Bolton, there are two principles, I think, which we can talk about with respect to reciprocal relations of nations what we call reciprocity, and the other, retaliation. Mrs. BOLTON. Yes. Mr. MARSHALL. And there might be some confusion about trying to write in a provision for retaliation. Mr. LODGE. I do not think it is retaliation with respect to matters which they enjoy. I am talking about treating the people who came here as they treat our representatives; give them equal treatment in the future. Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. Mr. LODGE. It is retaliation; it is to prevent retaliation. Mr. LODGE. And I want to have your opinion. |