Soviet Hints Threats to Jews in Russia at U.N. Debate on Emigration

The Soviet representative on the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination asserted this weekend that introduction by Jewish organizations of the issue of emigration of Jews from East European countries was “a bad service” to the Jewish populations of those countries, which certainly “would not help them.”

Boris S. Ivanov made that statement in continuing discussion at a Sub-Commission meeting of a report dealing with the right of any individual to leave his country and to return to it. The discussion reached the stage of paragraph by paragraph consideration of the report, prepared by Jose Ingles of the Phillipines, special rapporteur. The target of the Soviet representative’s wrath was the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, which had submitted data on Jewish emigration from the East European countries and barriers to such emigration.

The Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations is one of a number of Jewish groups which have consultative status before the Sub-Commission, with the right to speak and to submit formal memoranda–but not with the right to vote. The organizations represented by the CBJO are B’nai B’rith, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.

U.S. DELEGATE PROTESTS AGAINST SOVIET ANTI-JEWISH ALLUSIONS

Morris B. Abram, the United States representative, immediately challenged the Soviet representative, protesting strongly against “allusions” that the discussion of the question might “jeopardize” the Jewish populations in those countries. He said that “if this is true, then we are in a very bad state of affairs.” He added that, if any government “acted this way,” then it was not a surprise if there were groups who wanted to leave that country.

Paul Barton, representing the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, also interpreted the Soviet representative’s statement as a possible threat. He said he wanted to submit additional documentation on the question. He requested a clarification on the Soviet representative’s statement, specifically whether the Soviet statement meant that there would be retaliation measures taken against the Jewish populations because their “tragic situation” had been brought to the attention of the Sub-Commission. He said that if this would be the case, he would not submit his organization’s documentation in order not to endanger those Jewish populations.

In his statement, his second during the current meeting of the Sub-Commission, Mr. Ivanov declared that everyone in the Soviet Union was allowed to leave and that it was “nonsense” to say that there were any limitations on emigration from the Soviet Union. However, he again criticized any interpretation of the report which would permit unrestricted emigration asserting that this would create mass departures which could have “undesirable political effects.”

He repeatedly attacked the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations, asserting that Jewish aspects of the issue had been included in the Ingles report “artificially,” and that it was “regrettable” that the Jewish coordinating body had managed to “induce” the rapporteur into “error” by presenting only “slanders” and false accusations “without any basis” against the Soviet Union.

FACTS ON SOVIET RESTRICTIONS OF JEWISH EMIGRATION PRESENTED

The Ingles report as such does not make any reference to the Soviet Union in regard to Jews. However, in one of his country-by-country reports supplementing the principal document, Mr. Ingles included a summary of information on the question relating to the USSR, quoting not only the CBJC but also Mrs. Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Minister.

In regard to Mrs. Meir, Mr. Ingles quoted her as telling the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, in 1960, that “during the previous five years, 9,236 special certificates had been issued by Israeli authorities to Jewish families in the Soviet Union, which wished to go to Israel, but few Soviet exit permits had been granted.”

Mr. Ingles cited a statement by the CBJO which recalled that, in 1957, Premier Khrushchev, of the Soviet Union told Americans visiting him in Moscow that “We don’t allow just anyone to leave the Soviet Union. We issue passports to those whose visits are expedient.” That Mr. Khrushchev was alluding to Russian Jews was shown by the fact that he had added in his 1957 statement: “We recently, though, allowed a great number of Jews to go to Poland, and we knew that many of them would go to Israel from there. I am sure that the time will come when all Jews, or Russians for that matter, who want to go to Israel will be able to do so.”

It was these references among others that angered Mr. Ivanov. He was also irritated by the fact that Mr. Ingles, as a United Nations rapporteur, had taken such information against a specific UN member from a non-governmental organization like the CBJO. With “all due respect” to such non-governmental groups, he told the Sub-Commission, he considered it “an abuse of confidence to fabricate information and to bring in calumnies against this or that country.” He called the Jewish coordinating board “a purely American institution” and said that he was therefore “not surprised to see that it is the American member who supports it. We should not be the accomplices of this organization.”

RUSSIA WILL NOT ENCOURAGE JEWISH EMIGRATION, SOVIET DELEGATE SAYS

Admitting that “it is a fact that there are Jews who want to emigrate to Israel,” the Soviet representative said: “This is true, but it is also true that the number of Jews who want to emigrate now is much smaller than it was before. We should not encourage this institution which is interested in increasing this number to use our Sub-Commission as a forum for its propaganda.”

Mr. Ivanov returned to the theme in a second speech, declaring that the “grave danger” was from racism and Fascism, and that to introduce such information as that concerning Jewish emigration would only distract attention from that danger.

The Jewish coordinating board also was criticized by Wojciech Ketrzynski of Poland, although in more moderate terms that those used by the Soviet representative. He said that the problem of emigration of Jews from Poland concerned only two countries–Poland and Israel–and that it was regrettable that a “private” Jewish organization “without any mandate” submitted “false information” on the matter. He added that the problem of such emigration was a “delicate” one and the procedure of bringing the question of its solution before public opinion would make that solution more difficult.

POLAND FINDS DESIRE OF JEWS TO EMIGRATE TO ISRAEL ‘LEGITIMATE’

The Polish delegate added that the desire of the Jews to emigrate to Israel was “legitimate” and that he viewed it with sympathy but that the space given to it in the report was exaggerated. He also said that the problem should not be included in the category of religion because Jews want to emigrate to Israel not on religious grounds but because they were sentimentally and psychologically attached to that country.

He referred to a paragraph in the study which stated that, between the end of World War II and the end of 1952, “perhaps one-half of the postwar Rumanian Jewish population emigrated to Israel.” He said he could not see how it could be said that Jews were still being prevented from leaving that country, especially in view of the fact that “in no country did all Jews want to leave.”

He said such mass departures were a drain on the economies of the countries because the emigres held key positions in the economies and professions of those countries. He added that many Jews of Polish origin in Israel were approaching the Polish consulate to help them go back to Poland.

The American representative was one of several defending the role of the non-government organizations. Mr. Abrams said such organizations had a vital role in the work of the United Nations and that he felt it was a good thing that Mr. Ingles had depended not only on information from governments but also from scholars and non-governmental organizations. He referred to the Polish delegate’s criticism of the Jewish coordinating board and noted that the Jewish group had been duly certified by the UN Economic and Social Council.

BRITISH, FRENCH, AUSTRIAN DELEGATES BACK FREE JEWISH EMIGRATION

Peter Calvocoressi of Britain said that the question of whether preventing Jews from leaving a country was a racial or religious one had no importance. What was important, he said, was that there were restrictions against their leaving certain countries.

Franz Matsch of Austria said the main reason for the exodus of Jews from Europe was the creation of the State of Israel. He said many Jews had been channeled through Austria and he had had the opportunity to see the “magnificent work” of the Jewish organizations, without whose help no immigration was possible. He added that for this reason he believed in the data submitted by the Jewish coordinating board.

Pierre Juvigny, of France, told the Sub-Commission it was correct to mention specific information about places where persons are forbidden to leave their country to rejoin their families abroad. “I, for instance,” he said, “know about Hungarian Jews that are prevented from joining their families in Israel. The problem of Jews being prevented from being reunited with their families exists; it is a fact; it can not be ignored. It is up to the rapporteur to decide the best method of exposing this de facto situation.”

The 12-member Sub-Commission will continue its detailed examination of the Ingles report tomorrow. The Sub-Commission convened a week ago and will continue its sessions until January 31.