294. Letter From the Representative to the UN Commission on Human Rights (Tree) to Secretary of State Rusk1

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 [Page 648] 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 [Page 649] 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, [Page 650] 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
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 341.7/5–1462. Official Use Only; Official-Informal.
  2. Dated April 16, not printed. Assistant Secretary Cleveland acknowledged Tree’s report in a May 24 letter in which he expressed encouragement at the growing involvement of non-governmental organizations in human rights affairs, and expressed concern at the accumulating workload of the Commission and the slowness of action in the General Assembly. (Ibid.)