840.50/2396
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Roy Veatch of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations
| Participants: | The Australian Minister, Sir Owen Dixon |
| Mr. H. C. Coombs, Director General, Department of Post-war Reconstruction, of Australia | |
| Mr. J. B. Brigden, Financial Counselor, Australian Legation | |
| Mr. Acheson | |
| Mr. Veatch |
Sir Owen Dixon said that he was instructed by his Government to raise a number of questions with this Government regarding the interpretation of the draft agreement and the ways in which it was anticipated that it would work. Since Mr. Coombs was in Washington briefly on his way home to Australia, he had come along also, especially in view of the close relation between his responsibilities in the Australian Government and the proposed relief and rehabilitation program.
1. Functions of the Central Committee and other committees of the Council
Sir Owen referred first to the functions of the Central Committee and the other committees of the Council, and the role which Australia might play in connection with these functions. He said that the general view of the Commonwealth Government was quite opposed to any undue domination of any post-war councils by a restricted group [Page 934] of Powers. He understood that it was the view of this Government that the Central Committee would not dominate the organization and that the other committees of the Council would have very important functions. His Government was glad to know of this view and it was hopeful that the smaller countries could participate effectively in the whole Administration through membership on the other committees.
Sir Owen went on to say that he would appreciate especially some clarification or development of the American Government’s ideas regarding the functions and the probable personnel or composition of the various committees, and more particularly of the Committee on Supplies.
In reply Mr. Acheson discussed the functions of the Central Committee, of the Regional Committees and of the Supplies Committee in much the same terms as those used in his other recent discussions of the subject.
2. The Committee on Supplies
In connection with his discussion of the Committee on Supplies he emphasized the fact that each Government would determine for itself the nature and extent of its contributions of supplies, and that the main function of the Committee would be to advise the Council as to those policies which in its judgment would facilitate the flow of supplies, including the policies covering the distribution of supplies so far as they would be of special interest to the main suppliers. He said that the supplying governments might very well limit all or part of their appropriations for the support of the United Nations organization to particular supplies which they were in position to contribute.
Sir Owen inquired as to whether the receiving countries would be represented in some way on the Supplies Committee, and in reply Mr. Acheson indicated that the Supplies Committee was designed to represent the principal supplying countries, that the receiving countries would find a special place for presentation of their views through the regional committees, and that the Council would serve as the overall body in which the views of both the supplying and receiving countries would be represented. In the course of the conversation on this point Mr. Acheson said that no doubt the United States and the United Kingdom would be represented and perhaps also Soviet Russia and China, although the latter two might not be in a position to be important suppliers for some time. Then certainly Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil should be represented as principal suppliers, and also Argentina when she becomes a member of the organization, and perhaps also such countries as Denmark and Poland on the score that they might very quickly become suppliers of food stuffs for other European regions.
Sir Owen seemed to indicate a preference for a small specialized committee on supplies. He laid particular stress on the peculiar [Page 935] position of countries like Australia and New Zealand, whose economy is largely dependent upon exports of the primary commodities which would be of particular concern in relief and rehabilitation.
3. Provision of Supplies
Sir Owen wished to know whether UNRRA would deal only with governments with respect to supplies or whether it would deal directly with individuals or commercial concerns.
In reply Mr. Acheson said that presumably dealings would be between UNRRA and governments, at least during the first stages. For example he said that UNRRA would place before the American Government its schedule of needs and would discuss with the American Government the particular commodities which might be supplied by the United States. The appropriations would then be made for United States contributions to UNRRA and the American Government would arrange for the procurement of those supplies which were to be turned over to UNRRA.
Mr. Acheson went on to say that the program for drawing supplies from various countries for relief and rehabilitation would necessarily be cleared with the appropriate Combined Boards. Mr. Coombs then inquired whether it was expected that the Combined Boards would continue as Anglo-American Boards after the war. In reply Mr. Acheson said that it might be assumed that such controls would become more generally international, at least after the war and perhaps considerably before the end of the war.
Sir Owen inquired as to the way in which UNRRA would operate in relation to normal world demands. He assumed that UNRRA would not be so operated as to upset the normal relations between suppliers and receiving countries in any unnecessary degree, and Mr. Acheson fully agreed.
Mr. Coombs said that he assumed that somebody would continue to decide over-all allocations, presumably the Combined Boards for the present. He was at a loss, however, as to who would determine priorities as between the various countries in need and especially who would finance supplies for countries not in a position to pay cash-He thought it would be a mistake if the supplying countries only were expected to do the financing since contributions of supplies by them would reduce their own supply reserves which they would be in a position to sell later. He thought that the procedure needed clarifying and particularly that governments should know when decisions of this sort were to be made.
