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

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 12 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 12 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


for nearly 20 years.

President Johnson on October 7 in a basic
statement of policy on American relations
with Europe said: "Our task is to achieve a
reconciliation with the East — a shift from
the narrow concept of coexistence to the
broader vision of peaceful engagement." He
observed in the course of his remarks that
"The OECD can . . . play an important part
in trade and contact with the East."

There is nothing new in this announce-
ment. What is new in the President's speech
is the feeling that for many reasons the time
may have come for the Eastern countries to



accept our overtures. We can hope so and
try, separately and together.

Two facts about the situation in Europe
are plain, as the President made clear: There
can be no detente in Europe without German '
reunification, but no peaceful reunification of
Germany can be imagined without detente,
without the consent of the Soviet Union and
the East European countries.

You will all recall that Secretary Marshall
in 1947 called for a European-wide coopera-
tive effort to restore the whole continent to
economic health.* It was the choice of the
Soviet Union and not of the United States
that made the Organization for European
Economic Cooperation a purely Western en-
terprise. It would be entirely fitting, as we
approach the 20th anniversary of the Mar-
shall Plan, for the OECD to have a part in
the unfinished task of fostering the recon-
ciliation of the two Europes. I

What might the OECD do to foster this
process? In the first instance, it seems to us
the OECD offers a place where we could
have a fruitful systematic exchange of
views about our peaceful economic relations
with Eastern Europe. If we begin with the
proposition that our interest is in expanding
and strengthening those relationships, then
we could use the several bodies of the OECD
for an examination of ways and means to
prosecute that interest. For example, we
should be interested in your experience with,
and appraisal of, the possibilities for invest-
ment in Eastern Europe, including joint ven-
tures.

We are not suggesting, I emphasize, that
we should promote a common position with
which to confront the countries of Eastern
Europe. Rather we should work for a shared
view about practical steps which might be
taken separately and together to extend and
advance the area of peaceful economic en-
gagement.

Trade is a case in point. The United States
has not traditionally had a large trade with



■* For an address by Secretary of State George C.
Marshall at Harvard University on June 5, 1947,
see Bulletin of June 15, 1947, p. 1159.



24



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



the Soviet Union and the countries of East-
ern Europe. In both the prewar and postwar
periods other OECD countries have had
much more ex])erience in this field. In this
respect, we are simply following the lead of
all the countries of Western Europe. Trad-
ing with centrally planned and state-trading
countries calls for diflferent methods than
those which apply in trade with Western
countries, at least at this stage in the evolu-
tion of the economies of the Eastern Euro-
pean countries. We believe there is much to
be learned from your experience and feel
that it could be extremely useful for the
Trade Committee to undertake an exchange
of views about the modalities of trade with
the Communist countries of Eastern Europe.

In the second instance, it seems to us
that there are certain activities within the
OECD that might be made more productive
for us all if we were eventually to associate
some or all of the Eastern European coun-
tries with them. One thinks, for example, of
tourism, which has become the single largest
European industry. Our citizens are breach-
ing frontiers everywhere, in the peaceful
pursuit of sunshine, scenery, and culture, to
say nothing of souvenirs. Now that the tour-
ist has found Eastern Europe, it might be
appropriate for OECD's Tourism Committee
to consider how its activities might be
broadened to cover additional countries; sim-
ilarly, we might consider inviting Eastern
European representatives to such activities
as the OECD-sponsored Conference on Road
Research.

These are suggestive, not exhaustive, of
possibilities that might be explored.

It would be prudent, of course, to move
ahead carefully. We recognize the need to
take fully into account the activities and po-
tential of the Economic Commission for Eu-
rope and of other organizations in the U.N.
family. For many purposes they will be pref-
erable institutions to the OECD as forums
for promoting improved East- West relations.
Following the sage advice this morning of
the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, we
should not waste our budget in duplicative
projects. Taking this aspect of the problem



fully into account, I urge that this ministerial
meeting endorse the proposal that the Sec-
retary General in consultation with heads of
delegations be asked to explore within the
organization the possibilities for a construc-
tive OECD role in the reconciliation of East
and West.

