840.50/2314
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Boy Veatch of the Office of Foreign Belief and Rehabilitation Operations
| Participants: | The Australian Minister, Sir Owen Dixon |
| Mr. Acheson | |
| Mr. Veatch | |
| (Mr. L. B. Pearson, Minister-Counselor of the Canadian Legation also participated in the latter part of the discussion.) |
Mr. Acheson had invited Sir Owen to come in for a further discussion of the points which the latter raised in his discussion with Mr. Acheson on July 14. The discussion followed the list of questions and statements left by Sir Owen on July 14 and reproduced at the end of the memorandum of discussion of that date. The following notes on the discussion carry the corresponding numbers.
1. Mr. Acheson assured Sir Owen that there was no intention that the Four Powers should dominate the proposed relief and rehabilitation organization.
2. Mr. Acheson said that certainly the full and effective participation of all countries is not only desirable but essential to the success of the enterprise. In his opinion the regional committees, the Supplies Committee and the standing technical committees will have most important functions. He said that these committees would serve the Council in much the same way that the Congressional Committees serve as working committees of both Houses of Congress in the United States. These committees would have the detailed information required [Page 948] in the formulation of policies in the first instance which could then be recommended to the Council and Central Committee for action. Members of the Council would be represented on all of the committees in which they had special interest and they would, of course, have full opportunity to participate in the final discussions and decisions of the Council.
3. Mr. Acheson said that there would, of course, be no doubt that the Government of Australia would participate in both the Committee on Supplies and the Committee for the Far East. These Committees would be of unusual importance since the Council and the Director General would have to be guided very largely by these Committees in their specialized fields.
4. Mr. Acheson said that so far as membership on the committees is not specified by the Draft Agreement the responsibility for appointments would rest with the Central Committee subject to approval by the Council. The question of chairmen of the committees is not covered by the Agreement, however, and it might be desirable to cover that point in the Agreement itself or at least in by-laws to be adopted by the Council—otherwise it might not be clear as to whether the chairman should be appointed by the Central Committee or chosen by the committee itself. With respect to headquarters, Mr. Acheson said that it might be assumed that the headquarters of the Administration as a whole would be in Washington, at least at the outset, and that the headquarters of the European region would probably be in London, at least in the early stages. No decision had been reached with respect to Far Eastern headquarters as yet.
5. Presumably the Far Eastern region would not include India as a field of relief and rehabilitation unless India is more directly hit by the war. However, Burma would definitely be covered and the Committee would include governments in the whole general region, not merely those directly affected by the war.
6. Presumably UNRRA would deal directly with governments with respect to supplies, clearing with the Combined Boards and using their machinery whenever it might be available. In most cases the Director General would not enter into private contracts—this would most certainly be impossible in the United States where many wartime controls would make such action impracticable.
Sir Owen pressed the question a little further, however, by asking what would happen if a member government should inform the Director General that it did not wish to have UNRRA enter into direct arrangements with individual concerns within its territory. He wished to know whether there was anything in the Draft Agreement which would preclude such action by a member government. In reply [Page 949] Mr. Acheson said that he thought there was no such limitation in the Draft and that since there was no limitation of a member government’s sovereignty, it would have full freedom to take such action.
7. Mr. Acheson explained that no action could be taken by UNRRA under Article I, paragraph 2 (b) which would commit any member government to any form of action without its specific agreement or consent. He said that the last sentence of paragraph 2 (b) referred merely to those new functions which the member governments might specifically request the Administration to undertake.
Mr. Acheson went on to say that a more serious problem was posed by the wording of Article VIII, with respect to amendments. He said that others had referred to the possibility that some member governments might be placed in the position of having to carry out some amendment to the Agreement which it had not accepted and he thought therefore that some modification of Article VIII would probably be necessary in order to avoid such a situation. Sir Owen agreed that the present wording of Article VIII was too broad.
8 and 9. These two points were discussed jointly. Mr. Acheson explained the limitations placed upon the rehabilitation function of the Administration through the wording of Article I, paragraph 2 (a) and he stated specifically that paragraphs 2 (b) and 2 (c) of Article I could create no extension of the rehabilitation function without the specific agreement of each government concerned.
Sir Owen said that he wanted to be certain that there could be no new commitments with respect to rehabilitation without the specific consent of each member government concerned since otherwise the Australian Government might find itself in the position of having to carry out some commitment to which it would be opposed. He emphasized the desire of the Australian Government to have some sort of specific directive in the Agreement which would require the Administration to adjust its objectives and its activities to the longer-run objectives of the United Nations as set forth not only in existing agreements but also in those yet to be signed.
