Copyright
United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 43 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 43 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


was available for the Study Group to complete
preparatory work which would give reasonable
assurance that a negotiating conference could be
productive and also felt that it was essential for
this to be done before requesting the United Na-
tions to arrange such a conference. This prepar-
atory work was deemed to include particularly :

1. The completion of a statement of the case in
favor of a tin control agreement which would de-
lineate the prospective problem in the industry
and the opportunities for solution through a con-
trol agreement more clearly than the statement
prepared by the Working Party, and

2. The preparation of a draft agreement which
would be more complete and more carefully de-
signed, particularly in respect to safeguards for



importing countries, than the draft received from
the Working Party, and

3. The ascertaining that a revised form of draft
agreement would be acceptable, as a basis for ne-
gotiations, to a representative group of countries
principally interested in the trade of tin.

Action Taken *

The Study Group devoted its fifth meeting pri-
marily to the revision of the draft agreement de-
veloped by the Working Party. Numerous pro-
visions were changed substantially. The revisions
of greatest significance were those made in the
articles concerning the control of exports and the
buffer stock. During the discussion of several key
provisions in the draft, important differences of
opinion were disclosed as between the represen-
tatives of producing areas and consuming areas.
These differences were especially significant with
respect to voting under the agreement and with
respect to effective provisions for readjusting tin
production along more economic and efficient
lines.

It was understood that in preparing a draft
tin agreement, the representatives present were
acting in a technical capacity, without committing
the governments which they represented. How-
ever, a number of key provisions in the draft were
placed in brackets, rather than clear text, to em-
phasize that those provisions were specifically
recognized by the Study Group to be the subject
of imjiortant disagreement. The Study Group
was unable to resolve these differences concerning
the form of an agreement which might commend
itself to governments as a basis for definitive nego-
tiations.

The Study Group did not undertake any review
of the statement on the position and prospects
of the tin industry which had been prepared by
the Working Party. The Group did, however,
receive from the Bolivian delegation a statement
concerning the tin position in Bolivia, which over-
came a specific deficiency previously existing in
the territorial section of the Working Party state-
ment.

After devoting such attention to the draft agree-
ment as was possible the Study Group then
adopted, by majority concurrence, the resolution
requesting a conference under the auspices of the
United Nations. The majority of the group mem-
bers concluded that the draft of a control agree-
ment, which had been developed during this
meeting, should be supplied as a basis for discus-
sion at such a conference and that it should be
published by the Secretariat of the Study Group
in the near future.

The resolution was supported by nine mem-
bers вАФ Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, British Co-
lonial and Dependent Territories, Canada, India,
the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and In-
donesia. One member, the United States of
America, opposed the resolution. No position for



730



Department of State Bulletin



or ajxainst the resolution was taken by China,
Thaihmd, or France. The representatives of
Italy and Czeclioslovakia were not present at the
tinai session and took no part in the consideration
of tlie resohition.

Position of U.S. Delegation

In oi)p()sin>i: the resohition concerning a confer-
ence, tlie United States delegation made clear that
it was not opposing a tin control agreement in
principle and was not opposed to a negotiating
conference when a favoraole basis for such a con-
ference had been developed. The delegation be-
lieved that a conference should only be requested
after adequate preparatory work had been com-
pleted and when suostantial agreement regarding
the basic form of a control program had been
achieved as between the major import and export
interests.

The United States delegation maintained the
view that the Study (Iroup, before requesting a
conference, should complete an explanatory state-
ment showing clearly why a control agreement
would be needed. The delegation thought that
such a statement should analyze in detail the diffi-
culties which are likely to arise in the tin industry
and should show how an agreement could alle-
viate or correct those difficulties. The delegation
considered that the documentation of the case
should be sufficient to insure those members of the
United Nations who are not also members of the
International Tin Study Group that they would
not be placed at undue disadvantage in a ne-
gotiating conference convened by the United Na-
tions. In view of the United States delega-
tion, such documentation existing at the end of
the fifth meeting of the Study Group did not fully
satisfy there requirements. The delegation also
felt that the scheduling of a conference was not
urgent enough to warrant formal action in advance
of the completion of adequate documentation.