I further urge that a statement to this
effect be included in the communique.



STATEMENT ON DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
AND TRADE, NOVEMBER 25

The evolution of our agenda reflects the
changing pattern of world politics and of
world economics. For a few years — a very
few years only — Europe was our preoccupa-
tion. But the task of order and progress in
the world at large quickly forced itself upon
us. Our membership and our agenda were
enlarged.

Today we turn to one of the key issues,
on which, it is not too much to say, the
future of peace and progress depend.

Article I of our convention assigns a high
priority to development assistance policies.
We have just heard the somber and powerful
exposition of Secretary General Kristensen.
My Government agrees with his analysis. We
believe that in the years ahead of us we
shall have to take a great leap forward in
this field if we hope to avert social catas-
trophe on an unimaginable scale.

Our view of the nature of the development
process in nonindustrialized countries recalls
prevailing opinion about the problem of re-
construction in Europe at the end of the war.
At first we thought a few small reconstruc-
tion loans would do the job. We gradually
began to realize that the task was of a com-
pletely different order of magnitude, that it
required national and international efforts
on a very much larger scale: the Marshall
Plan and OEEC and EPU [European Pay-
ments Union] , productivity missions and re-
training programs — a long list of efforts
which were in fact sociological as well as
economic in their effect.

Development assistance is quite possibly



JANUARY 2, 1967



25



the most complex undertaking that our
countries have ever embarked upon. We are
only beginning to achieve a comprehensive
notion of how our resources can best be used
to further the cause of development. We shall
continue for a long time to need an active
and creative Development Assistance Com-
mittee to consider our respective experiences
and for the planning of new programs and
actions.

So far as the United States is concerned,
we see several areas for urgent DAC atten-
tion. They are:

First, the world food problem;

Second, self-help performance standards;
and

Third, the growing burden of indebtedness
on developing countries.

The Secretary General has referred to the
gravity of the world food problem, and Sec-
retary Schnittker [John A. Schnittker, Un-
der Secretary of Agriculture] will wish to
comment on this crucial issue.

My own view is that we face here a situa-
tion of potential disaster. We cannot afford
to pass over any opportunity to do something
about it now, while we still have a margin of
time.

Secretary Rusk last July at the DAC high-
level meeting asked for "openminded exami-
nation" by OECD members of a number of
proposals and questions for dealing with the
problem,^ all of which we hope the OECD
will consider. In the meantime our thinking
has progressed further.

In our judgment, one way we might col-
lectively mark the 20th anniversary of the
Marshall Plan would be for OECD members
more tangibly to demonstrate their willing-
ness to help the developing countries.

Agricultural Development Fund

We believe that OECD members should
carefully consider establishment of a fund
to stimulate agricultural development. Such
a fund could encourage investors in OECD
countries to invest in agriculture and in ag-
riculturally related industry in developing



■ Ibid., Aug. 8, 1966, p. 199.



countries. Perhaps it could guarantee invest-
ment in facilities located in developing coun-
tries producing fertilizer and other agricul-
tural inputs and it could provide an interest
rate subsidy on approved private loans for
agricultural development in developing coun-
tries.

We hope that you will wish to give the
most serious consideration to such possibili-
ties. Indeed, we should particularly welcome
proposals from you for an even more far-
reaching demonstration of the organization's
willingness to help meet the capital needs of
the developing countries. However, since we
all have budgetary problems, it is the under-
lying thought of the American suggestion
that we should try to use limited public re-
sources in such a way as to promote the
maximum flow of private capital to develop-
ing countries and particularly into the agri-
cultural sector.

A year or two ago the DAC devoted a
good bit of attention to the question of self-
help performance and recommended in July
1965 that member countries take account of
the self-help efforts of developing countries
in determining the level and composition of
their assistance. We believe that it is now
time for the DAC to return to the question
of development performance: How can we
employ our aid to elicit and support the best
efforts of the developing countries? This will
call for a closer look at what is going on
within the developing countries than we have
hitherto taken. And this need raises ques-
tions of procedures and organizational rela-
tionships which Secretary Schnittker will dis-
cuss in a moment.

