840.50/3147
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Roy Veatch of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations
| Participants: | Yugoslav Ambassador |
| Mr. Acheson | |
| Mr. Veatch |
Ambassador Fotitch called at Mr. Acheson’s suggestion to discuss a number of questions which Ambassador Fotitch had sent to Mr. Acheson under date of July 29. The questions presented in Ambassador Fotitch’s questionnaire are set forth below, each question being followed by a summary of the discussion.
1. Article I, paragraph 2–a. In the introductory paragraph enumerating the purposes and functions of the Administration amongst others, provides for “the resumption of agricultural and industrial production”. This function is not mentioned in Article I, paragraph 2–a. Could this provision be repeated also in connection with this paragraph?
Mr. Acheson explained that the language of Article I, paragraph 2 (a) does cover such emergency agricultural and industrial rehabilitation as would be needed to meet relief requirements and he said that the language of the Preamble was not intended to indicate any broader or more long-term function than this.
[Page 971]2. Article I, paragraph 2–b. Will the quantity and kind of relief as well as conditions of delivery be, in the sense of this paragraph, also determined after consultation with and with the consent of the member government?
Ambassador Fotitch explained that this inquiry was intended to relate to Article I, paragraph 2 (a). Mr. Acheson stated that certainly there would be consultation between the Administration and a given member government regarding the quantity and kind of relief to be provided in its territory. He went on to say however that “consent” of a member government would not be particularly involved in such consultation, since presumably the principal question would be whether the Administration would be in a position to provide the quantities and qualities of supplies needed. The Ambassador felt that his Government was primarily concerned with the question of consultation and that the question would be met satisfactorily if a written record of this discussion would cover Mr. Acheson’s assurances that there would be consultation on these questions. Mr. Acheson agreed that the record should include such a statement.
3. Article III, paragraph 2. Could in case of emergency the Council be convened at the request of at least eight nations?
Mr. Acheson inquired as to why the question referred particularly to eight member governments. In reply the Ambassador pointed out that there were only eight governments of occupied Europe and that he felt that this group of member governments should have the power to bring the Council into special session, especially since the group of American Republics might have this power under the present draft. Mr. Acheson expressed the opinion that it would be undesirable from the point of view of the Council to have the power of calling special sessions in the hands of a very small number of the members, but he said that it might be desirable to set a lower percentage (perhaps one-third) of the total membership empowered to call such a meeting.
4. Article III, paragraph 3. Could the representative of a member government request that a matter of special interest for his country, which has been discussed and decided by the Central Committee, be again taken up at the following meeting of the Council.
Should the composition of the Central Committee be modified in the sense that a European continental representative will be added to it, it would be also necessary to introduce a rulement [sic] of such representatives.
Mr. Acheson replied in the affirmative to the first paragraph.
5. Article III, paragraph 4. In connection with Article V, paragraph 3. Will the European continental countries have a representative in the Council of Supplies and the United Nations agencies?
[Page 972]Ambassador Fotitch requested that this question be reworded as follows:
“Will the European continental countries have a representative in the Committee on Supplies and other committees to be created?”
In reply to this inquiry Mr. Acheson said that under the present draft the Council would have the power of approval of appointments to any of these committees so that it certainly would have a voice in their composition. He also said that consideration might be given to the transfer to the Council of the full appointing power.
6. Article III, paragraph 5. Will, in the sense of this paragraph, the European Committee have a right to request that no decision by the Council or the Central Committee concerning European areas be made without previous consultation of it? And will the European Committee, in certain conditions of emergency, have the right of decision?
Mr. Acheson pointed out that the draft did not require such consent but he went on to say that in practice the Committee for Europe would be the principal adviser on all of these matters and that there would be every reason to expect that its advice would be followed. He explained that under the draft agreement the Committee for Europe would not make decisions since it was considered important that decisions on policy should be made at the center of the organization so that there would always be adequate coordination and unity in the policies. The Committee for Europe would formulate and propose and have the greatest influence upon policy actions to be taken by the Council and the Central Committee on subjects concerning Europe. With reference to the last sentence of this inquiry, Mr. Acheson said that the Director General would have full power and authority to take action in cases of emergency subject only to the broad policies adopted by the organization. The regional committees would have an opportunity of course to suggest action to the Director General if they desired to do so.
