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

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

. (page 31 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 31 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


cordance with Articles 41 and 42, to main-
tain or restore international peace and
security."

This determination by the Council in the
exercise of its charter powers is conclusive
and may not be contested by any member.
The Council has made a judgment as to what
is likely to happen in the future if the seizure
of power by the white minority is not brought
to an end. The judgment can hardly be
termed unreasonable. The attempt of 220,000
whites to rule 4 million nonwhites in a con-
tinent of nonwhite governments which have
recently achieved independence involves great
risks of violence.

Fourth, it is argued that sanctions cannot
logically be applied against Rhodesia since
the "threat to the peace" originates else-
where. This legal conclusion, it is added, is
not affected by the morality or lack of
morality of the actions taken by the Smith
government.

This argument involves still more funda-
mental misconceptions. Under chapter VII of
the charter, the Security Council is author-
ized to order sanctions without the necessity
of determining which party to a dispute is
the source of a threat to international peace.
This should not be surprising. A similar prac-
tice is followed in our country in major labor-
management disputes affecting the national
health and safety, where Federal powers can
be employed to preserve the economy without
judgment on the merits of controversy.

But the principal fallacy in this argument
is the failure to recognize that the threat to
the peace inherent in the Rhodesian situation
is the seizure of power by the Smith regime
rather than the potential response to it.

It is in this sense that the actions of the
Smith regime raise legal as well as moral
issues. Some say that moral considerations
are irrelevant in the practical affairs of na-
tions. But the United Nations Charter, like
the United States Constitution, embodies
moral principles. One of the principal pur-
poses of the United Nations is to promote
"respect for human rights and for funda-



JANUARY 23, 1967



143



mental freedoms for all without distinction
as to race, sex, language, or religion." The
attempt of the Smith regime to alter the
status quo in Rhodesia and create a new state
committed to the violation of these world
community standards is the real source of
the threat to the peace.

Finally, it is argued that the application of
mandatory sanctions to Rhodesia constitutes
a dangerous precedent for similar U.N. action
wherever any violations of human rights may
be involved.

This argument overlooks a number of
unique elements in the Rhodesian situation.
Here we have witnessed an illegal seizure of
power by a small minority bent on perpetuat-
ing the subjugation of the vast majority.
Moreover, in this situation the sovereign au-
thority with international responsibility for
the territory has asked the United Nations
to take measures which will permit the
restoration of the full rights of the people
of this territory under the charter.

We in the United States learned over 100
years ago that any attempt to institutionalize
and legitimize a political principle of racial
superiority in a new state was unacceptable.
The effort to do so created an inflammatory
situation, and our nation had to rid itself of
this false and hateful doctrine at great cost.
What could not be accepted by the United
States in the mid-19th century cannot be ac-
cepted by the international community in the
late 20th century.

Law in the United Nations, as in our own
society, is often developed on a case-by-case
basis. We should analyze each action of U.N.
political organs with due regard for the facts
of each case and be careful of hasty generali-
zations.

Because the Security Council considers the
situation in Rhodesia, with its unique legal
and factual elements, as constituting a threat
to the peace requiring thp application of
mandatory sanctions, does not absolve it from
an independent exercise of judgment in dif-
ferent situations. Moreover, each of the
permanent members of the Security Council
has the power to prevent the use of enforce-
ment measures in other situations where it
may deem them to be inappropriate.



[(llllilX



Fori



irityo:
jlstil



a]

Kllttl



In the short time available to me I hav If'P""
given but two examples of the relevance o; iis''''^
law and legal skills to problems before th( iJis"''
United Nations. Even from my brief tenun iilSi *'
at the U.N., I could have cited many others

— the status of South West Africa follow
ing the regrettable decision of the Interna '°°
tional Court of Justice;

— the constitutional questions surrounding
the authorizing, managing, and financing of
peacekeeping operations;

— the consideration of improved procel
dures for factfinding, mediation, and concilia- *'^''
tion;

— the strengthening of U.N. machinery in
trade and aid to less developed countries; ani

— the examination of procedures to imple-|Wif
ment human rights standards through th(
human right covenants ^ and the proposed
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.