The delegation of the United States believed that
the revised draft of a control agreement needed
further review from the standpoint of over-all
conformity with the requirements of the Habana
charter and from other standpoints. Numerous
revisions which the fifth meeting had made in
various articles of the Hague draft were of major
importance, but the United States considered that
the brief session of the fifth meeting was not ade-
quate opportunitj' for necessary consideration and
consultation concerning the policy implications of
these changes.

The brackets surrounding key provisions of the
draft showed that the representatives of the prin-
cipal producing interests and the representatives
of major consuming interests were not agreed
with respect to all of the basic aspects of a control
program which might be generally acceptable. Al-
though recognizing the fact that further considera-
tion might reduce this divergence to proportions



which would be manageable at a conference, the
United States delegation considered it undesirable
for an early conference to be scheduled before
this had been achieved.

In the period before action has been taken on
the resolution fi-om the study group, it appears
that there will be opportunities for further con-
sideration of the problems remaining after the
fifth meeting. Such consideration by the inter-
ested governments might assist the United Na-
tions in connection with questions of arrangements
for a conference.



Austrian Treaty Negotiations
To Resume at London



[Released to the press April 24]

The Deputies of the Council of Foreign Min-
isters will meet at London on April 26 to renew
the negotiations on the Au.strian treaty.

The Department of State is now engaged in
reviewing the negotiations to date in the hopes that
measures might be taken to expedite the conclusion
of the Austrian treaty. The recent postponements
in the negotiations have been made necessary by
the insistence of the Soviet Union that it requires
furthei' time to study its claims against Austria
for relief supplies and services furnished in the
early days of the occupation.

No reply has been made by the Soviet authorities
to Austrian proposals for settlement made in De-
cember 1949, and no information is available to
indicate that a settlement can be expected in the
near future. In spite of these difficulties, the con-
clusion of the treaty reestablishing Austrian inde-
pendence remains the basis of United States policy
in Austria.

This Govei-nment is also giving sympathetic
consideration to recent Austrian proposals con-
cerning the alleviation of the burdens of 4-power
occupation pending the conclusion of the treaty.
Constant efforts have been made by the United
States Government since the beginning of the
occupation to ease this burden. This Government
has paid its own occupation costs in United States
dollars since July 1, 1947, and, more recently,
repealed the basic law defining offenses against
United States troops in Austria, except as to a
few offenses which threaten United States security,
thus increasing the jurisdiction of Austrian courts
and the authority of Austrian law. The United
States Government is prepared to take such
further steps as may be feasible to permit the
Austrian Government to control its own affairs.

Consultations will be held in the near future to
ascertain what additional measures can be taken
to achieve progress in the fulfillment of the objec-
tive of creating Austria as an independent and
sovereign state.



May 8, 1950



731



Rumania's Charges Against USIE Activities Called Baseless



[Released to the press April 26]



SUMMARY OF RUMANIA'S ACTIONS
AGAINST USIE AT BUCHAREST

On ]\Iarch 2, 1950, the Rumanian Government
informally communicated through the American
Minister to Rumania a peremptory demand that
the USIE office at Bucharest cease its activities
forthwith. The Deputy Foreign Minister re-
fused to give any explanation to this demand
except to state that the Rumanian Government did
not regard the USIE activities as a noi-mal diplo-
matic function.

Pending negotiations in this regard, public
activities of the American Legation's Information
Office were suspended. On behalf of the United
States Government, the American Minister trans-
mitted a note, dated March 6, 1950, to the Ruma-
nian Government requesting an explicit statement
of the intent and scope of the Rumanian Govern-
ment's demand.' Despite subsequent written and
oral inquiries by the American Minister and
despite assurances by the Rumanian Foreign Min-
ister that a reply would be forthcoming, the
Rumanian Government did not respond before
April 14. The contentions of this response were
answered as a whole in the United States note of
April 20, the text of which is being released today.

