740.00116 European War/8–1944
The British Ambassador (Halifax) to the Secretary of State
No. 525
His Majesty’s Ambassador presents his compliments to the Secretary of State and has the honour to refer to previous correspondence regarding the scope of the activities of the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
[Page 1352]- 2.
- Lord Halifax has now been informed that on May 30, 1944, Sir Cecil Hurst, the United Kingdom representative on the Commission, and concurrently its Chairman, addressed a formal letter to His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs83 drawing attention to public demand that some machinery should be established for dealing with atrocities committed on racial, political, or religious grounds in enemy territory. The letter stated that if machinery for this purpose already exists the Commission feels that a public announcement to this effect would be helpful. If, on the other hand, the Governments of the United Nations have no plan in view for bringing authors of such crimes to justice, the Commission is prepared to undertake the task if desired. Sir Cecil Hurst suggests that Mr. Eden should take the initiative in promoting any further discussion that may be required on the subject between the Governments of the United Nations.
- 3.
- His Majesty’s Government have considered this question and have decided that in their view the War Crimes Commission should confine itself to collecting evidence of atrocities of this nature, e.g. those against Jews, only when perpetrated in occupied countries. It is felt that a clear distinction exists between offences in regard to which the United Nations have jurisdiction under International Law, i.e. war crimes, and those in regard to which they had not. Atrocities committed on racial, political or religious grounds in enemy territory fell within the latter category. The United Nations should, therefore, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, not themselves assume any formal obligation in regard to the punishment of those responsible for such atrocities. Any attempt on their part to do so or to attempt to enforce specific provisions for the prosecution of offenders by enemy authorities would give rise to serious difficulties of practice and principle.
- 4.
- On the other hand successor Governments in enemy countries after the war will have jurisdiction in such cases and the United Nations will be in a strong position to exert pressure upon them to exercise it. There would appear to be a strong case for leaving the door open for the exercise of such pressure.
- 5.
- His Majesty’s Government accordingly propose that their attitude in
this question should be as follows:
- (A)
- Sir Cecil Hurst should be informed that His Majesty’s Government cannot agree to any extension of the terms of reference of the United Nations War Crimes Commission to enable it to deal with atrocities committed on racial, political or religious grounds in enemy territory.
- (B)
- The United Nations should not assume any formal commitment to ensure the trial of those responsible for such atrocities; nor [Page 1353] should they impose upon the enemy any formal obligation to try them or surrender them for trial. The United Nations should, however, be prepared to bring pressure to bear upon successor Governments in enemy countries to ensure that criminals are brought to justice. The War Crimes Commission should be informed of the general intentions of the United Nations in this respect.
- 6.
- Lord Halifax has been instructed to enquire whether the United States Government concur in the foregoing conclusions and, if so, whether they approve the lines of the proposed reply to Sir Cecil Hurst’s letter.
- 7.
- It is not the intention of His Majesty’s Government to consult the other Allied Governments in this matter.
Washington
, August 19,
1944.