TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY·SECOND PLENARY MEETINGHeld at Fhlshing Meadow, New York, on Wednesda.y, 16 November 1949, at 3 p.t».

President: General Carlos P. R6MULc> (Philippines)

or exacerbated nationalism which were exploitedby totalitarian demagogy, whether nazi-fascist orcommunist, and which obstructed economic de­velopment in certain countries.

107. The basic principles governing the utiliza­tion of capital under the new form of capitalismcould constitute the foundations for an agree­ment to which States could voluntarily subscribe.

108. That step would seem to be the naturalconcomitant of the programme of technical assist­ance which would lead to a study of the possi­bilities of economic development. Such develop­ment would be financed with available capital. Thefinancing would be effected by various methods;at times it would be undertaken by the State bymeans of loans; at other times it would be under­taken by private investors who would be givensufficient guarantees and would not be subjectedto discriminatory measures.

109. Mr. Anze Matienzo felt that it was essen­tial to reconcile those methods of financing inorder to carry out the great joint undertaking.The State, using funds derived from loans, wouldhave to equip areas or establish public services.Foreign capital investments could then be put toeffective use in the development of the countryand the improvement of the economic and socialconditions of the population. Such co-ordination,first within a country and then at a regional level,between a number .of countries, would finally re­sult in the development of the whole world forthe greatest happiness of all manki.nd.

110. The representative of Bolivia wished, inconclusion, to emphasize a point which he felt tobe of the greatest importance. The United Nationswould provide technical assistance to the countrieswhich requested it; that was an admirable ex­ample of respect for the sovereignty and inde-

mony, a product of the co-ordination of separatenational economies, would have made it possiblegradually to eliminate all barriers to internationaltrade. Since, unfortunately, that had not been thecase, the Uruguayan delegation had considered theamendment SUbmitted by the Polish delegation tobe adequate and had voted for it.3. A settlement of the world economic problemwas of primary importance to all nati.ons and anundertaking in which all countries were involved.Economic activity was meaningless unless it wasdirected towards the service of man, just as thewealth resulting from such activity was not an endin itself.4. In the modern world, the interdependence ofnations was displayed throughout the world instriking fashion. Centuries before, it would havebeen possible for some tremendous war or terri­ble catastrophe to take place in one part of theworld, while areas far distant from the scene ofthe tragedy would not have suffered in the leastfrom the upheaval. But times had changed.Methods of transport and communication and thechain of interests that linked all parts of the

16 November 1949

pendence of nations. It would be advisable, how­ever, that the United Nations organ responsiblefor the co-ordination of technical assistance shouldutilize the sources of information and the researchbodies of the United Nations as well as thestudies undertaken by the regional economic com­missions. It would thus be in a position to giveGovernments a general picture which would en­able them to have a sufficiently extensive grasp ofthe economic conditions and factors prevailingthroughout the world. Each Government couldthen decide to give priority to the development ofa particular sector of its economy, the choice de­pending on whether that sector offered most ad­vantages or was most suitable for the develop­ment of foreign trade. It would thus be able toadjust itself more easily to an organized worldeconomy by avoiding, as far as possible, a com­petition seriously detrimental to the progress ofcertain regions.111. The United Nations organ responsible forco-ordinating technical assistance should likewiseencourage particular types of production whichwere of vital importance to some countries; coun­tries which did not have the same need for thoseproducts could concentrate on other fields of pro­duction, according to the excellent maxim of. liveand let live.112. When the four draft resolutions of theSecond Committee were put to the vote, Boliviawould support them, thus associating itself withthe hopes of the world; it did not forget the reali­ties and difficulties inherent in the ever-perilousplay of interests, but it was prepared to do its bestto transform those hopes into reality.113. The PRESIDENT declared the list of speakersdosed and adjourned the discussion until theafternoon meeting.

The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.

202242nd plenary meeting

Economic development of under.developed countries: report of theSecond Committee (A/I064) andreport of the Fifth Committee(A/I072) (concluded)

1. Mr. TEJERA (Uruguay) said that for coun­tries whose only wealth lay m the vitality of theirinstitutions and the general culture of their in­habitants, it was of fundamental importance thatthe problems affecting general world harmonyshould be adequately settled. Among the factorsexercising the greatest influence on the generaldestiny of human society were economic condi­tions.

2. The General Assembly had before it draftresolutions emanating originally from the Eco­nomic and Social Council, the Chilean delegationand the Cuban delegation, the latter having beenamended by the Polish delegation. If the draftresolution submitted to the Second Committee bythe Uruguayan delegation had been accepted, itwould not have been necessary to discuss customstariffs specifically, because general economic har-

16 November 1949 203 242nd plenary meeting

world had created a total interdependence amongall nations. Anything happening in any part of theworld affected all countries.

5. However, in regard to certain fundamentalproblems, the world's spiritual and material inter­dependence was not expressed in equal responsi­bilities or equal sufferings. There was a smallgroup of wealthy countries and a large number ofimpoverished countries. There were parts of theworld where undisguised economic anarchy pre­vailed. There were surpluses of basic foodstuffsand other necessities of life which could not bedisposed of. There were, or had been formerly,.thousands of tons of coffee which had first beenstored and then thrown into the sea because therewere no markets for it, while at the same timemillions of people had gone without coffee. Therestill existed, in many parts of the world, enormoussurpluses of wool which were stored in ware­houses, or spoiling, while on the other hand mil­lions of people had to go without woollen clothingand did not even have enough to wear. Therewere vast surpluses of wheat and yet millions ofpeople had to go without bread because in theircountries there was no wheat.

6. Those were the hard facts. The Assemblyshould bear them in mind and establish someform of co-ordination of the various nationaleconomies in order to produce what was neces­sary and also devise means of marketing surplusesso that no one should have to go without whenthe means to satisfy the demand existed elsewhere.

7. A serious disequilibrium existed as a resultof the wealth of a few countries amid the pov­erty of the many. That wealth was largely theproduct of technical advances combined with thenatural advantages by some parts of the world, incontrast to the paucity of natural resources inothers. However, that inequality could be elimi­nated or at least alleviated by the spirit of co­operation which reigned in the Assembly andwhich had been abundantly and eloquently dem­onstrated during the discussion of the matter inthe Second Committee.

8. Unless measures were taken to deal with thesituation, some parts of the world would have tosurround themselves by powerful tariff walls inorder to protect their economies and some of theirindustries. Those economic factors led to autarkyeverywhere and made for general disequilibriumand discord, which drew the nations towards over­whehning catastrophe.

9. In political conflict, it was difficult to recon­cile the ideal with reality. It was probably thatdifficulty which had arisen in the minds of manyrepresentatives who, without understanding theintention underlying the Uruguayan draft resolu­tion, had expressed complete disagreement withthe facts described by the delegation of Uruguay.

10. The world could not work on a basis ofprejudice, fears and hesitations. In the UnitedNations, where the efforts of the civilized nationsof the world to organize the world's future on abasis of peace and justice were being encouraged,fear, hesitation, mistrust and prejudice must becast out so that the Organization's work could ad­vance along a sure road. There was no need to beafraid of ideas which could be basic factors inuniversal advancement, as had happened in thecase of the opinions put forward in the SecondCommittee when that topic was being discussed.