Debt Problem of the Developing Countries

A thii'd subject for the DAC is the increas-
ingly sizable debt problem of the developing
countries.

A recent study by a DAC working party
gave some indication of its dimensions: Eight
countries with a total indebtedness of about
$7 billion are in near critical situations; an-
other 15 countries with a proportionately
large debt burden can be classified as serious
cases likely calling for urgent action by their



I



26



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



creditors in the near future. We believe fur-
ther study looking to ways of forestalling
impending debt crises is urgently needed. But
debt is the result of the volume and terms of
past lending. To increase the net transfer of
resources to developing countries, we must
increase the volume of aid and greatly im-
prove the terms of lending.

We hope the DAC will continue its efforts
in this field in close relationship with the
IMF and the IBRD [International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development].

Let me mention briefly the financial re-
quirements of the International Development
Association. Last July the President of the
Bank outlined his proposals for the replenish-
ment of IDA at a significantly higher amount
in order to provide resources needed to carry
on IDA'S critical role in providing develop-
ment capital. My own Government has stated
its willingness to increase its contribution to
IDA under suitable arrangements dealing
with the transfer problem,* and I hope that
other OECD member countries also will
promptly support IDA replenishment.

Finally, I believe that any OECD discus-
sion of trade policy in November 1966 must
give priority attention to the GATT [General
Agreement on Tariff's and Trade] negotia-
tions now entering their decisive stage at
Geneva. Full success of the Kennedy Round
can make a major contribution to improving
the export prospects of the developing coun-
tries. This will require, however, greater
efforts than heretofore to put together a
special package of particular interest to the
developing countries. We intend to do our
I part.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Special
Group, my delegation is pleased to support
the recommendation of the Trade Committee
and the Secretary General that the group
continue its work.

The Special Group has done a useful job
in beginning an exploration of various al-
ternative policies to provide improved op-
portunities for the developing countries to
expand their export earnings. This is an im-



portant, complex, and difficult subject, and
the full implications of any possible new ap-
proaches have to be carefully studied and
weighed. In particular, our effort to achieve
harmonized and constructive trade policies to
aid the developing countries should take full
account, in my view, of the importance of
continuing the process of reducing tariffs on
a global basis.



TEXT OF COMMUNIQUE

1. The Council of the OECD met at Ministerial
level in Paris on 24th and 25th November 1966,
under the Chairmanship of the Honourable Gun-
nar Lange, Minister of Commerce and Industry of
Sweden, and reviewed the economic situation of its
Member countries, their economic relations with the
rest of the world, and the work of the Organisation
itself.

2. Five years ago Ministers set the collective tar-
get to be achieved between 1960 and 1970 of a 50
per cent growth in real gross national product for
Member countries as a whole.' Ministers welcomed
the Report on Economic Growth in the decade 1960-
70 which shows that progress so far has been satis-
factory and has even exceeded the rate needed to
meet this target. The growth prospects for the re-
mainder of the decade continue to be good, but the
problem of containing inflationary tendencies while
maintaining full employment is still in the fore-
ground. Member countries will have to pursue their
efforts to ensure the effective control of demand, the
increase of productive resources and the optimum
use of available manpower. Ministers therefore in-
structed the Organisation to continue its work on
these problems.

3. Concerning international payments Ministers
noted that, because of the strong measures taken in
the United Kingdom, a substantial improvement can
now be expected in the balance of payments of this
country. France, Italy and Japan, which recently
had large surpluses, are now also moving slowly
towards a more equilibrated position but a new
surplus appears to be arising in Germany. In the
United States' payments situation, encouraging prog-
ress has been made, although the deficit in the
global balance has not yet disappeared. Increasing
defence expenditure has contributed to a reduction of
the current surplus but the net capital outflow has
been reduced considerably because of higher interest
rates in the country and governmental measures. In
general the differences in interest rates between
Member countries are smaller than last year.



