Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

501.BD Europe/10–648: Telegram

The Deputy United States Representative to the Economic Commission for Europe (Porter) to the Secretary of State

confidential

Geneva, October 6, 1948—7 p. m.

1363. Noce 357. From Porter.

1. Ad hoc committee on industrial development and trade adjourned 4:30 October 5 after adopting with no dissenting votes Netherlands, Belgian, French, Swedish resolution recommending establishment committee development of trade.¹ Vote was ten in favor six abstentions (Eastern bloc) one delegate absent (Luxembourg). Text follows in clear.

2. Following rejection of Soviet proposals first for separate committee industrial development then for combined trade and industrial development committee final action with no negative votes confirms views held throughout by USDel. During last days OEEC countries consistently supported US position and earlier fears that French and Swedish delegates might accept compromises opening door to substantive industrial development work by new committee proved unfounded. In fact in lengthy informal meeting Monday afternoon, ostensibly called by chairman but actually arranged by executive secretary for purpose finding compromise to achieve unanimity French delegation stood very firm.

3. Industrial development issue of primary importance to USSR and satellites. Objective obviously to secure UN forum to approve overall development programs “popular democracies” and lend moral support to claims for credits and capital goods from international bodies and from US and UK. Other OEEC countries have little direct interest in this matter and since most of their delegates came without clear instructions on stand to be taken it was necessary to clarify this issue repeatedly before achieving common front resulting in rejection of Soviet proposals and of secretariat’s presistent attempts at unworkable compromises.

4. US delegation believes that initial stresses and strains in OEEC ranks largely healed by end of session. Cohesion ultimately achieved by West resulted in turn upon straining Eastern ranks with Poles and probably Czechs and Yugoslavs also urging Soviets to abstain rather than oppose trade committee resolutions finally adopted. We understand countries mentioned agreed to cooperate in work of committee in spite of abstention.

5. Following disposition trade committee resolution Poles presented resolution inviting executive secretary to prepare for forthcoming special session ECE (unnecessary words omitted) “comprehensive summary recommendations as to activities of trade committee, taking into account exchange of views which took place during ad hoc meetings, proposals put before it by different delegates, and resolutions adopted by ad hoc committee”. This would have invited re-debate entire problem including rejected resolutions at special session. As finally amended by Denmark, French however, reference to special session deleted and executive secretary’s summary to be based on resolutions adopted. Final vote was 11 for, 1 (Yugoslavia) against and 4 (USSR, Byelo-Russia, Ukraine, Czechoslovia) abstaining. We attach no significance to Yugoslav opposition which seemed due chiefly to procedural confusion reigning after midnight.

6. Soviet proposal that “ad hoc committee on industrial development and trade pronounce itself against prohibitions and limitations imposed on trade to Western European countries by Marshall Plan, which is obstructing the development of economic cooperation between European countries” was defeated 10 to 6. Soviet delegate made brief, weary speech supporting his motion. Accused US of violating its 1937 trade agreement with USSR and of controlling trade of Western European countries with Eastern European countries in order to further objectives of political expansion. In concluding statement Soviet representative said that unsatisfactory result of committee’s work was due attitude delegations tied to Marshall Plan. Porter (US) stated he considered USSR motion out of order and therefore would not reply. Speech ruled in order but closure voted immediately.

7. Executive secretary to prepare report to work of the ad hoc committee for circulation to governments concerned at which time he will probably poll governments on need for special session. Myrdal inclined to feel absence of unanimous favorable vote on trade committee resolution may necessitate special session but we have questioned need for session in view general acceptability of results as evidenced by majority affirmative vote and minority abstentions.

Sent Department 1363, repeated Paris 257, Torep 88 and US Delga.

[

Porter

]

1. The Ad Hoc Committee on Industrial Development and Trade of the Economic Commission for Europe met in Geneva from September 27 to October 5, 1948. Twenty-two countries were represented, several of them by cabinet-level delegates. The Committee agreed to recommend to the ECE that a Committee on the Development of Trade be established to promote the increase of trade through the full utilization of national resources and the more rapid development of the economies of European countries. Proposed terms of reference for the Committee were also agreed upon. The U.S. Delegation’s detailed report on the session was transmitted to the Department of State in airgram A–274, October 19, from Geneva, not printed (501.BD Europe/10–1948). For a summary of the transactions of this session of the Ad Hoc Committee, see Yearbook of the United Nations 1948–1949 (New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 1950), pp. 504–505.