The Evian Conference on the Refugee Question (Part B)
Source: S. Adler-Rudel, Year Book XIII of the Leo Baeck Institute (London 1968), p. 235-273
V
After the formalities and the nomination of the Credentials Committee, the Chairman, Senator Henri Berenger, invited President Roosevelt's representative to address the Conference.
In a frank and clear statement, Myron Taylor explained the purpose of the Conference and urged the establishment of a permanent intergovernmental committee to deal with refugee problems:
Some millions of people, as this meeting convenes, are, actually or potentially, without a country. The number is increasing daily. This increase is taking place, moreover, at a time when there is serious unemployment in many countries, when there is a shrinkage of subsistence bases and when the population of the world is at a peak.
Men and women of every race, creed and economic condition, of every profession and of every trade, are being uprooted from the homes where they have long been established and turned adrift without thought or care as to what will become of them or where they will go. A major forced migration is taking place, and the time has come when Governments - I refer specifically to those Governments which have had the problem of political refugees thrust upon them by the policies of some other Governments - must act, and act promptly and effectively in a long-range program of comprehensive scale...
We must admit frankly, indeed, that this problem of political refugees is so vast and so complex that we probably can do no more at the initial intergovernmental meeting than put in motion the machinery, and correlate it with existing machinery, that will in the long run, contribute to a practicable amelioration of the condition of the unfortunate human beings with whom we are concerned. While, for example, our ultimate objective should be to establish an organisation which would concern itself with all refugees wherever governmental intolerance shall have created a refugee problem, we may find that we shall be obliged on this occasion to focus our immediate attention upon the most pressing problem of political refugees from Germany (including Austria). Accordingly, my Government in its invitation referred specifically to the problem of German (and Austrian) refugees and proposes that, for the purposes of this initial intergovernmental meeting and without wishing to set a precedent for future meetings, persons coming within the scope of the Conference shall be: (a) persons who have not already left Germany (including Austria) but who desire to emigrate by reason of the treatment to which they are subjected on account of their political opinions, religious beliefs or racial origin, and (b) persons as defined in (a) who have already left Germany and are in the process of migration.
You will have noted that my Government's invitation to this meeting stared specifically that whatever action was recommended here should cake place within the framework of the existing laws and practices of the participating Governments. The American Government prides itself upon the liberality of its existing laws and practices, both as regards the number of immigrants whom the United States receives each year for assimilation with its population and the treatment of those people when they have arrived. I might point out that the American Government has taken steps to consolidate both the German and the former Austrian quota, so that now a total of 27,370 immigrants may enter the United States on the German quota in one year...
The problem is no longer one of purely private concern. It is a problem for intergovernmental action. If the present currents of migration are permitted to continue to push anarchically upon the receiving States and if some Governments are to continue to toss large sections of their populations lightly upon a distressed and unprepared world, then there is catastrophic human suffering ahead which can only result in general unrest and in general international strain which will not be conductive to the permanent appeasement to which all peoples earnestly aspire.' 15
Mr. Taylor was followed by Lord Winterton, Chief of the British delegation, whose address, although very carefully worded, contained indications as to the differences of opinion between the American and tire British Governments, concerning the creation of a new intergovernmental organisation in addition to the existing Nansen Office and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations. He said inter alia:
His Majesty's Government are Unions to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the United States Government and die other Governments represented at this meeting in the endeavour to find a practical Paeans of relieving the difficulties which confront the unfortunate people who wish to emigrate and the countries which are asked to receive there. I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of the United States delegate, and I am in general agreement with him as to the nature of the task, which lies before us.
For His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and for the British people, this problem is mainly a humanitarian one. It has been the traditional policy of successive British Governments to offer asylum to persons who, for political, racial or religious reasons, have had to leave their own countries. The United Kingdom has never yet had cause to rethink his policy, and refugees have often enriched the life and contributed to the prosperity of the British people. But the United Kingdom is not a country of immigration. It is highly industrialised, fully populated and is still faced with the problem of unemployment. For economic and social reasons, the traditional policy of granting asylum can only be applied within narrow limits. But within these limits, the people of the United Kingdom are ready to play their part...