Creative Values in International Law

The building of these institutions for th(
promotion of peaceful change, justice, eco-
nomic development, and human rights is as
much the work of the lawyer as the elabora
tion of legal norms for the prevention of viO'
lence.

As Professor McDougal said yesterday Im
his presidential address:

In our contemporary community . . . people have
largely ceased to think of law as serving only the
rather primitive function of maintaining minimum
order, in preserving the peace and minimizing un-
authorized coercion, and have come generally to think
of it as a positive instrument for promoting optimum
order, in security and the greater production and
wider distribution of all community values.

I have no doubt from my work at the U.N.
that this is true of international as well a.';
domestic law. The aspect that says "Thou
shalt not" — essential though it is — is only
half the story. Law is more than prohibitions
on the use of force. It is also, and equally
essentially, an affirmative concept: a force
for justice and equal opportunity and for the
redress of legitimate grievances. Law must
operate to eliminate discrimination, to assure
human rights, to feed the hungry, to educate



'' For texts, see ibid., Jan. 16, 1966, p. 107.



tgai

IHIT

Hill

Tl

five

M

h

se

;ai

T

OB
fei

to
ado



144



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



ItaJ



:he ignorant, to raise up the oppressed. It

^. must foster in the international realm the

'^'"'s tij same creative and positive values which na-

ions, at their best, have fulfilled in their

)wn domestic life.

This creative approach to the role of inter-
laational law reflects not merely idealism but
realism as well. Today more than ever, it
ijl«rould be unrealistic to talk about peace with-
out addressing ourselves to these positive
/alues.

For one of the dominant facts of the
emerging world community is that the ma-
jority of its members are still extremely poor
and still have vivid recollections of what it is
like to live under colonial rule. They are pre-
occupied with economic and social develop-
ment and with human rights. Their commit-
ment to the law of nations, and to the peace
which it seeks to build, will deepen only as
the law helps them to realize these legitimate
►aspirations.

If American law schools can provide our
■future leadership with an understanding of
this larger role of international law — and if
"they can provide the intellectual tools to act
upon it effectively — they will have performed
an historic service not just for the United
States but for the world.



Mi



mm
!s;a!iil
imple-



irthe

MO-

is
k
Mo-



mini



IIU.S. Implements U.N. Sanctions
iAgainst Southern Rhodesia

IWHITE HOUSE ANNOUKCEMENT

White House press release dated January 5

The President on January 5 signed Execu-
tive Order No. 11322 implementing the
United Nations Security Council's Resolution
No. 232 of December 16, 1966,i which im-
posed selective mandatory economic sanctions
against Southern Rhodesia.

The President acted under the United Na-
tions Participation Act of 1945, as amended.
Section 5 of the act empowers the President
to implement Security Council decisions
adopted pursuant to article 41 of the United
Nations Charter. In its Resolution No. 232,

JANUARY 23, 1967



the Council decided that all member states
shall prohibit imports of Rhodesian asbestos,
iron ore, chrome, pig iron, sugar, tobacco,
copper, meat and meat products, and hides,
skins, and leather, as well as dealing by their
nationals or in their territories in such prod-
ucts originating in Southern Rhodesia. The
resolution also obligates members to embargo
shipments of arms, aircraft, motor vehicles,
and petroleum and petroleum products to
Southern Rhodesia.

This Executive order prohibits the activi-
ties proscribed by the resolution, including
transactions involving commodities exported
from Southern Rhodesia after December 16,
the date of the resolution, and delegates to
the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and the
Treasury the authority to promulgate regula-
tions necessary to carry out the order. These
regulations will be issued by the Departments
shortly and will be effective as of January 5.

A violation of the Executive order is a
criminal offense. Provision will be made in
the regulations to deal with cases of undue
hardship arising from transactions com-
menced before the date of the order.