11. Although the Uruguayan delegation wishedthat the fundamental problem under considerationcould have been discussed on the basis it had itselfproposed, it felt that it would be wrong to denythat the draft resolutions before the Assemblymarked a real advance; they should be greeted byall men and peoples of good will as a step for­ward on the path to economic rehabilitation.12. Draft resolutions A and B on technical as­sistance, draft resolution C on the financing ofeconomic development, based on the Chilean draft,and draft resolution D 011 international trade.based on the Cuban draft, were all focused on dif­ferent aspects of the economic question whichclaimed the world's attention. Uruguay would co­operate to the full, within the limits of its strengthand resources, in carrying out those resolutionsand its delegation would therefore 'Vote for them.13. Mr. ZAYED (Egypt) emphasized the indis­putable importance and vital necessity of economicdevelopment and technical .assistance to under-de­veloped areas in particular and to the whole worldin general. That had been brought out in the dis­cussions in the Second Committee as well as in theAssembly. He would not, therefore, dwell on thepoint nor on the first three draft resolutions, sincethey had all been unanimously adopted by theSecond Committee. His delegation supported allthree whole-heartedly.14. He would confine himself to draft resolutionD and, in particular, to the last phrase which re­ferred to the recognition of "protective customstariffs as an efficient factor in the creation and de­velopment of the national industries of under­developed countries". It was that phrase whichhad been so vehemently opposed at the 24lst meet­ing by the representatives of the United Statesand France. The Egyptian delegation wished toexpress its support of draft resolution D andwould not agree to any alteration in the last sixlines, since that would be tantamount to a completedenial of the roison d'Btre of the whole draft.15. It was hardly conceivable that a mild state­ment of the universally accepted principle that theprotection of infant industries constituted legiti­mate grounds for the imposition of tariffs couldarouse so much opposition. It was true, however,that none of the opponents of the last part of thedraft resolution had gone so far as to suggest thattariffs were purposeless or unnecessary. Even theHavana Charter, which had been repeatedly in­voked, recognized in article 13, paragraph 1, that"special governmental assistance may be requiredto promote the establishment, development orreconstruction of particular industries or branchesof agriculture, and that in appropriate circum­stances the grant of such assistance in the form ofprotective measures is justified".16. Mr. Zayed recalled that during the discus­sion in the Second Committee, the opponents ofthe last paragraph of draft resolution D, whilethey had all invoked the Havana Charter, had dif­fered in their reasons for doing so. Some hadmaintained that the wording was in flagrant con­tradiction to the spirit of the Havana Charter,while others had believed that it was unnecessaryto reiterate the right of under-developed coun­tries to protect their infant industries, since thatright was already recognized in article 13 of the

1 See Official Records of the fourth session of theGeneral Asse'mbly, Second Committee, 88th to H>3rd and113th meetings.

242nd plenary meeting

Havana Charter. The latter interpretation ob­viously implied that there was no contradictionbetween draft resolution D and the spirit of theHavana Charter.17. Those two interpretations could not both beright; but it was possible that they were bothwrong. The Egyptian delegation held the latterview. It did not believe that the provision inquestion would impede the operation of the Ha­vana Charter, if and when it entered into force butat the same time it could not agree that the re­iteration of the principle was meaningless orsuperfluous. The reason was clear. The principalobjective of the Havana Charter was the liberali­zation of international trade. The promotion ofeconomic development appeared at best as a minorobjective.18. An official guide to the study of the HavanaCharter published by the State Department of theUnited States stated that the charter of the In­ternational Trade Organization had one over-allpurpose which should be borne in mind in anystudy of the provisions of that document; thatpurpose was to establish and maintain, by mutualagreement, an "open" or multilateral system oftrade relations between members of the organiza­tion, and to expand On businesslike principles thetrade of each member with all other members',

19. The Havana Charter referred to the promo­tion of economic development as one of the aimsin view, but laid the main emphasis on the re­moval of barriers to international trade. That waswhy the recognition of the right of under-de­veloped countries to impose protective measureswas mentioned merely as an exception to be tol­erated only if all the safeguards and conditionswhich restricted the area of practical applicationwere met.

20. Draft resolution D, however, laid the mainemphasis on economic development, not on theestablishment of an open system of internationaltrade relations.

21. As the main emphasis was laid on the va­rious effects of international economic and com­mercial policy on the process of economic de­velopment, it was only appropriate to point outthat protective tariffs were an efficient factor inthe creation and development of domestic indus­tries.22. The Egyptian delegation wished to repeatthat the last paragraph of draft resolution D didnot espouse the cause of isolationism or discrimi­nation. It simply stated that tariffs were an effi­cient factor in the creation and development ofdomestic industries. That had never been disputedand there was no reason, therefore, to outlineagain the familiar case for protective tariffs. Itwas only fair, however, to remind those who op­posed the last part of draft resolution D that pastexperience testified to the effective part whichtariffs had played in the creation and develop­ment of domestic industries.23. It should also be remembered that somehighly industrialized countries were still protectingtheir mature industries by high tariff walls, whilemany under-developed countries lacked any suchprotection for their infant industries owing to the

1 See Havana Charter for an International TradeOrganization, March 24, 1948, including an official guideto the study of the Charter, page 3. Department of Statepublication 3206, Commercial Policy Series 114.

16 November 1949

limitations which past or existing colonial policieshad imposed on their legitimate rights in that field.

24. Mr. Zayed therefore believed that the Ha­vana Charter did not provide valid grounds fordenouncing the last paragraph of draft resolutionD. The opposition of some industrial countries tothe draft resolution would have the effect of rais­ing serious doubts in under-developed countries asto the fa.vourable attitude of the Industrial TradeOrganization to the cause of .economic develop­ment. Such doubts might seriously.undermine thepopularity of the Havana Charter.

25. The Egyptian delegation stood by the posi­tion it had maintained in the Second Committeeand urged all members to vote for draft resolu-.tion D.

26. Mr. HASSAN (Pakistan) said his dele­gation wished to associate itself heartily with mostof what had been said in support of the momen­tous draft resolutions under consideration. Theiradoption was expected to contribute to the openingof a new era of economic progress and prosperityfor under-developed countries. The existingeconomic disparities between various parts of theworld were very glaring and formed a constantsource of friction and unhappiness for mankind.

27. It was a happy augury that the GeneralAssembly was considering measures which would,to some extent, put an end to that state of affairs.The under-developed countries, with the help ofthat programme, were likely to ameliorate theireconomic conditions and bring themselves nearerto the economic and cultural level of the rest ofthe world.

28. The delegation of Pakistan supported all thedraft resolutions resulting from the discussions ill

the Second Committee. Most of the drafts hadbeen adopted unanimously. In certain cases dif­ferences of opinion had been expressed, but onthe whole the draft resolutions represented thelargest measure of agreement on those vital issues.The Pakistan delegation did not wish to reopenthe discussion at the moment. Although it mighthave wished for a difference in the emphasis laidon certain points, it was willing to maintain theunanimity of opinion reached in the Second Com­mittee and in that spirit it would support the draftresolutions as they stood.

29. Mr. CHAUVET (Haiti) said that Haiti hadhad the privilege of being the first country to wel­come a United Nations technical mission to studythe factors influencing its economic development.In the light of that mission's work, it was possibleto draw certain conclusions.

30. The structure of all. the under-developedcountries was marked by three features: severepressure of population, too low a level of con­sumer spending and a static condition of economicdevelopment. In simple terms, the solution con­sisted in modernizing agriculture and putting intoeffect a policy of industrialization, so that theremight be a substantial increase in the averageannual income of consumers; that in turn wouldmake it possible to raise the level of con­sumption and at the same time to stimulateindividual saving. The final aim of increasingindividual purchasing power harmonized with thesocial aim of increasing the national income.

-------------------20516 November 1949

31. The conclusions and recommendations ofUnited Nations missions should form a singlewhole. The emphasis, however, should be placedon economic development. Such development pre­supposed the concorda.nce of agricultural, indus­trial, transport, banking, monetary, fiscal andbudgetary policies; moreover, in order that itmight be achieved progressively, the monetary costof reconstruction must be assessed.32. In the execution of a programme, no accountwould be taken of private investment and its ef­fects, at least during the first two years. At theoutset, investment would take the form of addi­tional government expenditure. It would serve todirect economic policy along the necessary lines;that would be the starting point in the reorgani­zation of the structure of the various activities inwhich the State intervened either as legislator,producer, or partner.33. The first stage of government action wouldbegin with the preparation of the first plan foreconomic equipment and modernization.34. The plan would combine in a single solutionthe various partial solutions relating to popula­tion, agriculture, power, transport, industry, em­ployrnent, currency and credit, public finance, andexternal economic relations.

35. The preparation and putting into effect ofthe first plan would be directed in the first placetowards satisfying the community's material needsand its needs for development, and secondlytowards decreasing the dependence of the localeconomy on international economy.