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the practice which has been developed during the past five years in dealing with the various categories of refugees and, in consultation with voluntary organisations, to explore to what extent they can accelerate the process of assimilation of those elements among the present refugee population who can usefully be fitted into the social and economic life of the country. His Majesty's Government have been prepared to examine in a spirit of sympathy applications not only from refugees who are admitted to the United Kingdom for education, training or other reason, on the understanding that they will eventually emigrate, but also applications from other refugees in the United Kingdom who wish to establish themselves there without the fear that they will be required to leave the country. His Majesty's Government believe that one of the most useful contributions which countries of first refuge can make to the work of the present Conference would be to signify their readiness to absorb, so far as they can, in their economic, industrial and social system the refugees from Germany and Austria who have already been admitted to their territories. I hope at a later stage in our proceedings to have an opportunity of indicating in detail the practical contribution which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are prepared to make in finding openings in the United Kingdom for the persons who may desire, in the next five years, to leave Germany and Austria.
His Majesty's Government are also carefully surveying the prospects of the admission of refugees to their colonies and overseas territories. The question is not a simple one. The economic and social factors, which operate in the United Kingdom are here further complicated by considerations of climate, of race and of political development. Many overseas territories are already overcrowded, others are wholly or partly unsuitable for European settlement, while in others again local political conditions hinder or prevent any considerable immigration. These factors impose strict limitations on the opportunities for offering asylum to European refugees, but His Majesty's Government are not unhothat some of their colonial territories may in their turn be able to take a part, if only a relatively minor pare, in assisting to solve the problem. His Majesty's Government are, in particular, examining the possibility which may exist for settlement in certain of the East African territories. But any project, which may emerge, is unlikely to involve the settlement of more than a limited number of selected families, at any rate in the early stages. The whole master is under active consideration at the present time...
There is a second matter, which cannot be ignored in considering this problem of emigration. This meeting will endeavour to find an orderly solution of the difficulties before it, but its tasks will be immeasurably complicated and even rendered insoluble unless the country of origin is prepared to make its contribution, and Guess emigrants which other countries may be asked to accept have some means of self-support. No thickly populated country can be expected to accept persons who are deprived of their means of subsistence before they are able to enter it. Nor can the resources of private societies be expected to make good the losses, which the emigrants have suffered. If countries of immigration are to do their best to facilitate the admission of emigrants, then they are entitled to expect that the country of origin, on its side, will equally assist in creating conditions in, which the emigrants are able to start life in other countries with some prospect of success.' 16
Through its marked silence about immigration into Palestine (which was hinted at only by mentioning overseas territories where "local political conditions" hinder admission), Lord Winterton's speech was a bitter disappointment. Later, the importance of Palestine as a country of refuge was referred to so often at the private meetings and more particularly in the relevant Sub-Committee, that he once more took the rostrum on the last day of the Conference to explain England's position in this matter by stating that
The Committee will perhaps expect me, as representing the Power that holds the mandate for Palestine, to offer some observations. It has been represented in some quarters that the whole question, at least of the Jewish refugees, could be solved if only the Gates of Palestine were thrown open to Jewish immigrants without restriction of any kind. I should like to say, as emphatically as I can, that I regard any such proposition as wholly untenable. First, Palestine is not a large country, and apart from that there are special considerations arising out of the terms of the mandate and out of the local situation which it is impossible to ignore.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as mandatory Power, has a direct obligation under the terms of the mandate to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine under suitable conditions. This rit has discharged and will continue to discharge in the light of the conditions actually prevailing from time to time. The record that has been achieved in this respect is one, which calls for no apology. Some 300,000 Jews have entered the country since 1920. The number of German Jews admitted during the last few years is I believe, over 40,000.
I have referred to prevailing conditions. I need not emerge on these conditions prevailing at the present time. The acute problems that have arisen and the special difficulties with which the mandatory Government is confronted are a matter of general knowledge. They have led, as you all know, to proposals for drastic changes in the political structure of the country, the practical aspects of which are still under active consideration. Pending the completion of these investigations, it has been found necessary, not indeed to discontinue Jewish immigration - that has never been contemplated - but to subject it to certain restrictions of a purely temporary and exceptional character, the object of which is to maintain within reasonable limits the existing balance of population, pending a final decision - which we all hope may be reached at as early a date as possible - on the political future of the country.