The selective mandatory sanctions imposed
by the Security Council's resolution of
December 16 supplement earlier voluntary
measures taken by a large majority of U.N.
members in response to the Council's appeal,
contained in its resolution of November 20,
1965,2 that they break off economic relations
with Southern Rhodesia. This resolution was
adopted a few days after the Smith regime
in Southern Rhodesia had unilaterally de-
clared its independence on November 11,
1965. The United States joined with other
states in implementing the voluntary meas-
ures called for by the Security Council by
embargoing the shipment to Southern Rho-
desia of all arms, military equipment, and
related items and by suspending the 1965 and
1966 U.S. import quotas for Rhodesian sugar.
Since early 1966,. the United States has called
upon U.S. firms to cooperate with the volun-
tary Security Council sanctions and has



• For text of the resolution, see Bulletin of Jan.
9, 1967, p. 73.

' For text, see ibid., Dec. 6, 1965, p. 916.



145



recommended that U.S. firms comply with
British Orders-in-Council by avoiding trade
in commodities of significant importance to
the Southern Rhodesian economy, including
petroleum, as well as Rhodesian exports of
chrome, asbestos, and tobacco.



EXECUTIVE ORDER 11322 "

Relating to Trade and Other Transactions
Involving Southern Rhodesia

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the
Constitution and laws of the United States, includ-
ing section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act
of 1945 (59 Stat. 620), as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c),
and section 301 of Title 3 of the United States
Code, and as President of the United States, and
considering the measures which the Security Coun-
cil of the United Nations, by Security Council
Resolution No. 232 adopted December 16, 1966, has
decided upon pursuant to article 41 of the Charter
of the United Nations, and which it has called upon
all members of the United Nations, including the
United States, to apply, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. The following are prohibited effective
immediately, notwithstanding any contracts entered
into or licenses granted before the date of this
Order:

(a) The importation into the United States of
asbestos, iron ore, chrome, pig-iron, sugar, tobacco,
copper, meat and meat products, and hides, skins and
leather originating in Southern Rhodesia and ex-
ported therefrom after December 16, 1966, or prod-
ucts made therefrom in Southern Rhodesia or else-
where.

(b) Any activities by any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, which promote or
are calculated to promote the export from Southern
Rhodesia after December 16, 1966, of any of the
commodities specified in subsection (a) of this section
originating in Southern Rhodesia, and any dealings
by any such person in any such commodities or in
products made therefrom in Southern Rhodesia or
elsewhere, including in particular any transfer of
funds to Southern Rhodesia for the purposes of such
activities or dealings: Provided, however, that the
prohibition against the dealing in commodities ex-
ported from Southern Rhodesia or products made
therefrom shall not apply to any such commodities
or products which, prior to the date of this Order,
had been imported into the United States.

(c) Shipment in vessels or aircraft of United
States registration of any of the commodities speci-
fied in subsection (a) of this section originating



'32 Fed. Reg. 119.



St



ill
(I

i



in Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom afte
December 16, 1966, or products made therefrom i
Southern Rhodesia or elsewhere.

(d) Any activities by any person subject to th
jurisdiction of the United States, which promote o
are calculated to promote the sale or shipment -t
Southern Rhodesia of arms, ammunition of all types
military aircraft, military vehicles and equipmen
and materials for the manufacture and maintenanc
of arms and ammunition in Southern Rhodesia.

(e) Any activities by any person subject to th
jurisdiction of the United States, which promote o
are calculated to promote the supply to Southeri
Rhodesia of all other aircraft and motor vehicles
and of equipment and materials for the manufac
ture, assembly, or maintenance of aircraft or moto
vehicles in Southern Rhodesia; the shipment in ves
sels or aircraft of United States registration of an;
such goods destined for Southern Rhodesia; and an;
activities by any person subject to the jurisdictio]
of the United States, which promote or are calcu
lated to promote the manufacture or assembly o
aircraft or motor vehicles in Southern Rhodesia.

(f) Any participation in the supply of oil or oil
products to Southern Rhodesia (i) by any persoi
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
or (ii) by vessels or aircraft of United States reg
istration, or (iii) by the use of any land or ai
transport facility located in the United States.