36. Such a policy in no way implied the crea­tion of a self-sufficient economy; it required a ra­tional mobilization of available resources in orderto obtain optimum productivity, or at least themaximum productivity possible, given the factorsof production.

37. The implementation of the plan should raisethe national income from the existing level to ahigher one. If national income was static, produc­tion must be so directed that there was an in­crease in income. That must be the. basic objec­tive of any plan of economic development; it mustbe the permanent objective if the maximum vol­ume of consumption were to be reached and ifsavings were to reach a level at which theyaccelerated capital formation.

38. Mr. Chauvet hoped that his observationswould help to facilitate plans of technical assist­ance and economic aid for the under-developedcountries, and said his delegation would vote en­thusiastically for the draft resolutions submittedto the Assembly by the Second Committee.

39. Mr. MEJfAS PALAC10S (Colombia) said hehad not intended to speak in the debate, but cer­tain observations made in the course of it hadstruck him forcibly and induced him to commentupon them.40. In the first place, it had been asserted that theplan for technical assistance for the smaller COUIl­

tries was too broad and too generous. Yet surelywhat was being planned was not charity but anundertaking of common concern to both thelarge and the smaller countries, since the relation­ship between the different parts of the world inmodem times required the participation of the lessdeveloped countries in world trade in order toavoid imbalance.

242nd plenary meeting

41. To deal with the crisis of 1930, each countryhad concentrated upon the creation of employmentwithin its Own territory in order to maintain con­sumer capacity and the operation of its economicsystem as a whole. The world had changed sincethat time. What was immediately essential wasthat all nations should work in such a way thatuniversal consumer capacity equalled productivecapacity and that the great industrial countrieswere able to market their surpluses in consumercountries. To that end, those countries must behelped to increase their consumption. Thus thematter under discussion could well be called amatter of common concern,

42. With regard to draft resolution D, Mr. Me­jias Palacios reminded the Assembly that he hadabstained from voting for it in the Second Com­mittee. The Committee had adopted it, however,and it should therefore be supported by theAssembly. The programme of technical assistancehad as its objective the satisfaction of the needsof the peoples; no restrictions should be placedupon it for fear that it might, directly or indirect­ly, prejudice the interests of other regions. Somedegree of tariff protection was the only way inwhich industry in growing countries could develop.Colombia had always upheld that principle.

43. The representative of Colombia recalled thatthe Economic and Social Council at its ninth ses­sion had adopted its resolution 222 B (IX) underwhich the programme of technical assistancewould be carried out through the United Nationsand its specialized agencies and also in conjunc­tion with certain regional organs of great inter­national importance. That resolution should betaken into account when the general United Na­tions programme of technical assistance was putinto effect and every effort should be made to en­sure the co-operation of those regional organs andto avoid hampering them or interfering with theirplans. Mr. Mejias Palacios called particular atten­tion in that connexion to the Organization ofAmerican States.

44. Mr. CORTINA (Mexico) said he would com­ment only on the Lebanese representative's state­ment (241st meeting) that new ideas were needed10 direct and guide investment designed to pro.­mote the economic development of under-de­veloped countries, because private capital would110t be interested in investments which did notoffer attractive prospects of profit.

45. Mr. Cortina agreed with that statement in sofar as it drew attention to the existence of regionswhere only governmental action could produceresults conducive to general prosperity. It shouldbe borne in mind, however, that where govern­mental control was necessary for the execution ofdevelopment plans, the possibility of carrying outthose plans in the interests of the entire popula­tion, rather than ill th e interests of small oligarchicgroups within the under-developed country con­cerned, was as important as the return on foreigncapital investment. What was needed was not theinitiation of negotiations with a view to enrich­ing the bankers in the under-developed countries,but generous and large-scale action in the interestsof the people of each country,

46. Mr. Cortina hoped that draft resolutions A,Band C would be adopted by the Assembly withthe same unanimity as had been displayed in theSecond Committee.

206242nd plenary meeting

47. Draft resolution D consisted of two parts.The first was a recommendation that the Economicand Social Council in its studies on developmentof under-developed countries, should pay furtherattention to questions of international economicand commercial policy. The second was a requestthat the Council, when it engaged in that work,should take into account the discussion which hadtaken place in the Second Committee and, in par­ticular, the opinions about the necessity of pro­tective customs tariffs as an efficient factor inindustrialization.48. With regard to the first part, it appeared thatthe consensus of opinion was favourable.49. With regard to the second, certain objectionshad arisen which could be attributed to misunder­standing or ignorance of the subject matter. Theonly virtue of that second part was that it was areference to a fact which the General Assemblycould not disregard even if it wished to do sobecause what had already happened belonged tothe past and therefore was part of history.50. The second part of the third paragraph ofdraft resolution D merely requested the Economicand Social Council to take the record into ac­count. That would be done in any case, whateverthe Assembly's decision might be. Since the mat­ters discussed in the Second Committee were afait accompli which the Economic and SocialCouncil could not fail to take into account, thatpart of the draft resolution might appear to besuperfluous. It should, however, be retained, be­cause, if it were debated, it might be said subse­quently that the Assembly had decided againstprotective tariffs. It was obvious that such an as­sertion would be absolutely and utterly incorrect.The representative of France, however, had said atthe 241st meeting that he interpreted the secondpart of the draft resolution as an affirmationof the need for protecting economic developmentby means of tariffs. That representative couldconsequently assert in the Economic and SocialCouncil that the rejection by the Assembly of thatpart of the draft resolution was tantamount to thecondemnation of the principles of protectivetariffs.

51. Mr. Cortina believed that countries which,like Mexico. still needed tariff barriers for theirindustrialization, should exercise great caution inthe matter. .

52. Mr. ARUTIUNIAN (Union of Soviet Social­ist Republics) said the question of economic de­velopment of under-developed countries and tech­nical assistance to such countries was not new.On the initiative of the economically less develop­ed countries, that question had been discussed byvarious organs of the United Nations. It had beenthoroughly considered by the Economic and SocialCouncil at its ninth session and by the SecondCommittee during the current session of the Gen­eral Assembly. Hence he would be brief, as thePresident had requested, but he. felt bound to saya few words in reply to statements made beforethe General Assembly by certain representatives.53. The representative of the United States hadsaid (241st meeting) that he would vote againstthe second part of the last paragraph of draftresolution D and that, if that part were adopted,he would vote against the draft as a whole. Hehad not discussed the substance of the text; he hadreduced the whole question to one of procedure

16 November 1949

and had asked that the text should be voted on inparts.54. Mr. Arutiunian had noted with pleasure thatall the speakers who had followed the representa­tive of the United States and who had spoken inthe name of the economically under-developedcountries had opposed the position adopted bythat representative. Thus on the extremely impor­tant question of the development of the nationalindustries of the under-developed countries, twopoints of view had emerged.SS. Draft resolution D proposed very limitedobjectives; it asked the Economic and SocialCouncil to study the question of the influence oftariff protection on the development of the indus­tries of the under-developed countries. The repre­sentative of the United States, however, opposedthat proposal with a persistence which gave causefor reflection.56. Everyone knew that the only way to protectthe industries of young countries which were onlybeginning to develop was to take measures to pro.tect them against the competition of the indus­trially stronger countries. In the absence of pro­tective measures of that sort, the great capitalisticmonopolies, the corporations, trusts and cartels,had only to export on a large scale in order todestroy every attempt to organize national indus­tries in the under-developed countries.57. Some speakers had spoken of past history.But history showed that no industrial country hadbeen able to develop its production without theprotection of customs tariffs. That had been thecase in the United Kingdom, Germany, Franceand the United States. Far from constituting theexception, the United States was among thosewhich most consistently practised a policy of pro­tective tariffs. Despite its highly developed indus­try, the United States was the country with thehighest tariffs. Mr. Arutiunian was reminded ofthe well known adage to the effect that preceptshould be followed rather than example.

58. For the under-developed countries, the ques­tion of the development of their industries was ofconsiderable importance, for their independencedepended upon it. They could free themselvesfrom an political or economic oppression only byestablishing well-balanced industries.