Mr. Pearson, the Minister Counsellor of the Canadian Legation, called on Mr. Acheson at this point and was invited to join the discussion.
Mr. Veatch pointed out the possibility that in some urgent situations it might be necessary to support the rehabilitation of some forms of agriculture and even of some forms of industry as an emergency relief measure even though such rehabilitation would be contrary to the long-run interests of the parties affected. Mr. Pearson said that this possibility or probability had been recognized at the Conference on Food and Agriculture at Hot Springs.
[Page 950]Sir Owen then explained that the Australian Government feared that the new relief Administration might become so enthusiastic over its own task and so concerned with the immediate problems which it faced that it would overlook alternative methods of rehabilitation which would be just as effective as others from the short-run point of view without being in conflict with longer-run interests.
He seemed reassured on this question, however, when it was pointed out that such possibilities could be avoided by policy actions of the Council, on which the representatives of all governments would sit. In expressing his concern over this matter he had had in mind primarily the operating people, e.g. the Director General and his staff, but he recognized that the member governments would be in a position through the Council to establish policies which would require adjustment of rehabilitation programs to longer-run reconstruction objectives so far as practicable.
10. Mr. Acheson said that this provision had been drafted primarily to guard against competitive buying of supplies that might be needed by the war effort or which might otherwise be in short supply. It was designed especially to meet situations created by the efforts of the exiled governments to purchase and hold reserve stocks of supplies for use in their own countries after they have been liberated. The provision in question would require use of the Combined Boards and other existing machinery whenever practicable.
Sir Owen said that Australia was concerned as a seller of supplies and that it was important to his Government to know how much territory the provision would cover. For instance, there was the question of British purchases—would such purchases be for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of war or not?
At this point Mr. Pearson said that Canada had already had some dealings with the Netherlands and Belgian Governments with respect to supplies to be used for their populations after liberation and that Norway was now desirous of making similar purchases. He went on to say, however, that in view of the Draft Agreement for UNRRA the Canadian Government is holding in abeyance any agreement with the Norwegian Government.
Sir Owen said that he thought the whole question was a rather minor matter, but he thought it would be desirable to define this provision more closely in the event that the Agreement is to be redrafted.
11. Mr. Acheson said that he could agree fully with Sir Owen that this point was well taken. It was quite true in his opinion that controls would be required after the war, and it was equally true that the provision in question would not in itself commit governments to such controls. It was to be hoped, however, that governments would take [Page 951] the necessary action following the initiative which might be taken by the United Nations either under this provision or in some other way.
Sir Owen said that the Australian Government would want to be sure that transportation and purchasing should be held under strict control during the emergency period if supplies themselves were to be kept under control during such a period. He was of the opinion, however, that the concern of the Australian Government over the lack of definite commitment on this point arose primarily from its first understanding that the commitments with respect to contributions by member governments and the controls affecting supplies would be much more rigid than would be the case under the interpretation which Mr. Acheson had given to these provisions. In other words it was the Australians’ fear that they would be bound to contribute supplies during a period when other governments would not be bound to contribute shipping or to provide for distribution under control.
Mr. Acheson emphasized the fact that certain controls will continue during the war and that some of them may be continued into the early period of peace. He said that it had not been the intention to create a, great system of new controls through signature of the proposed agreement on relief and rehabilitation. That instrument would merely be the starting point for securing agreement between governments on whatever controls would be necessary to supplement the wartime controls already in existence, and each government would have full freedom of action to determine its own policy with respect to the proposals for new controls as these proposals are made.
12. Mr. Acheson said that it is assumed that each government will make appropriations to cover its contribution to UNRRA under Article V, that these appropriations would be used in large part to purchase supplies within the country which would then be transferred to UNRRA as contributions in kind and that some part of the appropriations might be contributed to UNRRA as credits or cash funds for use by the organization elsewhere under certain conditions. He thought that UNRRA would have to have some central fund with which to carry on its operations and with which to make purchases in areas in which all available needed supplies could not be contributed by the government of the area. He thought, however, that UNRRA’s purchasing programs would be cleared with the Combined Boards and that wherever they had procurement machinery available UNRRA would make use of such machinery instead of creating its own competing procurement machinery.
Sir Owen said that he understood that it was planned that UNRRA should deal directly with governments and that it would not enter into transactions with individuals unless the governments concerned approved such transactions.