The position adopted by the Rumanian Govern-
ment, the publicity which it is being given in the
Soviet-satellite sphere and the use to which it is
currently being put in Rumania, characterize it
as essentially a propaganda device. It is based on
numerous contradictions and distortions of fact.
These cannot successfully camouflage the relent-
less efforts of the Rumanian Government to pre-
vent the people under its domination having access
to information and ideas which might expose the
totalitarian indoctrination to which they ai'e being
subjected. However, the Rumanian Govern-
ment's accusations are noteworthy as exemplify-
ing a now-familiar Conmumist pattern and some
of them are extraordinary.

The Rumanian Government charges in general
that the USIE activities in Rumania have been



' CuiXETiN of Mar. 20, 1950, p. 443.
732



devoted to espionage, subversion of dissident ele-
ments of the Rumanian population, propagation
of retrograde social attitucles, misrepresentation
of America, and incitement to war. Such accusa-
tions might well be applicable to Communist aims
and practices as regards the United States and
Western democracies. Applied to the USIE, they
are absurd.

Actually, the press, library, film, musical, and
other activities of the USIE Office at Bucharest
have been entirely of an informational or cul-
tural nature. These services have been afforded
to all elements of the Rumanian population, in-
cluding Government officials.

The WhrJess Bidletbi issued by the USIE office
has at all times reported news of international
interest in objective fashion. Naturally, this news
has contained quotations of statements by United
States Government officials and outstanding per-
sonalities in American public life critical of Com-
munist attitudes and actions which obstruct world
peace. The Rumanian Government ignores the
fact that these statements were basically concerned
with American efforts on behalf of international
cooperation and peace.

Aside from these items, an examination of the
February issues of the Bulletin (to which the
Rumanian accusation has particular reference)
reveals no pretext for complaint. Moreover, the
insincerity and bad taste of the Rumanian Govern-
ment's objection is highlighted by the dailv vilifi-
cation of the United States by Rumanian Govern-
ment officials and the government-controlled press
of Riunania. An interesting commentary in this
regard is provided by the recent display from the
premises of the Rumanian Foreign Office of a ban-
ner inscribed with an anti-American slogan. It
is strange that the Rumanian (iovernmcnt cites a
TTnited Xations General Assembly resolution
against war propaganda in connection with its
aspersions on the USIE activities in view of the
fact that the IJumanian Government has repeat-
edly flouted the (ieneral Assembly and other bodies
affiliated with the United Nations.

Contrary to the charge that the USIE has mis-
interiueted the American peojile and prevented
the Rumanian people from knowing I'epresenta-

Department of State Bulletin



tivp woi-ks of Ainerioan literature, the United
States iiii'orinatioii servii'es at lUicluuest have
striven to I'elleet aeeurately, from a hroad persjjee-
tive. the life and attitudes of the Anierii'an people
and to make available seientitic, literary, and other
cultural works of a representative character which,
if available in Rumania, would correct the distoi'-
tion of America to which Rumanians are con-
stantly subjected. It is the Rumanian Govern-
ment which, by its comprehensively i-estrictive
controls over press, publication, and all other chan-
nels of communication, prevents the Rumanian
people's access to achievements of American arts
and sciences, except for a small number of works
which are ideologically acceptable to the Ru-
manian Communists.

Frank Shea, who is named by the Rumanian
Govermnent as head of the USIE OtKce and direc-
tor of its allegedly subversive activities, has not
even been in Rumania since the period of the
Armistice, since the postwar reestablishment of the
American Legation, or since the present Commu-
nist Government of Rumania consolidated its
position through the arbitrary use of power with-
out regard for the will of the Rumanian people.

The lengths to which the Rumanian Government
goes in "justifying" its exclusion of a library are
almost incredible. Everyone tliroughout the
world Tvho borrows books from a library will ap-
preciate the absurdity of the Rumanian Govern-
ment's inference that, by the issuance of library
cards to books borrowers, the USIE library
enlisted Rumanian citizens as members of a sub-
versive organization.