'For background, see ibid., Oct. 24, 1966, p. 633.



' Ibid., Dec. 18, 1961, p. 1014.



FAlSrUARY 2, 1967



27



Ministers instructed the Organisation to continue
to keep under surveillance the payments relations of
its Member countries taking into account the recom-
mendations contained in its Report on the Adjust-
ment Process.

4. Ministers agreed that the Organisation should
continue its work directed to improving the opera-
tion of capital markets; this work has given valu-
able indications about the mechanisms for mobilising
savings to finance investment. The Organisation will
also pursue actively the work already begun on the
nature and the economic consequences of differences
in scientific and technical levels between countries.

5. The developing Member countries have dur-
ing the period 1960/65 on the whole had a faster
economic growth than other Members but being
societies in transformation they have special prob-
lems that are being dealt with in the Organisation
and will call for continued attention.

Concerning the Consortia for Greece and Turkey,
it was stressed that appropriate aid in forms cor-
responding to the needs of the two countries con-
tinued to be necessary.

6. Despite some increase in 1965 the total flow
of aid from Member countries to developing coun-
tries in general is still unsatisfactory and the pay-
ments difficulties of a number of developing coun-
tries are increasing. Ministers stressed that the
volume of aid should be increased in the years to
come and its terms and conditions improved.

The Ministers took note of various suggestions
for improving the development assistance efforts of
OECD countries.

Agricultural production in a number of develop-
ing countries is growing slowly, while demand is
rising fast, partly because of the rapid population
grrowth. Greater emphasis should therefore be given
to agricultural development in the aid programmes
of Member countries and possible ways should be
studied of stimulating private investment in agri-
culture and agriculture-related industries in the de-
veloping countries.

The various aspects of the food problems are now-
taken up by the Organisation in co-operation with
other international organisations.

7. Ministers stressed the importance of a success-
ful conclusion of the current multilateral tariff nego-
tiations (Kennedy Round).

8. The Special Group set up to examine trade re-
lations with developing countries pursuant to a de-
cision by the Council meeting at Ministerial level in
November 1965 was asked by Ministers to continue
its work.

9. Finally, Ministers expressed interest in widen-
ing the area of east-west economic relations. They
agreed that the Secretary-General, in consultation
with Permanent Representatives, should consider
within the Organisation possibilities of action.



28



Barbados Admitted
to United Nations

Statement by Arthur J. Goldberg \

U. S. Representative in the Security Council ' -^.

As the representative of my country I join
my colleagi'es who have spoken in expressing
great pleasure in the opportunity to vote to
recommend the admission of the newly inde-
pendent state of Barbados to membership in
the United Nations.

Barbados last month became the 26th in-
dependent nation in this hemisphere. We
congratulate both Barbados and the United
Kingdom for the peaceful and friendly
manner in which the transition to independ-
ence was accomplished. And this congratula-
tion I am very glad to extend in person to
the distinguished Foreign Secretary of Great
Britain, my old friend George Brown, who
graces us with his presence here today.

At the ceremonies in Bridgetown on No-
vember 30, Barbados became the 28th British
dependent territory to be granted independ-
ence after World War II. Quite a record !

Our Chief Justice and a delegation of
prominent Americans were privileged to par-
ticipate in the impressive independence-day
ceremonies in Barbados, to which Chief
Adebo [S. 0. Adebo, representative of
Nigeria] just made reference. They enjoyed
the hospitality and the balmy climate of this
island, just as many Americans have enjoyed
it with the great cordiality they have always
received from the citizens of Barbados. And
I wish to take this occasion to assure the citi-
zens of Barbados that as fellow ex-colonists
we shall receive them with similar cordiality
if they visit the friendly shores of Massa-
chusetts.

We believe that Barbados enters the family
of nations with a proud heritage which will
serve it well as it faces the challenges of in-
dependence. Lord Caradon [representative of
the United Kingdom] has made reference to



' Made in the Security Council on Dec. 7 (U.S./
U.N. press release 5005).