59. For all those reasons, the USSR delegationwould vote for the draft resolution submitted bythe Second Committee and against the proposalsof the United States representative.60. Mr. Arutiunian wished to comment next onthe question of private capital investments. It wasinteresting to see the motives which led privatecapital to invest abroad. Certain representatives,in particular the representative of Bolivia (241stmeeting), had painted a truly idyllic picture tothe Assembly; to judge by his remarks one wasled to believe that private capital would rush toinvest abroad in order to raise the standard ofliving of backward populations - a truly Chris­tian mission. If that were really so, private capitalshould not forget that there was much to be doneat home to raise the standard of living.61. The newspapers had just published thefigures furnished by one of the Sub-Committeesof the United States Congress, which indicatedthat, in 1948, 8 million families or persons in theUnited States had had an income of 1,000 dollars

16 November 1949 207 242nd plenary meeting

or less. Moreover, 25 per cent of all the familiesor persons living in the United States had anaverage income of less than 2,000 dollars. TheSub-Committee considered that that income couldnot suffice to meet the minimum needs of thoseconcerned.

62. If, therefore, American capital was inspiredby the idealistic considerations ascribed to it bythe Bolivian representative, it should begin byputting an end to poverty in the United Statesitself.

63. The true reasons for the export of capitalwere quite different. If capital was exported froma country, it was because that country did notprovide the necessary conditions and did not pre­sent an adequate field for the advantageous utili­zation of capital. By contrast, the high profitswhich could be obtained in under-developed coun­tries attracted capital. In those countries, labourand raw materials were generally cheap, whereasthe price of manufactured goods was high. In thefinal analysis, the question was one of a differencein the level of profits.

64. According to the latest figures, privateAmerican capital invested abroad in 1947 hadamounted to 16,700 million dollars. That had beena perfectly natural and normal export of capital,for the export of capital, in the same way as allinternational trade, was an essential part of inter­national relations in the economic field.

65. Such measures had nothing to do with hu­manitarian considerations; they were simply anormal phenomenon of the world market. Butthere was a move afoot to use the United Nationsin order to create more favourable conditions forthe export of capital so as to swell the profits ofcapitalistic banks, corporations, trusts and monop­olies. There was much talk of drawing up con­ventions and of giving safeguards to investors ofprivate capital. Such safeguards, however, hadnothing to do with the United Nations; theOrganization could not sacrifice its authority tothe interests of banks and monopolies. The UnitedNations consisted of States and it was not its taskto protect the interests of the large capitalisticundertakings.

66. Mr. Arutiunian knew full well that certainStates, in particular the United States, were de­vel,!pin$" a vast progr~mme for th~ export ofcapital In order to obtain control, at little cost, ofthe under-developed countries, the colonies of theEuropean States and other areas of the world.That programme was known as point 4 of Presi­dent Truman's programme. Democratic circles inthe United States itself had emphasized that theprogramme was nothing other than a plan forUnited States colonial expansion. That was theprogramme which was linked to the question ofsafeguards for foreign capital.

67. tn connexion with point 4 of the UnitedStates programme of colonial expansion, Mr.Arutiunian felt bound to say that there was afundamental difference between the UnitedNations programme of technical assistance andthe one which was set forth in point 4. TheUnited Nations programme was based on the.principle of respect for the independence andsovereignty of under-developed countries; its aimwas to help such countries to strengthen theirnational economy so as to enable them to achievecomplete economic and political independence and

to raise their standard of living, in accordancewith the spirit of the Charter. But point 4 ofPresident Truman's programme was in factdirected against the political and economic inde­pendence of the under-developed countries.68. The United Nations programme was basedon the principle that there should be no discrimi­nation because of the political regime of a countryor ?ccause of the race or the religion of its in­habitants, By contrast, point 4 of PresidentTruman's programme drew political distinctionsbased on the frontiers which divided the world.Just as the Marshall Plan had divided Europe, sothe new programme was aimed at dividing theunder-developed countries.

69. The United Nations programme providedthat technical assistance should not serve as a pre­text for any economic or political interference inthe affairs of another country and that it shouldnot be made subject to any kind of political con­ditions. Point 4 of the Trurnan programme pro­vided exactly the opposite. The idea underlyingthat programme was that it should serve as a pre­text for interference in the internal affairs ofunder-developed countries. The situation in LatinAmerica was the best proof of that.

70. Since the representative of Bolivia hadspoken in the discussion, Mr. Arutiunian wouldtake Bolivia as an example. That country'seconomy was totally unbalanced i it was developedalong unilateral lines and bore semi-colonial fea­tures. It was based entirely on the mining andexport of a single raw material, tin, and thatindustry was mainly in the hands of United Statesnationals. The economy of Bolivia was entirelydominated by United States capital and Boliviahad thus become nothing but an adjunct ofthe large American monopolies which it suppliedwith tin.71. It was difficult to believe that a countrywhose economy was completely dominated by bigUnited States monopolies could be really free inthe political or economic sense. The Bolivianrepresentative's words in praise of foreign capitalprovided the best answer to that question.

72. The return on United States capital investedin Latin-American countries had amounted toover 500 million dollars in 1948. That huge sumhad been extracted by monopolies in one yearfrom countries most of which were under­developed. It was clear, therefore, that those coun­tries afforded possibilities for the formation oflocal capital; yet the representatives of Latin­American countries, and the Bolivian representa­tive in particular, did not take that factor intoconsideration.73. Citing another example, Mr. Arutiunian saidthat several hundred million dollars were exportedfrom Venezuela every year. The profits earned byforeign oil companies left the country and werenot included in Venezuela's national income.Indeed, many colonies received better treatmentthan that given to Venezuela by the large oil com­panies of the United States.

74. All those considerations forced the USSRdelegation to state that the question of privatecapital investment was not a matter with which theUnited Nations should concern itself. The UnitedNations could not draw up codes providingguarantees for private capital investments : theproblems it had to deal with in the field of inter-

242nd plenary meeting

countries. Several of those principles had in factfound expression in the resolutions of the Eco­nomic and Social Council as a result of the pro­posals made by the Polish delegation at the ninthsession of the Council. Although some of thePolish amendments had not met with the supportof the majority, the Polish delegation felt that thetext finally. adopted by the Council representedprogress in the Organization's work on economicdevelopment.

82. It was for that reason that, in the SecondCommittee, the Polish delegation had voted forthe draft resolutions submitted to the Committeeby the Economic and Social Council. It intendedto pursue the same policy in the Assembly. It wasfirmly convinced that the General Assembly byadopting the draft resolutions submitted to it andthereby endorsing the principles embodied in theresolutions of the Economic and Social Councilwould be taking a great step forward. Its actionwould really amount to a new and bold pro­gramme for putting those principles into practice.By adopting them, the General Assembly wouldalso pass stern 'Judgment on the former policy ofthe colonial and imperialist Powers towards theunder-developed countries.

83. It was obvious that the reason why thosecountries had failed to reach an advanced stageof economic, social or political development wasthat they had long been subjected to the ruthlesseconomic exploitation and political domination offoreign Powers. The delegation of Poland be­lieved that the elimination of that factor con­stituted a sine qua non for the further develop­ment of under-developed countries. The abolitionof every kind of economic exploitation and politi­cal domination could create the conditions indis­pensable to the achievement of the necessaryinternal reform of under-developed countries.Such reforms consisted in the abolition of all theanachronistic features of the social, economic andpolitical systems in the under-developed countriesand in the mobilization of the internal forces andresources for the promotion of true economic andsocial development. The chief aim should be tostrengthen the economic and political indepen­dence of those countries, to raise the whole com­munity's standard of living by better and fulleruse of the human and natural resources availableand to ensure to all the inhabitants better condi­tions of work, health and education. For thatreason it was particularly important that the peo­ples of the under-developed countries should,from the outset, exercise a decisive influence onthe development policy adopted by their Govern­ments. Only thus could the development of pro­ductive resources in under-developed countries beprevented from becoming the means of enrichinga small group of capitalists at the expense of thetoiling masses. Only thus could the striking dis­proportion in the standards of living of the dif­ferent population groups in those countries belessened.84. The efforts of the United Nations to helpthe under-developed countries towards economicdevelopment should be dissociated from theUnited States Government's efforts to deal withthe same problem. The repeated attempts of theUnited States and other delegations to combinethe United Nations programme with what wasusually called point 4 showed that the implicationsof the principles adopted by the Economic a.nct

2082<12nd plenary meeting

national economic co-operation were much moreimportant and much more serious..