The Rumaiiian Government charges that the
Press and Cultural Counselor of its Legation at
Washington was expelled from the United States
without the slightest justification. The Rumanian
Government knows that the Press and Cultural
Counselor to whom it refere was declared persona
no7i grata for reasons not connected with the legiti-
mate performance of information and cultural
functions. The Rumanian Government is as fully
aware as the United States Government of those
good and sufficient reasons.

With reference to the Rnmanian Government's
comjjlaint tliat the United States Government has
not granted a visa for his replacement, so far as
is known no visa has been refused by the United
States Government to Rumanian Government
representatives coming to the United States in
official capacity. If there have been delays in
granting visas to official Rumanian personnel, the
Rumanian Government needs not be informed
where the responsibility lies. Indeed, the United
States Government has repeatedly invited the Ru-
manian Government to I'esolve the mutually dis-
advantageous situation created by practices which
thwart the satisfactory maintenance of diplomatic
relations.

The trial which opened in Bucharest yesterday
features as defendants several Rumanian employ-



ees of the British Information Office, a Rumanian
employee of tiie ITSIE (Nora Samuelli) and a
Rumanian "stringer" corresi)ondent of the New
York 7'//i)('K (Liviu Nasta). "Confession.s" are
being i)roduced, in the manner of Communist
jjolice and court practices, to serve as further "jus-
tification" of the Rumanian Government's de-
mand for the closing of the information offices.
The prcsiiling judge (Alexandru Pctrescu) is the
same "jurist" wlio conducted the trial of the Na-
tional Peasant Party leaders in 1917 and other
politically motivated trials of the past few years.
He is compronused by complicity in atrocities of
the former pro-Axis regime in Rumania and was
in disrepute with the Communists until adopted
by them as a useful and ready tool. For services
of this character, he has been px'omoted from
Colonel to General.

Coinciding with the start of this trial come re-
ports of the arrest of the Rumanian "stringers"
of other American press services. With the occa-
sional exception of a left-wing writer, American
correspondents have been excluded from Rumania
for some time.

Thus, the ])attern of behavior of a Cominform-
affiliated Government in stifling the free flow of
infomiation is clearly set.

RUMANIAN NOTE OF APRIL 14, 1950

Tlic h'linuuiinn ilinixtnj of Foreign Affairs sent the
follou-iiKj rciihi on April H, 1950, to the Vnitcd States
note of March 0, 1950, concerninn the Rumanian Oov-
emment's demand for the closiny of the United States
information services office at Bucharest. An informal
translation of the note follows:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ruma-
nian Peoples' Republic presents her compliments
to the Legation of the United States and Bucha-
rest and, in reply to the note No. 871, March G, 1950,
from the JMinister of the United States of America
referring to the closing of the American Infor-
mation Office, desires on behalf of the Govern-
ment of the Rumanian Peoples' Republic to com-
municate to him the following:

The American Information Office which had a
library, showed films and organized various other
activities, was established as an annex to the
United States Legation in Bucharest and even is-
sued membership cards to certain Rumanian citi-
zen elements hostile to the Rumanian people.

Behind the alleged cultural activity, that Of-
fice served to organize activity hostile to the Ru-
manian people.

The trials of leaders of the former National
Peasant Party and the trial of the Auschnitt-
Popp-Bujoiu group of conspirators, spies and
saboteurs showed the role played by Mr. Frank
R. Shea, who conducted the Office, and by other
employees of that Office in the espionage activity
of traitors and conspirators sentenced at those
trials.



May a, 1950



733



The books, press films, and other activities or-
ganized by the American Information Office
spread retrograde conceptions, propagated racial
discrimination, contained slander against peace
and freedom-loving countries and peoples, includ-
ing the Kumanian Peoples' Eepublic, and openly
incited to war. The Bulletin issued by that Of-
fice served those aims exclusively. In the month
of February 1950 alone, ninety percent of the con-
tents of the Bulletin consisted of war propaganda
and slander against the Rumanian Peoples' Ee-
public and its allies.

Such "cultural and informational" activity
tramples underfoot the resolution unanimously
adopted by the Second Session of the United Na-
tions General Assembly which condemned war
propaganda and called on all governments to take
measures to implement that resolution.

