CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 56
It was agreed that Mr. Thorp’s statement in answer to the Polish representative’s question on subparagraph (b) of Article 71 (General Economic Relations), made in the Balkan Commission98 would be attached to the Record of the meeting of the Italian Commission. Subparagraph (b) was adopted unanimously by the Commission.
M. Aroutiunian moved the Soviet proposal for subparagraph (c) dealing with state enterprises. He explained that the economic trend towards nationalization should be taken into account in Article 71. The concept of most-favored-nation treatment was an old one not adapted to the trend towards nationalization. Italy should be able not only to have the right to nationalize certain industries but to exclude foreign capital. The Italian economy, he said, needed to recover rapidly and be free from outside interference and pressure during its reconstruction. He asked the Commission, therefore, to adopt the Soviet proposal. M. de Carbonnel (France) pointed out that industries which were monopolies of the Italian state were automatically not open to participation by United Nations nationals. The text approved by the U.S., U.K. and France made this point quite clear. The text approved by the U.S., U.K. and France, therefore, would not interfere with nationalized industries but would merely provide that United Nations nationals should be given most-favored-nation treatment with respect to firms in which there were foreign interests.
M. Aroutiunian answered that the Soviet text recognized that the state should be the sole judge as to the kind and extent of foreign capital which should be allowed to enter the country. The Soviet proposal was lost, 12 voting against, 6 for, Ethiopia and China abstaining. The U.S., U.K. and French proposal was carried 12 to 6, Ethiopia and China again abstaining.
The provision on civil aviation was deferred in view of a Netherlands amendment providing for transit rights and non-commercial stop which had not been circulated.99 M. Aroutiunian asked that the Secretary General be questioned on the effect on the time table of introducing [Page 597] amendments at the last minute, thus necessitating the deferring of a provision. The Secretary General answered that an amendment introduced at a late date should not be allowed to interfere with the time table.
The Australian amendment (CP IT/EC Doc 72)1 to Article 69, providing that literary and artistic property should be an exception to the right of seizure granted under Article 69 was amended by the Ukrainian Delegation to include industrial property. Mr. Thorp regretted that he could not accept the Australian amendment but pointed out that it did not contain certain safeguards necessary to protect the use of copyrights during the war by United Nations. He opposed the Ukrainian suggestion, pointing out that the U.S. had vested Italian assets during the war and put them to work for the general war effort. The value of a patent was taken away when the patent was put into the public domain, therefore, he did not see how the patents, whose value lay in the fact that they were grants of monopoly, could be returned. The Ukrainian amendment was lost 15–3 with 2 abstentions. The Australian amendment was carried 14 to 6 and paragraph 4 adopted unanimously as amended.
The Yugoslav amendment (CP IT/EC Doc 66)2 para. (2) providing a certain definition with respect to cables running between two points of the same territory and between a point in Italy and one of the United Nations was critized by Mr. Reinstein as being too broad and general. The U.S. Delegation, he said, would be glad to consider any special case regarding cables. However, the amendment as drafted was unsatisfactory. The Yugoslav representative agreed to modifying his amendment making it applicable only to Yugoslavia, or if the Commission preferred to setting up a subcommission. The Commission agreed to defer the amendment to the following meeting.
- See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 34th Meeting of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland, September 29, p. 590.↩
- For substance, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 365.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed; for text, as revised and adopted by the Commission, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 363.↩