75. It was clear, in the light of the brief re­marks Mr. Arutiunian had just made, thatalthough the draft resolutions on technical assist­ance had been unanimously approved by theSecond Committee, their execution would revealthe existence of two opposite tendencies on manyquestions. The first would be represented bycolonial countries headed by the United States,the United Kingdom and France. Their aimwould be to use technical assistance for gainingcontrol of under-developed countries. Those coun­tries would fight among themselves. The UnitedStates would try to evict the old European colo­nial Powers from their positions. The othertendency would be to achieve an honest applica­tion of the provisions of those resolutions. Itsmain supporters would be the under-developedcountries in need of technical assistance.

76. The Soviet Union would give all possible aidand encouragement to the small Powers whichendeavoured to pursue an honest policy designedto fulfil the excellent purposes of technical assist­ance to under-developed countries.

77. The future, therefore, was not as cloudlessas it might appear in view of the unanimity dis­played during the voting in the Second Commit­tee. That unanimity concealed two extremely dif­ferent outlooks on the way in which technicalassistance should be granted. History would showwhich of the two tendencies prevailed.

78. The USSR delegation supported the fourdraft resolutions submitted by the Second Com­mittee to the General Assembly and would votefor them as they stood.

79. Mr. WlERBLQWSKI (Poland) recalled thatduring the general debate (227th meeting), hehad stressed the importance which his delegationattached to the solution of the problem of assist­ance to under-developed countries. He had saidthat Poland supported the idea of the economicdevelopment of under-developed countries andthat the Polish delegation, which had taken thatposition in the general discussion on that questionduring the Economic and Social Council's ninthsession, would continue to support that idea. Buthe had drawn attention to the danger that thenational sovereignty of economically under­developed countries might be violated and thattheir interests might be subordinated to those ofcapitalism.

80. The General Assembly had before it theSecond Committee's report on the expanded pro­gramme of technical assistance, in addition to theUnited Nations permanent programme. The draftresolutions submitted by the Committee repre­sented the culmination of the efforts of the Eco­nomic and Social Council, which had devotedmuch time to the study of the problem; thev werethe fruits of the discussion held in the SecondCommittee during the current session of theGeneral Assembly.

81. Those draft resolutions confirmed the prin­ciples embodied in the resolutions which the Eco­nomic and Social Council had adopted at its ninthse~sion. In the Council, Poland had persistentlystriven for the adoption of the principles which.it felt, should constitute the permanent basis ofUnited Nations activities in the under-developed

-16 November 1949 200 242nd pletlar)' Dieethlll

Social Council and about to be confirmed by theGeneral Assembly through the adoption of thedraft resolutions submitted to it by the SecondCommittee had not yet been adequately graspedby all Members of the Organization.85. It was perfectly obvious that the chief objectof point 4 was to open the under-developed coun­tries to penetration by American private capitalwhich, as a result of the economic evolution of theUnited States, had been driven to seek opportu­nities for profitable investment abroad.

86. American capital was not interested in theindustrial development of under-developed coun­tries. Past experience and statements recentlymade by representatives of high finance provedthat American capitalists were seeking only toexploit large natural resources for the benefit ofthe United States economic system. They claimedthat under-developed countries should remain asource of cheap raw materials, exported in ex­change for manufactured goods supplied byAmerican industry.

87. It was obvious that such a programme didnot correspond to the needs of the under-devel­oped countries and was in :flagrant contradictionwith the principles which should govern the activi­ties of the United Nations in respect of economicdevelopment.

88. In the opinion of the Polish delegation, eco­nomic. development constituted a process whichshould involve all branches of the economicactivity of the countries concerned. It could notbe limited solely to agriculture or to the produc­tion of raw materials. The development of thedifferent branches of industry, including heavyindustry, depending, of course, upon the charac­ter of existing natural resources, was an indis­pensable part of any true economic advancement.It was clear that if such progress was to beachieved, the existing form of what was calledregional specialization would have to be thoroughlychanged. The Polish delegation believed that theprocess it had in mind would be healthy andnatural.89. Regional specialization, which various dele­gations had attempted to defend during the debateon that subject in the Second Committee, re­sulted from the existence of specific relationshipsbetween the prices of the products exchanged byvarious economic regions. Those relationships,however, were only the consequence of maintain­ing a great number of countries in a state ofeconomic under-development and political de­pendence. It was just that which should beeliminated.90. For those reasons the Polish delegation inthe Second Committee had opposed the adoptionof a draft resolution presented by the delegationof Uruguay which had stressed the importance ofmaintaining regional specialization. That draftresolution which had encountered the oppositionof a large number of delegations had finally beenwithdrawn.91. But the debate on that draft had shown thatalthough a group of principles which shouldgovern the future action of the United Nations inthe field of economic development had beenadopted certain delegations were attempting fromthe outset to limit the scope of that action and torestrain the legitimate aspirations of· under-

developed countries. It was hardly necessary tostress the danger which such tendencies repre­sented to the success of that undertaking. Itdemonstrated once again that some delegationsconfined themselves to purely formal statementsin favour of the idea of the economic developmentof under-developed countries, whereas they actu­ally thought that such development endangeredtheir selfish interests.

92. The tendency had emergedeven more clearlywhen the Second Commitee had considered adraft resolution submitted by the delegation ofCuba. That draft had dealt with the problem ofeconomic development from the point of view oftrade policy. The Cuban delegation had asked theAssembly to recognize the legitimacy of a policyof protective customs tariffs favouring newlycreated industries in the under-developedcountries.

93. That request had met with strong oppositionon the part of delegations representing indus­trialized countries and in particular on the partof the United States delegation. Some delegationshad even raised objections to the inclusion in theCuban draft resolution of any mention of theproblem of protective customs tariffs which, afterall, had been the chief topic under discussion. Theadoption by the Committee of an amendment sub­mitted by the Polish delegation, asking the Eco­nomic and Social Council in the studies it mightlater undertake on that subject to consider theopinions expressed in the Committee on the needfor protective customs tariffs as a stimulus to theeconomic development of under-developed coun­tries, had led to a split in the vote so that theCuban draft resolution had been adopted by amajority of 30 votes to 12, with one abstention.That had been, as it were, the touchstone of thesincerity of certain delegations. Once more proofhad been offered that a vote on a principle couldbecome pointless if there was no will to put thatprinciple into practice.94. The United States representative had saidthat his delegation would ask for a separate voteon the last part of the final paragraph of draftresolution D. It was clear that his object was thedeletion of that part. That attitude was regret­table. It was hoped that draft resolution D wouldbe approved as it stood.