It is clear that the former American Informa-
tion Office, constituted as an organization with
membership cards, had nothing in common with
the "normal diplomatic function of the United
States Legation in Bucharest exercised by mem-
bers of that Legation accredited for public affairs,
press and cultural matters", as stated in note No.
871. The United States Government, citing as an
example the activity of the American Informa-
tion Office in Bucharest, asks if it is the intention
of the Rumanian Government entirely to block all
such channels of communication.

The Government of the Rumanian Peoples'
Republic is indeed determined to close such chan-
nels which do not serve other than to cover the
above-mentioned espionage activity and as an
instrument of war-mongering propaganda.

The United States Government seeks to present
the Information Office as a channel of communica-
tion between peoples of the world. The truth is
that imperialist circles in the United States have
sought hy every means to prevent the science and
cidture which truly represent the American peo-
ples' struggle and aspirations for peace and prog-
ress from being known to the Rumanian people
and other peoples and have constantly pursued a
policy directed against "the free and frank ex-
change of information between the peoples of the
world." Those circles have gained control of the
great majority of the press and i-adio stations in
the United States, using them in their campaign
of incitement to war. Even a member of the
House of Representatives, Patterson, has stated
that eighty-five percent of the press and eighty
percent of the radio stations were controlled by
the National Association of Manufacturers and
other monopolist groups.

International public opinion is aware of the re-
peated refusals of the United States Government
to permit entry to the United States of persons
representative of the culture of other peoples,
among whom have been the Rumanian Peoples'
Eepublic delegates to the Cultural and Scientific
Conference for World Peace, academician Pro-



fessor Emil Petrovici and the composer, Matei'
Socor, as well as the delegate of the Permanent
Committee of Peace Partisans Congress, academi-
cian Professor Constantinescu-Iasi.

The American Government cannot prevent the
Rmnanian peoples from knowing the representa-
tive works of culture of the American people since
publishing houses in the Rimianian Peoples' Re-
public have published and continue to publish the
works of Theodor Dreiser, Sinclair Lewis, How-
ard Fast, A. Maltz and of the Negro poets in the
United States including Claude McKay, Lang-
ston Hugh [s^c], and of the other contemporary
American writers, as well as the works of Walt
Wliitman, Jack London and Mark Twain wliich
represent the American peoples' contribution to
the patrimony of universal literature.

Through the press of the Rumanian Peoples'
Republic, liberated from the control of trusts and
placed at the disposal of the peoples, the Ru-
manian people know of the fight being waged by
all peoples of the world for peace, of uie struggle
of the American people and of their solidarity
with all those who are fighting for peace and prog-
ress, and of the Fascist-type persecutions to wliich
representatives of progressive American art and
culture are subject.

Regarding the cultural activity of the Ruma-
nian Peoples' Republic's Legation in Washington,
it is surprising that the note of the United States
Minister in Bucharest mentions facilities afforded
by the United States Government for carrying
on such activities.

The truth is that the United States Government
expelled the Rumanian Peoples' Republic's Press
and Cultural Counselor in Washington without
the slightest justification and has refused to grant
visas for a replacement, thus hindering the de-
velopment of the cultural activity of the Ruma-
nian Peoples' Republic's Legation in Washington.

Regarding the News Bulletin to which note No.
871 refers, published by the Rumanian Peoples'
Republic's Legation in Washington, and not by

1'ust any office, the Government of the Rumanian
'copies' Republic considers that its appearance
cannot be brought into question as it works for
peace and friendship among peoples.

The Rumanian people naturally rejected the
activity of the American Information Office and
it is not surprising that this activity was reduced
to "the barest minimum," as stated in note No. 871,
that is to the restricted circle of elements hostile
to the Rumanian people who found a point of sup-
port and organization in the setting of the Ameri-
can Information Office in Bucharest.

The Government of Rumanian Peoples' Repub-
lic considers the activity of tlie American Infor-
mation Office is incompatible with normal diplo-
matic activity and contrary to the interests of



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 43 of 116)