Editorial Note
In November 1949, Economic Commission for Europe Executive Secretary Gunnar Myrdal suggested to interested member governments various measures for expanding East-West trade in grain. By May 1950, favorable responses had been received from all the interested member governments including the United States. For the text of Myrdal’s aide-mémoire of November 2, 1949 and the replies from ECE members, see Appendix IV to the Report to the Fifth Session of the Economic Commission for Europe, by the Executive Secretary, U.N. doc. E/ECE/114. Rev. 1, April 12 and May 27, 1950. The suggestion was discussed further during the Fifth Session of the ECE in May-June 1950 (see telegram 709, June 9, from Geneva, page 143). Following a long series of negotiations between the ECE Secretariat and interested governments, an Ad Hoc Meeting on Grain was held in Geneva, November 14–20, 1950, under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe. Seventeen countries, including the United States, participated in the meeting, and four other countries sent observers. During the meetings there was an exchange of information regarding the grain requirements of Western European countries and the grain availabilities of Eastern European countries. Following the meeting, bilateral discussions continued between the Soviet Union and several Western European countries. A report on the Ad Hoc Meeting on Grain, prepared by the ECE Secretariat, was circulated as U.N. doc. E/ECE/GRAIN/3, December 4, 1950. A brief review of the antecedents, transactions, and results of the meeting was included in the Annual Report of the Economic Commission for Europe, June 16, 1950–June 13, 1951, U.N. doc. E/2002 (E/ECE/130), June 13, 1951.
The attitude of the United States Government toward the Ad Hoc Meeting on Grain was summarized in a circular airgram of October 24, 5:05 p. m., to certain diplomatic and consular offices in Europe as follows:
“As indicated previously, US genuinely favors intra-European grain trade, provided strategic WE exports not condition for trade, and agreements do not violate international obligations particularly ITO principles and International Wheat Agreement commitments. US, however, is not promoting mtg since appears even most successful outcome not likely increase WE grain supplies beyond bilateral possibilities and may afford EE countries propaganda forum.” (340.240/10–2450)