95. The threat which such an attitude constitutedto the success of the undertaking must not beunderestimated. It was not enough to vote infavour of certain principles; it was more impor­tant to give sympathetic consideration to theaspirations of the under-developed countries. Butit was impossible to find the least trace of sym­pathy or understanding in the attitude which theUnited States delegation had adopted on thematter.96. If the draft resolutions submitted by theSecond Committee. were adopted, the GeneralAssembly would certainly have taken a great stepforward; but it was only the first step. No matterhow important technical assistance was, it wouldnot solve the problem of the economic develop­ment of under-developed countries unless it wasfollowed by other measures. The Polish delegationlaid particular emphasis on the financing of eco­nomic development which was to be discussed bythe Economic and Social Council at its followingsession. It hoped that those discussions. would be

210-242nd plenary meeting

fruitful and that a number of specific recom­mendations would be submitted to the GeneralAssembly.. It also hoped that those recommenda­tions would be in conformity with the spirit andthe letter of the principles which the GeneralAssembly would endorse when it approved thedraft resolutions before it. Those principles,which had been adopted at the ninth session of theEconomic and Social Council, should -nnderlie allcurrent and future action by the United Nationswith respect to economic development; they shouldalso guide the policy of Member States towardsthe under-developed countries. Only thus couldthe United Nations successfully accomplish itswork and help to promote the economic, social andpolitical development of those countries.97. In conclusion, Mr. Wierblowski recalled thata degree of unanimity almost unprecedented in thehistory of the United Nations had been achievedin the Second Committee. That proved thatdespite existing differences of opinion it was pos­sible to reach agreement, given enough good will.He also thought that that degree of unanimity hadbeen achieved because the principles of the UnitedNations Charter had consistently been taken asthe basis in drafting the recommendations. It wastherefore clear that the faithful application ofthe spirit and the letter of the Charter constituteda solid basis for co-operation between MemberStates.98. Mr. PATIJN (Netherlands) felt that the lastparagraph of draft resolution D should not beaccepted by the General Assembly. That para­graph recommended that the Economic and SocialCouncil should take into account a discussionwhich had taken place in the Second Committeeand, in particular, the opinions expressed re­garding the necessity for protective customstariffs as an efficient factor in the creation anddevelopment of the national industries of under­developed countries.99. The fact that special governmental assistancemight be needed to promote the establishment,development or reconstruction of particular indus­tries and that, in appropriate circumstances, thegrant of such assistance in the form of protectivemeasures was .iustified, was no longer open toquestion and did not require recognition by theGeneral Assembly as a new general principle.That principle had already been codified in article13 of the Havana Charter and provision had beenmade for its application in article 18 of the Gen­eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The lastpart of the final paragraph of draft resolutionD therefore raised an important point of pro­cedure. Most Members of the United Nations hadalready accepted explicit obligations covering theproblem of commercial protection for economicdevelopment.100. The Final Act of the United Nations Con­ference on Trade and Employment had beensigned by fifty-six countries, of which forty-sevenwere Members of the United Nations. TheHavana Charter was at the moment before thelegislatures of almost all those countries, and someof its provisions were already being applied bythirty-three nations under the General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade, Notwithstanding thosefacts, the draft resolution before the Assemblystated in general terms a principle which had beenincorporated in the Havana Charter and in theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in a

16 November 1949

special article of no less than ten paragraphs andmany sub-paragraphs, each of which had its ownlong history of study and debate.101. It was impossible to put such a principle intoone short sentence without disturbing the balanceof the complicated text of the convention. Theexperts had found it impossible to condense theidea and the procedure for its application, and theNetherlands delegation therefore felt that theGeneral Assembly should not try to do so. Anyattempt by the General Assembly to summarizea carefully drafted and lengthy text was boundto change the meaning of the text.

102. Since the draft resolution as it stoodstressed only one general idea out of a complicatedcontext of rules and procedures, it would beunderstood as an attempt to change the emphasis,to disturb the balance, to by-pass the provisionsof the Havana Charter and the General Agree­ment on Tariffs and Trade.

103. Mr. Patijn did not agree, therefore, withthe representatives of Egypt and Mexico that thelatter part of draft resolution D repeated a prin­ciple which had already found expression in theHavana Charter and that its deletion would tendto change the provisions of the Havana Charterregarding protective customs tariffs. If all the pro­visions of the Havana Charter on that point hadbeen repeated, that would be true. The difficultywas, however, that the last part of the draft reso­lution stated only one part of the principles laiddown in the Havana Charter and therefore alteredthe emphasis and impaired a carefully establishedbalance.104. While opposing that part of the draft reso­lution, the Netherlands delegation did not in anyway oppose the idea of special protective meas­ures for the promotion of economic development.It had not the slightest intention of opposing anidea that had been laid down in the HavanaCharter.

105. The representative of Poland had juststated that those who opposed that part of thedraft resolution were insincere. That was a some­what sweeping statement. The Netherlands dele­gation opposed the idea that the General Assemblyshould intervene by means of a resolution in asubject which had been fully covered by an ex­pert body of its own Members at a conferenceconvened under its own auspices.

106. The delegation of the Netherlands wouldtherefore vote against the latter part of the lastparagraph of draft resolution D.

107. Mr. ALVAREZ (Cuba) said his countryfully agreed with the principles set forth in draftresolutions A, Band C. With reference to draftresolution D, he recalled that the original draftresolution presented by his delegation had con­tained a paragraph in which the General Assemblyrecognized the necessity of establishing specialprotective customs tariffs in certain cases inunder-developed· countries in order to stimulateand promote their industrialization and economicdevelopment. That paragraph had met with par­ticular opposition, not so much because it statedthe principle, recognized in commercial agree­ments and treaties, that protective tariffs assistedeconomic development, but because it had beenthought that to enunciate that principle in a reso­lution whose main purpose Wa-ll to recommend

21116 November 1949

study of aspects of international economic andcommercial policy likely to further or hinder theeconomic development of backward countries,might to some extent prejudge that study.

108. Possibly in deference to the suggestions ofmany delegations, the representatives of Iraq, thePhilippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria had sub­mitted an amendment to the Cuban draft resolu­tion substituting for the two last paragraphs, oneof which referred to special protective tariffs, atext which, while remaining faithful to the spiritof the original draft, attempted to reconcile themost important differences which had emergedduring the debate.

109. At a subsequent informal meeting, theCuban delegation had agreed to the amendmentand to the deletion of the paragraph on protectivetariffs. It had done so in order to gain as manysupporters as possible for the draft resolution andbecause it had thought that the operative partof the text would be more effective in practice ifit were adopted unanimously or at least by a greatmajority.

110. The organs of the United Nations couldnot impose their decisions in economic matterson Member States. They could only approverecommendations, which would be accepted byGovernments of Member States only to the ex­tent to which agreement had been achieved amongthem. The economic dependence of the under­developed countries on the industralized countrieswas so great that if the latter did not of theirown free will make the necessary adjustments intariffs and trade, it would be very difficult toachieve the objectives of draft resolution D.

111. In order to obtain unanimous approval ofits draft resolution, the Cuban delegation had notonly accepted the amendment of Iraq, the Phil­ippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria and deleted theparagraph on protective tariffs, but had alsoaccepted the Chinese representative's suggestion;that suggestion had met with the support of thecountries which until then had opposed the draftresolution.

112. When unanimous approval of the Cubandraft had seemed certain, Poland had suddenlysubmitted an amendment. The amendment hadbeen an attenuated version of the Cuban para­graph concerning the necessity of special protec­tive tariffs, the paragraph which had been deletedas a result of the amendment of Iraq, the Philip­pines, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Polishamendment had been adopted by a majority ofonly one vote.

113. The inclusion of the Polish amendment inthe Cuban draft resolution had dispelled the hopeof unanimous approval which, as Mr. A1varez hadsaid would have been of great importance for theaccomplishment of the basic aims of theresolution.

114. The Cuban delegation drew the GeneralAssembly's attention to that important fact. Theparagraph concerning protective tariffs for under­developed countries had been deleted from ~he

original draft resolution for the sake of securmgvery general, if not unanimous,. support for whatcould be considered the most Important part ofthe draft resolution. It had been dropped forreasons of expediency and procedure, as theCuban delegation in fact felt that the principle of

242nd plenQl'Y paeetktg

protective tariffs for under-developed countriescould be considered in due time by the Economicand Social Council once some progress had beenmade in the studies on the influence of inter.national economic and commercial policy onthe economic development of under-developedcountries. . .

115. The Cuban delegation therefore expresslyreserved its right to reconsider, whenever cir­cumstances warranted, the important problem ofprotective tariffs as an effective factor in the de­velopment of the economies of under-developedcountries.

116. If those considerations were borne in mind,it would be possible to promote a spirit of under­standing and compromise which would make iteasier to arrive at the radical solutions whosenecessity would become apparent as a result ofthe studies and investigations on the effects ofinternational economic and commercial policy onthe economic development of under-developedcountries.

117. The PRESIDENT said that to judge from thevoting in the Second Committee and from thedebate which had taken place in the Assembly,there was unanimity with regard to draft resolu­tions A, Band C. Hence, if there were no ob­jections he would declare draft resolutions A, Band C adopted unanimously.

