Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

340.240/6–950: Telegram

The United States Delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe to the Secretary of State ¹

confidential

Geneva, June 9, 1950—1 p. m.

709. Noce 748. From USDel ECE.

1. Commission meetings June 7 and 8² devoted principally to discussion Trade Committee,³ USSR [resolution?] on discrimination and dumping⁴ and Yugoslav resolution, substance of which in paragraph 5 below.

2. Myrdal⁵ in opening discussion indicated procedure he proposed to follow in further developing grain exchange, viz. Secretariat to work out specific proposals keeping in close touch government technical experts.⁶ Hoped to have concrete proposals by end of July. If governments found them satisfactory basis for discussion, would call meeting late in summer. Myrdal noted Trade Committee lack of progress but recommended that it be kept in being because of possibility success in grain agreement.

3. USDel in attempt to dispose of USSR resolution before general debate on Trade Committee, opened debate. Asher⁷ made short statement emphasizing security reasons for licensing, reiterating support for peaceful expansion East-West trade and willingness to consider any specific proposals re grain developed by Executive Secretariat, and emphasizing Eastern European reluctance to export as principal limiting factor Eastern European-Western trade. He emphasized propaganda nature USSR resolution and called for prompt rejection.⁸ Attempt to force early vote on resolution failed and subsequent discussion dealt jointly with work of Trade Committee and USSR resolution. Eastern European countries strongly supported USSR resolution, made usual statements on discriminatory policy US and Western Europe, concentrating more of attack on US and less on Western Europe than heretofore. Usual themes of US exploitation, aggressive intent, opposition to Socialism, etc., predominated. It was also frequently maintained that Eastern Europe not being hurt by licensing policy and not dependent East-West trade but that Western Europe was suffering. By assertion and by copious quotation of obviously inaccurate figures, Eastern European countries also sought to build case that through Marshall Plan, US “imposed” exports on Western Europe retarding agricultural and industrial development those countries. Eastern European countries supported continuation Trade Committee, expressed interest in further development Myrdal’s grain proposal and blamed US policy for stagnation Trade Committee. Yugoslav who spoke early in debate also drew much of Eastern European fire.

4. Vilfan⁹ speaking for Yugoslavia, opened by urging that Trade Committee not only continue but expand. He deferred [differed?], however, with approach of Trade Committee and Executive Secretariat on grounds that it based on expansion of trade between two economic blocs rather than among European countries. Referring to USSR draft resolution, he then launched into attack upon economic warfare practiced upon Yugoslavia by Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. In forceful recapitulation progressive breaking of all economic ties Eastern European countries with Yugoslavia, he built up impressive case. Yugoslav outspoken attacks on Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries have characterized entire session and in particular Trade Committee discussions. Texts of principal speeches by Vilfan will be airmailed Department. In countering Yugoslav attacks, Eastern European countries resorted principally to epithets and charges of Yugoslav domination by US. Specific charge of economic warfare at no point denied by Eastern countries. Poland, rather than USSR most aggressive of Eastern countries in attacks both on US and on Yugoslavia. Albania most slanderous.

5. Yugoslavia, although early in debate had indicated might introduce a resolution directed at Soviet Union’s economic warfare against Yugoslavia, did not offer formal resolution until repeated charges by Eastern countries against Tito government; finally after a number of interventions by Polish delegate, Yugoslavia introduced resolution which in substance called upon USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Albania on one hand, and Yugoslavia on other, to submit to Secretariat data they considered necessary for illustrating the character and effect on economic relations which had existed between them, and requested secretariat to forward materials thus collected to governments of all aforementioned countries for further comment, and to submit a report to next session of committee on development of trade.

6. UK made most outspoken statement of any Western European country defending licensing policy, Marshall Plan, etc. Scandinavians in general endeavored to avoid substance of discussion trade discrimination and “dumping” and indicated opposition to USSR resolution as a political question which had no place in ECE debate. Danes also deplored Yugoslav attacks on Eastern countries and drew from Yugoslavs an even more forceful statement of their case than earlier speech. Belgium and Netherlands spoke out against USSR resolution and countered anti-Marshall Plan charges of East, Dutch in particular refuting charges that Western Europe being forced to take US goods.

7. In vote on Soviet resolution Yugoslavia abstained, five Eastern countries voted for and eleven Western European countries against.

