On 16 March 1949 the Bolivian Government asked that the General Assembly, unusually in session in the spring, should consider the question; and a few days later Australia formally tabled an item 'observance of fundamental freedoms and human rights in Bulgaria and Hungary, including the question of religious and civil rights, in special relation to recent trials of Church leaders'. The Assembly referred the matter to its ad hoc political committee. Hungary and Bulgaria were not members of the UN at this time and, when invited, refused to take part in the discussions; instead they denounced them as an illegal interference in their internal affairs.
During the discussions Western and Latin American delegates declared that in each country the Communist Party, though receiving only a small number of votes in the elections held immediately after the war, had gradually extended its hold on power, had reduced political and other freedoms, and had in some cases executed opposing political leaders. They had recently proceeded to persecute Church leaders as the principal remaining threat to their own power. Cardinal Mindszenty, after he had forbidden the members of religious orders to teach in the confessional schools which had been taken under national control, had been subjected to a campaign of vituperation and threats, and finally been arrested and tried, as had Church leaders and priests in Bulgaria. All of this represented a clear violation of fundamental human rights. The Assembly in Articles 10, 14, 55 and 56 of the Charter had a general jurisdiction over such questions, which overrode the reservation of domestic matters in Article 2(7). Moreover, in this,particular case the two governments had undertaken in their peace treaties to safeguard civil and religious rights and this had created clear international obligations.
Representatives of the communist countries claimed that in both states religious freedoms were assured in law and in practice. The Church in each case occupied a privileged position and enjoyed financial assistance from the state. In Hungary religious teaching was compulsory and there was no propaganda against religious beliefs. In Bulgaria the new constitution assured freedom of worship, and here too the Church received financial assistance from the state and special facilities for propagating its religious views. Cardinal Mindszenty had been arrested not for his religious ideas, but because he had been conspiring to overthrow the state by force, to establish a 'monarcho-fascist system' in Hungary. By his own confession he had transmitted confidential political information to the United States. Similarly, the fifteen Bulgarian pastors recently put on trial had been trying to overthrow the Government by force and engaging in espionage for the US Government. In any case, all these matters were beyond the competence of the Assembly. So far as the peace treaties were concerned, a special procedure had been set up for considering any alleged violations, and these should be put in motion if there was any doubt about their implementation.
A number of resolutions were put forward, calling for the setting up of a special committee to examine the situation on the spot in the two nations, or proposing that they should be refused admission to the United Nations. Even among the Western delegates there were doubts about the usefulness of setting up a special committee. The two governments were not likely to provide facilities for this. Not surprisingly South Africa, whose internal affairs were already attracting comment in the Assembly, voiced especially strongly the view that the Assembly had no competence in the matter. These views prevailed and the proposal to set up a special committee was rejected by a substantial majority. But a resolution was adopted expressing 'deep concern at the grave accusations made against the governments of Bulgaria and Hungary regarding the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms' in these countries, noting 'with satisfaction' the steps being taken by signatories to the treaties with them to ensure that human rights were protected - the United States and Britain had already tried to invoke the treaties - and drawing the attention of the two governments to their obligations under the treaties.
However, the measures taken by Western powers under the peace treaties did not get anywhere. All that happened was that the two governments (and Romania, when similar steps were taken there) refused to appoint representatives to the committees which were supposed to examine alleged violations. This refusal, apparently in defiance of the treaties, provided a new justification for raising the matter at the UN. Thus in August the matter was raised again. Romania was now added to the list of countries involved. Again she was invited to send representatives to the debate, but she too refused. During the discussion the US delegate recounted further developments in the three countries, declaring that they had now fallen totally under the control of their communist parties and recounting the steps taken by those parties to suppress fundamental freedoms. The Christian churches had been persecuted and minority parties suppressed. He therefore
proposed that an application be made to the International Court of Justice, asking whether it confirmed that a dispute existed concerning the application of the peace treaties, and whether this obligated the three governments to appoint representatives to the commissions established in the treaties. It also asked whether the Secretary-General could appoint a third member to such a committee. The communist states again denied that any violation of human rights had occurred in the three countries or that any 'dispute' concerning the application of the treaties existed. None the less, the US resolution was adopted by a large majority.
Meanwhile a similar charge of violation of human rights had been brought against the Soviet Union too. Here a different procedure was required, since there were of course in this case no peace-treaty obligations. The particular action of the Soviet Union which provoked attack was her policy at this time of refusing permission for Soviet citizens who had married citizens of other countries to leave the Soviet Union. There were, for example, 350 wives and sixty-five husbands of US citizens alone who wished to leave to join their spouses but had not been permitted to do so. And in February 1947 the supreme Presidium of the Soviet Union passed a decree forbidding Soviet citizens to marry foreigners at all: an even more serious violation of human rights.
At the 1948 General Assembly, the issue was raised by Chile (the Russian daughter-in-law of the former Chilean ambassador in Moscow was one of those refused permission to leave with her Chilean husband) and Australia. Western speakers declared that the Soviet measures were a violation of the Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Assembly was competent to consider the question because the measures could damage friendly relations between states. It therefore supported a Chilean resolution calling for the restrictions to be withdrawn. Australia demanded that the International Court of Justice should be asked to advise whether, in the case of the wives of members of diplomatic families, a breach of international law or practice was involved. The Soviet and other communist delegates maintained that the issuing of exit visas and marriage legislation were purely domestic questions which were outside the competence of the UN. The Soviet Union had voted against the provision of (he Universal Declaration of Human Rights relating to freedom to emigrate, and had always made clear its views on the point. Diplomatic immunity was not affected since this did not extend to all members of a diplomat's family; nor could anybody claim diplomatic immunity in his own country.
The Australian proposal was defeated, but the Chilean resolution, slightly amended, was carried by the Assembly by 79 votes to 6. This 'declared' that measures preventing wives of foreign nationals from leaving their own country to join their husbands were 'not in conformity with' the Charter and that, if the wives were persons belonging to foreign diplomatic missions, such measures were contrary to diplomatic practice and likely to impair friendly relations between states. The resolution therefore called on the Soviet Union to withdraw the measures. There was not, however, any immediately discernible effect and this was the last that was heard at the UN of the matter of the Soviet wives. In March 1950 the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the questions involving Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. By a substantial majority it found that it had competence in relation to the question it was asked (though not on the merits of the human-rights issues themselves). It concluded that disputes did exist on the interpretation of the treaties, that these had not been resolved directly between the parties, that they were thus suitable questions for the commissions established in the treaties to decide, and that the parties were under an obligation to appoint representatives to these commissions. The three communist states still declined to appoint their own representatives. Subsequently, therefore, the Court went on to consider the third question: whether the UN Secretary-General might himself appoint the third member provided for in each commission, which might then operate on this basis. Here the Court found that this would not be lawful, since such a step was not provided for in the treaties: the refusal of the other parties to appoint representatives could not alter the position in this respect.
This result was not a total victory for either side. It put the communist countries in the wrong over their refusal to appoint their own representatives, but did not justify the West in seeking to establish commissions by other means. The 1950 Assembly considered the position again in the light of this judgement. The communist delegates continued to maintain that human rights were adequately protected in the three countries and that no dispute existed between the parties, since the Soviet Union had not joined with the other signatories in making a complaint. The Western powers repeated their charges against the three governments and declared that the refusal to appoint representatives showed that they knew that breaches of the treaties had occurred. Eventually a resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority condemning the refusal of the three governments to appoint representatives to the treaty commissions, and inviting all members to submit to the Sec;etary-General any further evidence which they received on the question. So the matter was allowed to drop.
The Newborn UN and Emerging Coups