Resolutions A, B asui C were adoptedunanimously.118. The PRESIDENT stated that, at the requestof the representative of the United States, draftresolution D would be voted upon in two parts.He would therefore begin by putting to the votethe first and second paragraphs and the first partof the third paragraph, ending with the words"with a view to making recommendations to theGeneral Assembly". A roll-call vote had beenrequested.

A vote was taken by roll-call.Cuba, having been drawn by lot by the Presi­

dent, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Den~a~k,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia,France Greece Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland,India, Iran, Ir~q, Israel, Lebanon, Liberia, Lux­embourg, Mexico, Nethe~lands, New Zealand,Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan" Panama, Pe~u,Philippines, Poland, Sau~i.ArabIa~ Sweden; Syria,Thailand, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet. SOCialist ~e­public, Union of South ;Africa,. Union of SOVietSocialist Republics, United Kmg~om of GreatBritain and Northem Ireland, United States ofAmerica, Uruguay, Venezu~la, Yemen,. Yugo­slavia, Afghanistan, Argentina, Austr~lla, B~l­gium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Bye10r~sslan SOyletSocialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Chma,Colombia.

Against: None.Abstaining: None.The first part of the resolution was adopted by

SS votes to none.119. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the r~main­der of the last paragraph of draft resolution Dbeginning with the words "taking into accountthe discussion".

A vote was toke« by roll-call.

242nd plenary meeting 212 16 November 1949

Turkey, ha.ving been drawn by lot by the Presi­dent, was called upon to vote first.

In favour: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub­lic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay,Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan,Argentina, Brazil, Burma, Byelorussian SovietSocialist Republic, Colombia, Czechoslovakia,Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Pakistan,Poland, Saudi Arabia.

Against: Turkey, Union of South Africa,United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland, United States of America, Australia, Bel­gium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark,France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Nether­lands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru,Sweden.

Abstaining: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecu­ador, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon,Liberia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Syria, Thailand.

The second part of the last paragraph was re­jected by 21 votes to 20, with 14 abstentions.120. The PRESIDENT stated that if there wereno objections, he would declare draft resolutionD adopted as amended.

Resolution D wa,s adopted.121. The PRESIDENT next turned to the reportof the Fifth Committee (AjlO72). Inasmuch asno action was required on the budgetary aspectsof resolutions A and B which had just beenadopted, the General Assembly could simply takenote of the comments of the Fifth Committee.122. He would depart from the President'saccustomed non-participation in debates to speakon the question on which the Assembly had justtaken a decision. In justification of that unusualprocedure, he cited the fact that the three reso­lutions on technical assistance to under-developedcountries had been unanimously approved, thusestablishing one more solid precedent, unfortu­nately all too rare in the Assembly's deliberations,of general agreement on a matter of universalconcern. It was heartening 60 witness that demon­stration of unanimity upon such a vital subject.Despite the bitter political differences which haddivided Members on other questions, they had nothesitated to accept joint responsibility for the suc­cess of that beneficent enterprise.123. He wished to commend the efforts of theChairman of the Second Committee, Mr. SantaCruz, under whose able chairmanship the resolu­tions had been drafted, debated and adopted by aCommittee composed of Member States, all ofwhich must be praised for their co-operation inbringing about the successful result.124. Credit must also be given to the Secretary­General and to his staff. The Secretary-Generalhad fought for the' idea during the most difficult?ays.of the United Nations and had been untiring10 his efforts to have the plan properly imple­mented. Four months previously the Economicand Social Council had done excellent and con­structive pioneering work on the subject. The pro­gramme of technical assistance was one of themost constructive acts of international statesman­ship ever performed under the auspices of theUnited Nations. Members should all feel proudthat it was going to be reported as one of the

1 See Official Records of tite third session of theGeneral Assembly, Part I, Plenary .Meetings of theGeneral Assembly, Annexes, document A/614.

achievements of the current session of theGeneral Assembly.

Discriminations practised by certainStates against immigrating labour and,in particular, against labour recruitedfrom the ranks of refugees: reportof the Third Committee (A/I052)

125. Mr. VRBA (Czechoslovakia), Rapporteurof the Third Committee, presented the report ofthat Committee and the accompanying draft reso­lution (Aj1052).126. The item had originally been proposed bythe Polish delegation at the first part of the thirdsession of the General Assembly- and had beenconsidered by the Third Committee at its meet­ings on 14, 15 and 17 October 19492

•

127. The report showed that a Polish draft reso­lution had been rejected in the Committee by aseries of votes on the individual paragraphs. Thevotes on the different paragraphs had rangedfrom 18 to 25 votes against the draft resolutionand from 6 to 8 votes in favour of it, with 15 to21 abstentions. A counter-proposal to the Polishdraft resolution, namely, a draft resolution sub­mitted by the delegation of the United Kingdom,had been adopted by the Third Committee by37 votes to 6, with 4 abstentions, after it had beencompleted by the amendment of the Mexicandelegation.128. Mrs. ROOSEVELT (United States of Amer­ica) stated that the draft resolution submitted bythe Polish delegation, which had been defeated inthe Third Committee by a series of decisive votes,was being reintroduced as document Aj1084. Shewould like to recapitulate very briefly the reasonswhich had led her delegation to oppose that draftresolution in the Committee and which would, inher view, lead to its defeat in the Assembly.129. The Polish draft resolution dealt in a verygeneral way with a principle of which all Mem­bers were in favour. Discrimination against im­migrant labour was something which all Govern­ments deplored and sought to eradicate. It was aquestion, however, which had many technicalramifications, It was not possible to set down inhalf a page of general clauses the basis for inter­national action on an extremely complicatedsubject.130. Fortunately, the conclusions of the Inter­national Labour Organisation on the subject wereavailable. The ILO's Convention concerningMigration for Employment and its recommenda­tion on that matter were instruments which hadbeen carefully prepared and carefully negotiated.What was even more significant was that theyhad been adopted by most Member States of theUnited Nations. Mrs. Roosevelt saw no reasonfor the United Nations to traverse that groundagain. The draft resolution adopted by the major­ity of the members of the Third Committee tookinto account the work which had been done bythe ILO and provided that the ILO should beinformed of the Assembly's discussions. Thatseemed to her sufficient.131. .The United States delegation therefore sup­ported the draft resolution adopted by the Third

'See Official Records of the fourth session of theGeneral Assembly, Third Committee, 249th, 250thand.251st meetings.

s

16 November 1949 213 242nd plenary meeting

Committee and would vote against the draft reso­lution which had been resubmitted by the Polishdelegation.132. The PRF.5IDENT regretted that he had failedto call on the representative of Poland. who hadregistered his name first. The General Assemblyhad before it a substitute dra ft resolution sub­n~itted by the delegation of Poland. With dueapologies to the delegation of Poland, he calledon the Polish representative.133. Mr. WIERnr.owsKI (Poland) said that thePolish delegation had submitted its draft resolu­tion on immigrating- labour because the problemwas of great importa~ce to millions of ~Umallbeings in rnanv countries both from a SOCial andfrom a humanitarian point of view.

134. It was well known that foreign workerswere the victims of particular exploitation anddiscrimination. The General Assembly must ta~l."action to afford them social, legal and {"C0I10mll~

protection. Millions of human beings could notfind work in their homelands and were obliged tolook for it elsewhere. At the moment thcir num­ber was increased by the refugees and displacedpersons recruited from camps in Germany bymissions from the countries of immigration whichwere thus obtaining cheap labour.135. Although Poland was no longer a countryof emigration and ensured full employment forall its citizens within its own boundaries. it wasdirectly interested in the problem since it wasconcerned about the fate of Polish citizens whohad left their fatherland between the two wars,seeking the bitter bread of exile, or who had beenforcibly driven from their native country by theNazis and were scattered throughout the capital­istic world which looked on them as easily exploit­able labour.

136. The discusslon in the Third Committee hadshown that the problem was serious and de­manded an effective solution. The problem wasall the more urgent since migration was still con­tinuing as a result of till' policy of the Inter­national Refuzee Organization and its agents andas a result of the increase in unemplovment insome of the "Marshallizcd" countries of Europe,especially Italy.