Sec. 2. The functions and responsibilities for thi
enforcement of the foregoing prohibitions are dele
gated as follows:

(a) To the Secretary of State, the function am
responsibility of enforcement relating to the im
portation into, or exportation from the United State:
of articles, including technical data, the control o:
the importation or exportation of which is providec
for in section 414 of the Mutual Security Act o:
1954 (68 Stat. 848), as amended (22 U.S.C. 1934)
and has been delegated to the Secretary of State by
section 101 of Executive Order No. 10973 of No-
vember 3, 1961.*

(b) To the Secretary of Commerce, the functior
and responsibility of enforcement relating to —

(i) the exportation from the United States oi
articles other than the articles, including technical
data, referred to in subsection (a) of this section;
and

(ii) the transportation in vessels or aircraft of
United States registration of any commodities the
transportation of which is prohibited by section 1
of this Order.

(c) To the Secretary of the Treasury, the func-
tion and responsibility of enforcement to the extent
not delegated under subsections (a) or (b) of this
section.



»



i



146



* For text, see Bulletin of Nov. 27, 1961, p. 900.



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



^ Sec. 3. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of
' he Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce shall
^ xercise any authority which such officer may have
J part from the United Nations Participation Act
jf 1945 or this Order so as to give full effect to this
(rder and Security Council Resolution No. 232.

Sec. 4. (a) In carrying out their respective func-
ions and responsibilities under this Order, the Sec-
" etary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Com-
lerce shall consult with the Secretary of State.
ach such Secretary shall consult, as appropriate,
ath other government agencies and private persons,
(b) Each such Secretary shall issue such regu-
itions, licenses, or other authorizations as he con-
iders necessary to carry out the purposes of this
irder and Security Council Resolution No. 232.
Sec. 5. (a) The term "United States", as used in
lis Order in a geographical sense, means all terri-
)ry subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
(b) The term "person" means an individual, part-
ership, association, or other unincorporated body
f individuals, or corporation.



Yf~



HE White House,
anuary 5, 1967.



< ''resident Johnson, Secretary Rusk
Ijllourn Death of Christian Herter



n-ATEMENT BY PRESIDENT JOHNSON

"hite House press release (Austin, Tex.) dated December 31

It is with great personal sorrow that I
!arned that Christian Herter, a great Ameri-
an, died last night.

His life and career spanned a period which
aw this nation emerge from a century of iso-
ition to take a place of leadership on the
'^orld scene. From the day in 1916 when he
x)k up a post as attache in the American
Imbassy in Berlin to the leadership of the
Kennedy Round negotiations to expand and
beralize world trade — which he was exercis-
(ig to the day of his death — he participated
!i the events of our time and shaped them.

He was with President Wilson at the



ANUARY 23, 1967



Versailles Peace Conference in 1918-19.

He was at the side of Herbert Hoover in
his work in European relief in 1920-21.

He then turned to journalism and teaching
and to public service in Massachusetts. He
lectured on international relations at Har-
vard. He rose to be speaker in the Massa-
chusetts Legislature; and then for 10 years
was a Member of Congress.

As a Member of Congress, he led the fa-
mous Herter committee, whose report helped
bring to life the Marshall Plan. For 4 years,
he was Governor of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and then Under Secretary of
State and Secretary of State.

Throughout his life he stood for an Amer-
ica that would assume its full responsibilities
on the world scene in conformity with the
highest values of our national tradition.

Christian Herter was a wise, gentle, and
wholly dedicated patriot. He will be missed
greatly by all of us, but his life and work
will always be remembered as an important
part of the half century which has trans-
formed this nation's place in the world com-
munity.



STATEMENT BY SECRETARY RUSK

Press release 306 dated December 31

The death of Governor Christian Herter is
a source of deep grief to me and to his many
friends and colleagues in the Department of
State and the Foreign Service.

During a lifetime of selfless and brilliant
service as legislator, diplomat. Governor,
Under Secretary and then Secretary of State,
Governor Herter was one of America's great-
est public servants.

During his most recent activity as the
President's Special Representative for Trade
Negotiations, he performed a most difficult
and intricate duty with great skill and devo-
tion.