That is the situation as it stands today. I would repeat that the arrangements now in force are purely temporary in character and are designed to cover what may be described as a period of transition. They will be subject to revision when the investigations to which I have referred have been completed and the mandatory Power is in a position to review the whole question in the light of their results. But for the moment the position is as I have described, and no immediate change is to be anticipated. In all the circumstances, our view is that the question of Palestine stands upon a footing of its own and cannot usefully be taken into account at the present stage in connection with the general problems that are under consideration at this meeting.
I am glad to say that I am now in a position to speak with somewhat greater precision in regard to settlement in one of the East African territories. What I have to say relates to the colony of Kenya. The possibilities offered by Kenya for the small-scale settlement of Jewish refugees have been under consideration for some time. After preliminary discussion with the local authorities, the private organisation concerned sent out an expert adviser to investigate the question on the spot. It is understood that this report is favourable and that a scheme has been evolved and is now under active consideration for the acquisition of private land in the colony.' 17
In the opening session, the next speaker was Senator Henri Berenger, French Governmental representative on the governing body of the High Commission for German Refugees, who had on several occasions defended at Geneva the rights of religious and racial minorities and had, since 1933, been furthermore intimately involved in the work for the relief of refugees from Germany. He welcomed President Roosevelt's initiative and eloquently expounded on how
France has hitherto solved the problem on her own territory, at her own risk and expense, through the medium of the benevolent and unselfish activities of private agencies in co-operation with the administrative resources of the French State and the organisations set up by the League of Nations.
Many millions of francs have thus been spent by French well-wishers on hundreds of thousands of refugees. Simultaneously France has constantly endeavoured to co-operate closely in defining and giving effect to a near social status for these unhappy individuals who have been so well called the "stateless" victims of present-day national Revolutions.
France already takes part in the work of the Nansen Office, of the Office of the thigh Commissioner for German refugees, and of the League of Nations Committee. And it has been unanimously admitted that that part is a most active one. Thus France continues to be true to the long-standing tradition of universal hospitality which has characterised her throughout all her history. She will maintain this tradition so far as the limits laid down by her geographical position, her population and her resources permit. Though she has herself reached, if not already passed, the extreme point of saturation as regards admission of refugees, France understands the new effort proposed by President Roosevelt. Not only will she not refuse to help in realising this fresh effort or to take this further step forward, but she will give maturely considered assistance to the Intergovernmental Committee at Evian.
Like America, France considers the refugee problem to be an international political problem, which can only be finally solved by the joint and collective action of the Governments of the world. In regard more particularly to German and Austrian refugees, France is prepared to discuss how their emigration can best be controlled and their settlement effected. There are various territorial, shipping, financial monetary and social measures, which will first have to be closely and carefully considered in executive sub-committees. That, it seems to me, should be the real object of our meeting here...' 18
The statements by the representatives of the three great democratic powers, of which we have above given some excerpts, provided the keynote for the addresses by the delegates of the smaller countries. Although anxious to please the President of the United States, they lacked the courage to deal with the cause itself by naming the country which was creating the refugee problem, instead they merely discussed the consequences which were affecting some of their countries. There were three groups of countries, differing in many respects from each other but united by the same negative attitude, and each delegate said "no" while trying to say it in a way not offensive to the President who had issued the call.
The first group consisted of European countries 19 bordering on Germany, all of them densely populated. Their representatives referred repeatedly to the "tens of thousands" of refugees they had already admitted. They even inflated the figures by reverting to refugees of World War I, but failed to remember that Belgium and France, for instance, at that time had had need of foreign labour. Referring to the present situation, they underlined that their countries had reached the point of saturation and that all they were in a position to offer were transit visas for short periods. Such permits, of course, could be issued only to persons in possession of immigration visas to overseas countries.