137. The Polish representative had Jtiven manvexamples to the Third Committee showing thatdiscrimination of which immigrant labour was thevictim, was particularly noticeable in the matterof salaries. Immigrant workers were given thehardest kind of unskilled work and had nochances of promotion or professional training'.There was no need to go into details to show thelow level of wages which. for example, immigrantminers received in the United Kingdom, manualworkers in Latin America or Puerto Ricans inthe United States.

138. Discrimination was equally serious wheresecurity and work hygiene were concerned.Furthermore, in many countries foreign workerswho had accidents at work or who suffered fromoccupational diseases did not enjov 111e socialinsllranC't~ and allowances to which nationalworkers were entitled. When incapacitated theywere thrown out and left to starve to death, Thecase of the displaced persons working withoutcontracts in Belgium who hart been sent back toGermanv when they had fallen ill would not heforg'Otten. .

139. Housing conditions for immigrant workerswere generally bad. In that connexion it wassufficient to recaJl a series of articles on the shock­ing housing conditions of Puerto Ricans in theslums of the great modern metropolis in which theUnited Nations was situated; those articles hadbeen published a few weeks previously in theNet» York Post at the very time when one delega­tion had submitted a counter-proposal in the ThirdCommittee and had expressed doubt regarding theexpediency of the discussion and the need forUnited Nations action in the matter. As a furtherexample, mention might be made of the primitiveliving oonditions prevailing in the frequentlyvermin-infested barracks which did not meet themost elementary needs of hygiene and which wereinhabited by displaced persons working in theUnited Kingdom. in France, and in Louisianaand elsewhere in the United States.

140. The members of the Assembly would cer­tainly remember the story of the famous farm inManitoba, Canada, where displaced persons,dressed in rags, had worked on the sugar beetplantations ten hours a day and had lived packedin tumble-down, badly heated, filthy huts in festedwith vermin and rats. no more than thirty milesfrom 'iVinnipeg, the capital of Manitoba, Therewas no need to go into the wretched living andworking conditions of the displaced persons incertain countries in Latin America, since theIRO itself had had to give up the idea of settlingthem in those countries.

141. Displaced persons were subjected to excep­tional discrimination among immigrant workers.It was welt known that in certain recruiting coun­tries, such as Canada, immigrating displaced per­sons were forced to accept contracts of one ortwo years' duration which bound them to the fac­tories or plantations and gave them no possibilityof changing not only the kind but even the placeof their work. Their position became very muchthat of serfs in the Middle Ages.142. How could certain delegations rise inindignation when the Polish delegation called theIRO a slave-trading agency?

143. It was the dutv of the United Nations toput an end to till' wretched situation 0 f hundredsof thousands of miserable human beings tornfrom their native soil.

144. Tt was obvious that immigrant labourneeded effective protection. Although the laws ofseveral countries theoretically recognized theequality of the economic and social rights of im­migral'it workers, in practice the immigrants fellvictim to every kind of abuse.145. In order to protect the equality of rightsof immigrant workers more effectivelv and inorder to prevent emplovcrs from exploiting thepeculiarly difficult position of those workers asa means'of pressure to lower the 11vin~ standardsof national workers, the Polish delegation wasproposing in its draft resolution the conclusion ofbilateral inter-governmental conventions. Thoseconventions must lay down immiera tion condi­tions as well as living- and working conditionsand must be negotiated in participation with thetrade unions of the countries concerned.

146. The protection 0 f trarle union rights was ofthe first importance. In various countries, re­cently, the danzer to which the immigrant workerwas exposed when he took part in union activities

243rd plenary meeting 214 17 November 1949

TWO IllJNDRED AND FORTYMTHmn PLENARY MEETINGHeld at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Thursday, 17 November 1949, at 10.45 a.m.

President: General Carlos P. R6MULO (Philippines).

";"i

carried on by national workers in order to asserttheir rights had been clearly domonstrated.Administrative bodies took savage action againsthim and, when that was not sufficient, deportedhim.

147. In France, Polish workers and miners,although setttled there for many years, werearrested or deported when they took part in theunion activities of their French comrades; yet theconvention concluded between France and Polandin 1920 was still in force and guaranteed tradeunion rights for Polish workers, including theright to strike. At the same time, paradoxical asit might seem, the French Government, since1948, had placed difficulties in the way of therepatriation of workers who wished to return toPoland. '

148. The representative of Poland on the ThirdCommittee had cited many cases of the arrest ofPolish workers, of brutal treatment by the policeand of expulsions without due warning for themere fact of having taken part in a strike.Although the representative of France on theThird Committee had alleged that those had beenisolated cases, it must be pointed out that thoseso-called isolated cases were increasing to suchan extent that they were becoming a system. Themere fact that Polish workers were deprived ofthe right to strike was a flagrant violation of anessential trade union right. The representative ofFrance had believed he could put matters rightby asserting that reprisals for strike activities,especially during the miners' strike in 1948, hadbeen applied equally to the French miners. Thefeelings which the French working class har­boured about the authors of such reprisals werewell known. And that attack on the trade unionrights of the working class had occurred at thevery moment when the French delegation wasstyling itself the champion of the universalitv ofthe declaration of human rights at the Thirdsession of the General Assembly in Paris.

149. In its reprisals against foreign workers whotook part in strikes, the French Government hadgone so far as to deport such workers fromFrench territory.150. All those facts served to show the greatimportance of ensuring equality of treatment forimmigrant labour in connexion with the applica­tion of trade union rights.151. Under the Polish draft resolution, emigrantworkers had an opportunity to transmit part of

DiscriminatioDs practised by certainStates against immigrating labour and,in particular, against labour recruitedfrom the ranks of refugees: 'reportof the Third Committee (A/I052)( conclud~d)

1. Mrs. CASTLE (United Kingdom). speaking ona point of order, asked how it was that although~h~ VSSR had not peen among the remaining

their wages to their families in the country ofemigration. The sole purpose of that measure wasto mitigate the poverty of those families; it hadbeen one of the recommendations of the WorldFederation of Trade Unions, designed in the firstplace to affect Italian workers. The objection hadbeen raised that it should be possible to transmitsavings not to the country of origin but to thecountry where the family of the emigrant workerwas living. The representative of Poland wouldbe prepared to accept an amendment to that effect.

152. Finally, the Polish draft resolution pro­posed repatriation at the expense of the countryof immigration; such a measure would serve asa weapon against the iniquitous exploitation offoreign labour.

153. The Polish representative was absolutelyopposed to the draft resolution of the Third Com­mittee, based on the draft submitted by the UnitedKing-dom, the purpose of which was to strike theproblem from the agenda of the Assembly.

154. The convention of the International LabourOrg-anisation, to which the delegations of theUnited King-dom and the United States had re­ferred, would not settle the problem. Like manyother instruments of the ILO, that conventionwould probably be ratified by many of the mem­bers of that organization but many Members ofthe United Nations were not members of theILO. The convention itself consisted of a basictext, comprising extremely general principles andthree annexes dealing- with the most imnortantdetailed regulations. Yet, according to article 14of the convention, that instrument might be rati­fied even if one, two or all the annexes weredropped and the convention as a whole wouldtherefore become useless.

155. The Polish representative wished to pointout that his country had ratified ILO conventionsand had implemented them. The reason why ithad not voted for the convention in question wasthat it did not consider that it could be effective.A resolution adopted by the General Assembly ofthe United Nations recommending non-discrimi­nation against emigrant workers would, however,have such extensive moral force that it mightcontribute to the solution of a highly importantsocial problem.

156. The PRESIDENT declared the list of speakers'closed.

The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m.

speakers on the item under consideration when thePresident had closed the list at the 242nd meeting,the USSR' representative was to be allowed tospeak.2. The PRESIDENT explained that the representa­tive of the Soviet Union had said he had sent hissecretary to the administrative officer to placehis name on the list of speakers at the time ofthe dosing of the list. The same had happened inthe case of the representative of Yugoslavia. The