8. There was another round of speeches explaining votes following formal introduction of Yugoslav resolution. Philip¹⁰ opened by drawing distinction between Soviet resolution and indicated he had been much impressed by fact that countries to which Yugoslavia had referred replied not with facts but with epithets. He added, however, that Yugoslav resolution would [not?] in his view lead to a solution of problem, that it was function of ECE Trade Committee to try to restore trade and not to arbitrate disputes and that for these reasons he would abstain. Philip vigorously attacked by Arutiunian who declared that abstention indicated a desire to frustrate work of committee. Eastern countries generally attacked both Philip and Yugoslavia. Scandinavian countries indicated that they would vote against Yugoslav resolution on grounds that it not appropriate type of work for commission. Finns raised question of possible conflict between resolution and terms of reference which state that commission may take no action with respect to any country without the consent of that country. Further debate adjourned while Secretariat and chairman ponder ruling on this point. If proposal brought to a vote, US proposes to abstain, explaining abstention in terms similar to French. Believe UK, Benelux, Greece and Turkey will do likewise.¹¹

9. Commission received request from ICFTU to speak on economic situation and will be heard, together with WFTU in discussion of survey. Commission heard Myrdal’s explanation of proposed new work on price information and financial questions. UK indicated coolness to first and opposition to second. US indicated support of first and opposition to second.

French indicated luke-warm support of first but did not comment on second. Further discussion on both questions being continued by Myrdal with heads of delegations and upshot will be reported in later telegram.

10. Report of Transport Committee, which had been postponed until solution of Polish freight car issue, was taken up as last item June 8 and noted. Separate telegram being sent on freight car settlement.

Sent Department 709; repeated information Paris Torep 95. [USDel ECE.]

1. This telegram was transmitted via the facilities of the Consulate in Geneva.
2. The Fifth Session of the Economic Commission for Europe was held in Geneva, May 31 to June 15, 1950; for the official report on the session, see Part III of the Annual Report of the Economic Commission for Europe, May 22, 1949–June 15, 1950. U.N. doc. E/1674 (E/ECE/119), June 15, 1950. For a summary analysis of the session, see telegram 742, Noce 757, June 16, from Geneva, p. 33.
3. The reference here is to the ECE Committee on the Development of Trade. For documentation on the participation by the United States in the activities of this Committee during 1949, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. v, pp. 61 ff.
4. In the course of the Commission’s discussion of the work of the Committee on the Development of Trade, the Soviet Delegation proposed a resolution instructing the Committee to develop recommendations for measures to develop and extend trade between European countries and to eliminate the alleged discrimination practiced by the United States and certain unnamed European countries, and requesting the ECE Executive Secretary to submit a report on the adverse effect to the economy of European countries of American exports “Imposed under the Marshall Plan”.
5. Gunnar Karl Myrdal.
6. Regarding the proposals for a “grain exchange” under reference here, see the editorial note, p. 233.
7. Robert E. Asher, Chief of the United States Resident Delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe; Alternate United States Representative to the Fifth Session of the Commission.
8. A substantial excerpt from Asher’s statement of June 7 is printed in Raymond Dennet and Robert K. Turner, eds., Documents on American Foreign Relations, vol. XII, January 1–December 31, 1950 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press for the World Peace Foundation, 1951), pp. 53–54.
9. Joža Vilfan, Yugoslav Second Deputy Foreign Minister; Yugoslav Representative to the Fifth Session of the Economic Commission for Europe.
10. André Philip, Deputy in the French National Assembly; Chairman of the French Delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe.
11. Telegram 721, Noce 751, June 11, from Geneva, not printed, proposed that the United States Delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe abstain from voting on the Yugoslav resolution on the grounds that nothing was to be gained by its passage, but the United States Delegation would state that the Yugoslav Delegation had made a convincing case and had indicated Yugoslavia’s success in maintaining its independence (340.240/6–1150). Telegram 703, Econ 574, June 12, to Geneva, not printed, authorized this proposed line of action, but only on the assumption that the Eastern European Delegations would not withdraw from the meetings over the issue (340.240/6–1150). Telegram 728, Noce 755, June 13, from Geneva, not printed, reported that the Economic Commission for Europe that day voted down the Yugoslav resolution 8 to 1 with 8 abstentions. The Scandinavian Delegations joined the Delegations from Eastern Europe in voting against the resolution, while the other Western European Delegations and the United States abstained (340.240/6–1350).