7. Article III, paragraph 6. Does the above mentioned paragraph also provide the institution of a regional technical European subcommittee for the relief of European countries from European resources?
Mr. Acheson pointed out that under the terms of this paragraph regional sub-committees of all technical standing committees can be created if the regional committee so desires. Ambassador Fotitch then asked whether this would exclude action by the regional committee itself in appointing subcommittees to report to it. To this Mr. Acheson replied that there was nothing in the agreement to preclude such action though it would be important obviously to coordinate [Page 973] the work of such sub-committees with the work of the standing committees of the Council.
8. Article IV, paragraph 4. Does the provision of this paragraph also contain the creation of a special director general deputy for European affairs who will have direct contact with the European regional committees?
Mr. Acheson said that decisions on the appointment of Deputies would be entirely in the hands of the Director General under the draft agreement. He went on to say that he himself had contemplated the possibility of several Deputy Directors being assigned to work in the European region.
9. Article V, paragraph 1. The content of this paragraph should be more specific as to the extent of power of the administration so as not to interfere with the future development and rehabilitation of the national economic policy of the respective countries.
Mr. Acheson said that almost everyone had felt that this paragraph needed to be reworded and he expressed the opinion that it would be revised so that the obligations of a member government under it would be clarified.
10. Article V, paragraph 2. Will the foreign volunteer relief agencies have the possibility to engage in activity in specific restricted areas and use its own funds regardless of the amount of relief this area will receive from the relief administration.
Ambassador Fotitch agreed that this question referred to Article IV, paragraph 2 rather than Article V, paragraph 2, as stated in his questionnaire. He went on to clarify the question by saying that Yugoslavia would have a special interest in this matter since there was a possibility that a number of private agencies in this country might wish to send special assistance to Yugoslavia. He mentioned particularly the United Yugoslav Drive in the United States and the activities of various national groups in this country in collecting funds to be used for their friends and relatives in their particular regions. For instance there are estimated to be 100,000 Serbian orphans, and Serbian Americans are already raising funds which they would like to have used for these orphans and other Serbians in need in Yugoslavia. Likewise Slovenian Americans have already raised a considerable fund which they would like to have used for the Slovenian population in Yugoslavia. Ambassador Fotitch went on to say that the wording used in Article IV, paragraph 2 seemed to be too restrictive and severe although he was sure that in practice it would be carried out reasonably and the Director General would only seek to coordinate the activities of private groups.
Mr. Acheson emphasized the fact that the paragraph was directed only to the activities of foreign relief groups in the territory of a [Page 974] government receiving relief assistance. He said that there would be no restriction on action by Yugoslav-Americans in raising any amount of money for orphans or other relief purposes in Yugoslavia if those sums were turned over to the Yugoslav Red Cross or some other local body for administration. In spite of this explanation, however, Ambassador Fotitch still felt that the provision in question could be reworded more happily.
Ambassador Fotitch inquired as to how the financial side of the organization would be handled. In reply Mr. Acheson said that financial arrangements were divided into two parts, (a) the administrative budget under Article VI, and (b) the provision of supplies, services, etc. by member governments under the provisions of Article V. He said that after the administrative budget had been allocated by the Council each government would have to take separate and specific action to provide its share of the administrative funds. In the case of the provision of supplies, Mr. Acheson said that each individual government presumably would make funds available for contribution of supplies which it could draw from its own resources and that in addition some countries such as the United States might make funds available for purchase of supplies elsewhere for use of the Administration.
Ambassador Fotitch said that he would like to have a written record of what Mr. Acheson had said in response to the questions which the Ambassador had placed before him. He asked whether this would be possible and Mr. Acheson said that he would send him a memorandum of their conversation.93
- The memorandum was sent to the Ambassador on September 9.↩