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



their great democratic tradition. Indeed, it is
well to remind ourselves that the Barbados
House of Assembly, established in 1639, is
the third oldest parliament in the Common-
wealth of Nations and also the third oldest in
the Western Hemisphere. The Barbados Dec-
laration of Rights of 1651 was well known
to the framers of our Declaration of Inde-
pendence and to the framers of our Consti-
tution. Indeed, many of the rights which
were proclaimed in the Barbados Declaration
of Rights were later echoed in these great
American documents of independence and
equality.

The people of Barbados have enjoyed full
internal self-government since 1961, and
their government was chosen in free demo-
cratic elections under universal suffrage. So
this country is well prepared to take its place
in the family of nations as a sovereign state.

Reference has already been made, and I



shall not repeat what has been said, about the
commendable advances that the people of
Barbados have made in the economic and
social spheres.

In conclusion, I wish to convey on behalf
of the United States our sincere congratula-
tions to the distinguished Prime Minister of
Barbados, Mr. Errol Walton Barrow, and
His Excellency the Governor General of
Barbados, Sir John Stow, who played such an
important part in this peaceful transition to
independence.

Mr. President, the United States welcomes
the application of Barbados and looks for-
ward to close association with its representa-
tives here, and we gladly support the resolu-
tion submitted here today by its sponsors.^



* The Council on Dec. 7 unanimously recommended
that Barbados be admitted to membership in the
United Nations. On Dec. 9 the General Assembly
admitted Barbados by acclamation.



U.N. Urges No Interference With Right
of Peoples to Self-Determination



Following are statements made by U.S.
Representative James M. Nabrit, Jr., in the
U.N. General Assembly during debate on the
agenda item entitled "Strict observance of
the prohibition of the threat or use of force
in international relations, and of the right of
peoples to self-determination," together with
the text of a tivo-part resolution adopted on
November 30.



STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 9

U.S. delesration press release 4970

I had not intended to participate in the
discussion this morning but some of the un-
founded and sweeping statements made have
led me to intervene.

I do not intend to speak at length. I can-
not refrain from noting, however, that the



willingness of certain delegates to use this
and every other U.N. forum to talk about
Viet-Nam, combined with their unwilling-
ness to let any U.N. organ try to do any-
thing about Viet-Nam, shows a cynical dis-
respect for the role and responsibility of the
United Nations and its members which my
delegation cannot share.

Viet-Nam is, of course, vitally related to
one of the rights touched upon in the speech
by the Czechoslovakian delegate this morn-
ing, the right of self-determination. Indeed,
this is the very core of the Vietnamese con-
flict. For what we seek in Viet-Nam, and
what the people of South Viet-Nam are fight-
ing for, is what any people anywhere have
the right to: the right to determine their own
political destiny free from interference.

No amount of polemics or invective or dis-



JANUARY 2, 1967



29



tortion of the record can alter the fact that
North Viet-Nam is so far unwilling to per-
mit the people of South Viet-Nam to exercise
that right. Surely, the representative of
Czechoslovakia — from the past bitter experi-
ence of his own people in both the postwar
and the prewar period — must have a deep
appreciation of the strong yearning of peo-
ples to choose their own political, economic,
and social system, free of external force and
intervention.

The essential facts of the Viet-Nam con-
flict can be stated briefly:

Viet-Nam today remains divided along the
demarcation line agreed upon in Geneva in
1954. To the north and south of that line are
North Viet-Nam and South Viet-Nam. Pro-
visional though they may be, pending a deci-
sion on the peaceful reunification of Viet-
Nam by the process of self-determination,
they are nonetheless political realities in the
international community.

The Geneva accord which established the
demarcation line is so thorough in its prohi-
bition of the use of force that it forbids mili-
tary interference of any sort by one side in
the aff"airs of the other. It even forbids ci-
vilians to cross the demilitarized zone. In
1962, at the Geneva conference held that
year, military infiltration through Laos was
?.lso forbidden.



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 12 of 90)