The second group were the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire 20 . Their position was rather odd. The Empire embraced most of the globe's rich but sparsely populated land. Canada's population did not exceed ten million for an area larger than that of the United States, which counted 130 million souls. Australia, with an area of three million square miles, had approximately seven million inhabitants. The white population of the Union of South Africa was about two million, while that of Rhodesia was insignificant. The governments of all these counties had erected carefully studied legal barriers to keep out immigrants. Actually, the British Empire could have made a most important contribution towards the solution of the refugee problem.
In so far as the self-governing Dominions were concerned, the British Government could at best advise, but not decide. This however, did not hold true in regard to Palestine, which was under the sole jurisdiction of Whitehall. For the two previous years, which had been a time of extreme despair for the refugees, the Colonial Office had deliberately restricted immigration and Lord Winterton's addresses clearly indicated that it was not the intention of the British Government to change that policy.
The third and perhaps most important group was the bloc of the American Republics 21 . Far from Europe and its worries, their representatives had little understanding of the emergency with which they were asked to deal in Evian. Most of them came from agricultural countries, which had no need of "intellectuals and wanderers". Immigration into their countries was governed by strict laws and various forms of selection. The delegates of these countries were very eloquent in expressing their sympathies with the humanitarian efforts of President Roosevelt, but they, too, pointed out that in spite of their good will, there were obstacles to the admission of political refugees, as legislative provisions prevented them from removing the existing restrictions - which were of their own making.
Nearly twenty-five speakers participated, reading one by one the carefully prepared speeches referring to the particular character of their countries, to the existing laws of entry, to the necessity of negotiating with Germany concerning some kind of transfer of capital belonging to the emigrants, and to the fact that they were not in a position to make any commitment with regard to future immigration. - The only exception was the representative of the Dominican Republic who indicated certain possibilities for large-scale agricultural colonisation:
The Dominican Government, which for many years past has been encouraging and promoting the development of agriculture by appropriate measures and which gives ample immigration facilities to agriculturists who wish to suede in the country as colonists, would be prepared to make its contribution by granting especially advantageous concessions to Austrian and German exiles, agriculturists with an unimpeachable record who satisfy the conditions laid down by the Dominican legislation on immigration.
For colonisation purposes my Government has at its disposal large areas of fertile, well-irrigated land, excellent roads and a police force which preserves absolute order and guarantees the peace of the country. The Department of Agriculture could give colonists, in addition to land, seed and the technical advice, which they need.
The Government which I have the honour to represent here would also be prepared to grant special conditions to professional men who, as recognised scientists, would be able through their teaching to render valuable service to their Dominican colleagues.' 22
Another speaker, Sir M. J. M. Yepes from Columbia, deserves mention here for his courage ill pointing to the roots of the problem and - if we remember correctly - he was also the only one among the speakers who was warmly applauded when he addressed the Conference in the following words:
The problem of political refugees offers two aspects, which I should like to outline briefly. First of all, there is the questions of principle, which can only be studied and settled by collective effort; and, secondly, there is the questions of fact, which each country must settle by its own means and in the light of its special circumstances. We cannot, as would seem to be suggested in certain quarters, expect to consider this problem exclusively as an empirical problem and ignore the questions of principle which may become its most important aspect, for it is they which determine the matter for the future and for all time. This is, very briefly stated, the question of principle: Can a State, without upsetting the basis of our civilisation, and, indeed, of all civilisation, arbitrarily withdraw nationality from a whole class of its citizens, thereby making them Stateless persons whom no country is compelled to receive on its territory? Can a State, acting in this way, flood other countries with the citizens of whom it wishes to get rid, and can it thrust upon others the consequences of an evil internal policy? The whole tragedy of these thousands of unfortunates who are bandied about from country to country, at the caprice of the alien police and exposed to the boorishness of frontier officials, the whole tragedy lies in the fact that this preliminary question was not settled in time. It would be useless for us to-day to find homes for the present political refugees and to hear the grievances - well-grounded, as I freely admit they are - of those who have come to voice their complaints before this modern Trailing Wall which the Evian Conference has now become. So long as the central problem is not decided we shall be doing merely ephemeral work, work that will last but a day and which will have to be begun over again tomorrow... The worst thing is that the bad example of the Old World may be copied in other continents, and the world will then become uninhabitable.' 23