Those of us who knew him have suffered a
great personal loss. Our country will sorely
miss his talent and dedication.



147



Europe and America— Partners in Technology



by George C. McGhee

Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany ^



III
lit



In Germany and other European countries
concern has been expressed in recent months
about diiTerences in the level and rates of
technological development between Europe
and the United States. There has been dis-
cussion of what has come to be called the
"technology gap." A belief appears to exist
that critical sectors of the European economy
are not participating sufficiently in the re-
search that leads to advanced technological
development.

This is fed by statements implying that
America's greater size, its greater capital re-
sources, and particularly its large-scale
official support of industrial research and de-
velopment, will result in technological superi-
ority that no European competitor can
match. It is said that American-owned firms
operating in Europe do not engage in an ap-
propriate amount of basic research, but im-
port their research "full blown" from the
United States for use by their European
manufacturing subsidiaries.

This subject is of great political and eco-
nomic interest to both of our countries. To-
night I want to consider some of the facts,
try to place them in perspective, and make
clear the intention of the United States to
work with Europe in alleviating the causes
of its concern.

A symposium on international technologi-
cal cooperation examined this subject in de-
tail during the Hannover Fair. The Science



a



• Address made at the Wirtschafthochschule at
Mannheim, Germany, on Nov. 10.



Policy Committee of the OECD [Organiza
tion of Economic Cooperation and Develop
ment] has begun a study of this developmeni
including its causes and its significance ii
relation to other aspects of economic growth
More has to be done; many more discussion
must be held. We can, however, attempt ai
analysis. Let us begin with a general obser
vation.

One important aim of both research an«
technological development is economic prog
ress. The conclusion is inescapable thai
Western Europe, in terms of gross national
product, productivity, and industrial produc
tion, has more than kept pace with the eco>
nomic growth of the United States over th-
past 15 years. Even in production for export
where Europe is often said to be at an in
creasing disadvantage, the record shows tha
Europe has done substantially better than wt
have.

Between 1953 and 1964 the Federal Repub
lie's gross national product grew at an an
nual average rate in real terms of 6.3 per-
cent; the figure for the United States was 3.11
percent. During the same period the Euro-
pean Common Market area grew 5.5 percent
a year.

EEC [European Economic Community]!
and German exports also developed more
rapidly than those of the United States. Be-
tween 1957 and 1964 U.S. exports expanded
25 percent; during the same period German
exports increased 88 percent and the EEC as
a group, 90 percent.

It would be a different story if European



148



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



irms were unable to compete with Ameri-
;ans; however, the United States and Ger-
nany at present have approximately equiva-
ent growth rates of about 4 percent in real
;erms. And, although progress in Western
Europe has not been even, the only signifi-
cant exception to the generally favorable
;rend has been Great Britain. It is interest-
ing that — of five countries surveyed in a re-
cent OECD study — Great Britain made the
greatest research and development effort on
all four counts of measurement: amount of
funds invested, percentage of gross national
product, per capita expenditure, and per-
zi centage of manpower employed. Yet it
loI^showed the poorest record in the past 15
ent years in gross national product growth, in-
: dustry growth, and increase in productivity
!l; and exports.



Trends in the Technological "Spin Off"

There is a belief in Europe that the strong
technological and commercial position of
American industry has resulted largely from
research contracts provided by the United
States Government. It is true that in recent
years our Government expenditures for re-
search and development have increased
markedly. At present they total $15 billion
a year; in addition, American industry
spends $7 billion of its own. The total re-
search and development outlay in the United
States equals about 3.1 percent of the gross
national product. This compares with about
1.8 percent in Germany.

Although about 60 percent of United
States Federal funds for research and devel-
opment have gone to American industry, it
is important to understand that they were
not provided as subsidies for mass-produc-
tion industries in competition with foreign
producers. They went to develop products
which the U.S. Government has bought. The
United States Government has, moreover,
been a specialized type of customer, setting
standards and placing orders in such a way
as to meet politically determined U.S. na-
tional objectives.



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 31 of 90)