CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 56
Mr. Wilgress (Canada) said that, in view of the simple character of the Rumanian economy, the Canadian Delegation had not felt that it could reasonably propose an amendment to Article 30 (General Economic Relations) requiring the extension from 18 months to 3 [Page 591] years of the period during which Rumania should grant most-favored-nation treatment and should not make any arbitrary discrimination in its trade policies. He noted that such an extension of the period had been approved for Italy and urged the drafting powers that, if uniformity of the treaties was considered necessary, it should be based in this case on the Italian treaty, as a period of three years was necessary to allow Italy time to conclude a whole new series of commercial agreements. M. Lychowski (Poland) referred to the present economic conditions in Europe which made a system of bilateral trade arrangements almost indispensable and asked whether the language of Article 30, paragraph 1, would prevent Rumania from concluding such agreements. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) replied that such agreements would not be prohibited by the language of Article 30, if they were designed to facilitate the resumption and development of trade and not to discriminate arbitrarily against the trade of certain countries. The key question was whether there was arbitrary discrimination. It was important that Rumania assume a general obligation to grant most-favored-nation treatment and not to make arbitrary discrimination in the conduct of its trade. In reply to two questions by the Polish representative, Mr. Thorp said (1) that whether or not a given transaction involved discrimination would depend on whether it was based on economic considerations, and (2) that any problems arising from the application of these provisions would be settled through normal diplomatic channels, not by any special organ to be created by the treaty. The Commission then unanimously adopted paragraph 1 a and 1 b of Article 30.
M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) spoke in support of the Soviet version of Article 30, paragraph 2, by which the obligation to grant most-favored-nation treatment and not to engage in arbitrary discrimination was made subject to an exception for neighboring countries. He cited the special character of the economic relations of neighboring countries and historic examples of exceptions to most-favored-nation treatment (among them Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines) in support of this exception. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) spoke in support of the version propsed by the U.K., U.S. and France, pointing out that the Article was provisional and subject to customary exceptions and asserting that an unqualified exception for neighboring countries would make the naturally strong links between neighboring countries into fetters. Mr. Thorp explained the special reasons underlying the preferences for Cuba and the Philippines and showed that the policy of the U.S. was to liquidate all such preferential systems as rapidly as possible. In any event, these cases, growing out of special historical conditions, did not justify a proposal to create a [Page 592] wholly new preferential system. The Commission approved the U.K., U.S. and French proposal for paragraph 2 by 9 votes to 5, without a roll call vote.
The South African representative spoke in support of the South African proposal to insert a new Article 30 bis, requiring Rumania to pay fair prices to UN nationals for any goods obtained from them for delivery as reparation.95 He said that to vote against the proposal would be to vote against the fundamental principle, recognized at Potsdam and elsewhere, that UN nationals should not pay reparation. M. Gerashchenko spoke in opposition to the amendment on the grounds that it would create a specially favored regime for UN property owners in Rumania, that it would allow the UN petroleum interests to set the prices for their products and to exercise control over the Rumanian economy, that it would represent an interference with Rumanian sovereignty and that it was unjust and contrary to democratic principles. The Commission then adopted the South African proposal by 9 votes to 5 without a roll call vote.
The Commission accepted the U.S.-U.K. civil aviation proposal, as slightly modified at the preceding meeting, by 9 votes to 5 without a roll call vote. The Commission then accepted the French proposal on civil aviation (the U.S.-U.K. proposal plus the first two freedoms of the air) by 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions.96
- For text, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 434, 446.↩
- For text, see ibid., p. 445.↩