Mr. Acheson said that it was expected that the non-supplying countries would also contribute funds to the organization and in some cases these contributions should be considerable. The decision as to what specific contributions each country would make would be left entirely [Page 936] with the individual country by the Draft Agreement. He said that contributions by supplying countries might be primarily or entirely in kind so as not to raise the problem of foreign exchange.
Mr. Coombs immediately picked up the mention of the foreign exchange problem, saying that the exportation of reserve stocks of commodities normally sold on the foreign market would reduce the ability of a country like Australia to secure necessary foreign exchange through the sale of those commodities later. So far as there might be excess reserves built up which would not be saleable abroad at any future time, this problem would not be raised.
Sir Owen said that Australia may have to face some very serious economic problems because of the uncertainty as to the demands for Australian supplies for military and relief and rehabilitation purposes. With respect to the military demand he said that the demand for supplies for the American army may suddenly be terminated when the American troops move out of Australia or they may be continued, perhaps at an accelerated rate, as the American forces fight their way to Japan. It will be desirable therefore that the demands for relief and rehabilitation be adjusted to the military demand so far as possible.
4. Representation on Committees
Sir Owen inquired as to how the chairmen of the various committees would be chosen. In reply Mr. Acheson said that that was not specified in the draft and that presumably the choice would rest with the committees.
Mr. Coombs asked why the Central Committee had to be made up of government representatives. He suggested that if a committee of four should be chosen by the Council out of its own membership, the individuals would then feel that they served the Council directly and that they were not to represent their own governments in their functions on the Central Committee. Mr. Acheson recognized this as a theoretical possibility but expressed the opinion that in reality it would hardly work out that way.
Sir Owen indicated that the Australian Government would have an interest in the work of the European Committee, as well as the Far Eastern Committee and the Supplies Committee, since Australia expects to have much closer economic relations with Europe after the war than was true during the pre-war period. He asked therefore whether Australia might be a member of the European Committee, and in reply Mr. Acheson said he saw no reason why Australia should not be on all the committees.
Sir Owen then said that Australia would also have a strong interest in a shipping or transportation committee if one is established, since the control of shipping will be of very great interest to Australia.
[Page 937]5. Powers of the Commonwealth Government
Sir Owen said that there might be some question as to the constitutional power of the Australian Government to carry out some of the commitments which might arise under the proposed agreement. He referred particularly to the possibility that the Australian Government might be required to acquire certain commodities on a compulsory basis either under Article I, paragraph 2 (b) or under some amendment to the agreement. The Commonwealth Government has at the present time the constitutional power to acquire commodities only for the Commonwealth itself and it could not agree to an international instrument which might result in some obligation which the Commonwealth could not carry out.
In response to this observation Mr. Acheson pointed out that action under Article I, paragraph 2 (b) could only be advisory and that separate action by each government involved would be required to implement such advice. With respect to amendments to the agreement, he assumed that no changes would be made which would change the nature of the agreement, which is in the form of an executive agreement without specific commitments as to the contributions to be made by the member governments.
6. Relation of Rehabilitation to long-run reconstruction
Sir Owen said that he did not understand fully the relationship which would exist between rehabilitation, under the draft agreement, and measures for long-run reconstruction. He said that his Government would fear that rehabilitation of industries and agriculture during the short-run period might have permanent consequences, especially if it seemed important to restore or develop uneconomic industries during the emergency period. His Government was of the opinion that the relationship between rehabilitation and reconstruction should be recognized in the draft agreement itself, and that a provision might be included for taking into account actual and prospective agreements for carrying out the policy of Article VII of the master Lend-Lease agreements, so that a conflict should not develop between rehabilitation measures and the policy laid down in such agreements.
7. Relation of Australia to the general plan for UNRRA
Mr. Acheson inquired as to Sir Owen’s general feeling toward the desirability of having an international relief organization.
In reply Sir Owen said that he thought that it was entirely essential that relief and rehabilitation be so organized. He thought it was important to recognize, however, that there would not be many resources for relief supplies, and Mr. Brigden added that in his opinion there [Page 938] will be a need for some equitable assessment of the contributions to be made by the various possible sources of supply.
It was necessary to terminate the discussion before Sir Owen had raised all the questions which he had on his list. It was agreed therefore that Mr. Acheson should ask him to return for further discussion as soon as it might be convenient for Mr. Acheson.
Sir Owen left with Mr. Veatch the following notes on the subjects which
he had wished to discuss with Mr. Acheson, saying that many of them had
already been covered by the discussion but that he would wish to secure
some further clarification on some which had already been brought up,
and to raise the few others which had not been discussed: