broad in that it permitted the President, for example, to limit the reduction of any rate of duty to 50 percent of the rate existing on July 1, 1962, and, in the case of rates not exceeding 5 percent ad valorem, to proclaim duty-free treatment for such items. The Trade Expansion Act provided the statutory basis for United States participation in the "Kennedy Round" of multilateral trade negotiations held under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The Trade Act of 1974, which became law on January 3, 1975, provides the President with substantial new authority in the area of trade negotiations. He may, under certain circumstances, enter into trade agreements and, as a result thereof, decrease existing tariffs or harmonize, reduce or eliminate nontariff barriers to and other distortions of trade. This authority may be exercised through both multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. Agreements regarding nontariff barriers are subject to congressional approval. This grant of authority will enable the United States to participate meaningfully in the multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) scheduled to begin in earnest during the next few weeks under GATT auspices. Finally, Title IV of the Trade Act contains a number of limitations on the President's authority to make commercial agreements with nonmarket economy countries, including provisions relating to congressional approval or disapproval of such agreements.

Dept. of State File No. P75 0033–1121.

§3

International Economic Assistance and
Development

General Economic and Industrial Development Ambassador Clarence C. Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), made a statement to the Commission on February 28, 1975, expressing the willingness of the U.S. Government to examine with other governments the issues relevant to the Declaration and Program of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (A/RES/3201 and 3202 (S-VI)), which had been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly without vote on May 1, 1974. At the same time he reiterated the disagreement of the United States with numerous provisions of those resolutions. The following are excerpts from Ambassador Ferguson's statement:

First, the action of the Sixth Special Session did not reflect a true consensus among the Member States of the United Nations. It might be recalled that the adoption of the Declaration

and Program was, and I quote the formula used by the President of the General Assembly, "adopted without vote." A number of states including the United States expressed reservations to certain provisions which were deemed unacceptable. The United States has had occasion in the Economic and Social Council and in the General Assembly to reiterate its reservations to these unacceptable provisions. As of today, these provisions are still unacceptable to the United States as a blueprint for a new economic order. . .

Second, my government acknowledges the importance of the Declaration and Program of Action as major, and in the true sense of the word, radical statements of economic policy goals of many developing countries. We are willing to see the international community take these resolutions into account in seeking solutions to critical world economic problems. We are prepared to participate in examining specific issues in appropriate forums and we are prepared to discuss our differences with others of contrary views. . . .

The text of the Declaration is in the 1974 Digest, Ch. 10, § 3, pp. 492–494. U.S. objections to provisions of the Declaration and Program of Action relative to sovereignty over natural resources, economic pressure, producer associations, and multinational corporations, among others, as stated by Ambassador John Scali at the time of their adoption by the U.N. General Assembly, are contained in the 1974 Digest, Ch. 10, § 3, pp. 490–491.

The Second General Conference of the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which met at Lima March 12–27, 1975, adopted by a vote of 82 to 1, with 7 abstentions, the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation. The United States cast the sole opposing vote, while the United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, and Japan abstained.

The 57-point Lima Declaration calls for the "maximum possible" increase in the share of the developing countries in world industrial production, to at least 25 percent in the year 2000. It envisages a process of continuous consultations in bringing about that distribution of world industry, with UNIDO in the central coordinating role. The Declaration espouses the "inalienable right" of every state to exercise sovereignty over its terrestrial and marine resources, and over economic activity for the exploitation of those resources, "including nationalization in accordance with its laws." It calls for full implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States adopted by the General Assembly on December 12, 1974 (G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX)), and for elimination of colonialism, apartheid, racial discrimination, neocolonialism, occupation and all forms of foreign aggression. It de

clares that states which practice such policies are responsible for restitution and full compensation for exploitation, depletion of, and damage to natural and other resources. It also calls for regulation and supervision of the activities of transnational corporations. Developing countries are urged to strengthen the action of producers' associations and their own bargaining power both individual and collective, while developed countries are asked to make meaningful changes in their economic policies, withdraw their reservations to the "International Development Strategy" and the "Declaration and Program of Action on the Establishment of a New Economic Order" (A/RES/3201 and 3202 (S-VI)), and consider adopting and implementing codes of conduct to assist in establishing a new economic order.

The Plan of Action makes recommendations on measures of national scope, the cooperation expected of both developing and developed countries, guidelines for the least developed, landlocked, and island developing countries, and institutional arrangements including the recommendation that UNIDO be made a U.N. Specialized Agency and that an Industrial Development Fund be set up.

During the Conference, the United States, in concert with the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, called for separate votes on 10 different paragraphs. The United States voted against paragraphs concerned with price indexation, permanent sovereignty over natural resources (without reference to international obligations), implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, and producers' associations. The United States abstained on paragraphs relating to limiting production of synthetics and implementing pertinent provisions in the Program of Action for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order contained in General Assembly Resolution 3202 (S-VI), adopted by the General Assembly at its Sixth Special Session on May 1, 1974. See the 1974 Digest, Ch. 10, § 3, pp. 490-494. The United States also filed 25 separate reservations to paragraphs it regarded as unacceptable in part.

In a press briefing held April 4, 1975, Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations and Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the UNIDO Conference, stated that the reasons for the United States' negative vote were matters of fundamental principle. He added:

. . The United States has long accepted expropriation, or nationalization. It is a question of what kind of treatment it has in the way of compensation, which must be subject to the

normal rules of international law that have been worked out with such effort and pain over so many years.

.. the United States . . . is not going to agree to a document which ignores international law on such a fundamental issue as expropriation.

Ambassador Bennett also stated that, as the United States had consistently indicated, it would not be in a position to contribute to the Industrial Development Fund recommended in the Plan of Action, but would continue to make contributions to UNIDO through U.N. Development Program (UNDP) funds.

Press Release USUN-28(75), Apr. 7, 1975. The following is the text of the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation: LIMA DECLARATION AND PLAN OF ACTION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION

A. Declaration

1. The Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, convened by General Assembly Resolution 3087 (XXVIII) of December 6, 1973, entrusted with establishing the main principles of industrialization and defining the means by which the international community as a whole might take action of a broad nature in the field of industrial development within the framework of new forms of international cooperation, with a view to the establishment of a new international economic order, adopts

the LIMA DECLARATION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION 2. Having examined the situation with respect to industrialization in the developing countries during the past decade,

3. (a) Recalling General Assembly Resolution 3176 (XXVIII), of December 17, 1973, which judged that in terms of international action the cause of development has lost momentum since 1970;

(b) Recalling General Assembly Resolutions 2952 (XXVII), of December 11 1972, and 3087 (XXVIII), of December 6, 1973;

4. Bearing in mind Resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI), of May 1, 1974, adopted at the sixth special session of the General Assembly on the Declaration and Program of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, according to which every effort should be made by the international community to take measures to encourage the industrialization of the developing countries with a view to increasing their share in world industrial production, as envisaged in the International Development Strategy.

5. Recognizing the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a new international economic order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence and cooperation, as has been expressed in the Declaration and Program of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, in order to transform the present structure of economic relations,

6. Noting Resolution 62 (III) of May 19, 1972, adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade Development at its third session, concerning measures in aid of the least developed countries, and Resolution 1797 (LV) of July 11, 1973 (aid to the Sudano-Sahelian populations threatened with famine), on assistance to the drought-stricken areas of Africa, adopted by the Economic and Social Council at its fifty-fifth session,

7. Recalling the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States adopted at the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly as an instrument designed to bring about new international economic relations and to contribute to the establishment of a new international economic order,

8. Convinced that peace and justice encompass an economic dimension helping the solution of the world economic problems, the liquidation of underdevelopment, offering a lasting and definitive solution to the industrialization problem for all peoples and guaranteeing to all countries the right to implement freely and effectively their development programs. To this effect, it is necessary to eliminate threats and resort to force and to promote peaceful cooperation between states to the fullest extent possible, to apply the principles of noninterference in each others' internal affairs, full equality of rights, respect of national independence and sovereignty as well as to encourage the peaceful cooperation between all states, irrespective of their political, social and economic systems. The further improvement of international relations will create better conditions for international cooperation in all fields which should make possible large financial and material resources to be used, inter alia, for developing of industrial production,

9. Considering further that the remaining vestiges of alien and colonial domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination, and the practice of apartheid, and neocolonialism in all its forms continue to be among the greatest obstacles to the full emancipation and progress of the developing countries and their populations,

10. Bearing in mind that the situation in the developing countries has become aggravated by the persistent and marked tensions to which the present international economic situation is subjected and that to these must be added as well as the unacceptable practices of those transnational corporations that infringe the principle of sovereignty of developing countries, the effects of the inflationary increase in the import costs of developing countries, the pressures exerted upon their balance of payments particularly by such factors as heavy foreign debt servicing, the aggravation of the international monetary crisis, and the transfers resulting from private investment and that this situation is not conducive to the spirit of the new international economic order,

11. Recognizing that problems of industrial development in developing countries at their present stage of development do not lie entirely in those countries but also arise from the policies of most of the developed countries, and that without meaningful changes in the economic policies of the developed countries, the achievement of the objectives of a new international order would be in serious jeopardy,

12. Recognizing that the developing countries constitute 70 percent of the world population and generate less than 7 percent of industrial production, that the gap between the developed and developing countries has been widened owing, inter alia, to the persistence of obstacles in the way of the establishment of a new international economic order based on equity and justice,

13. Taking into account the fact that industrial progress has not displayed significant advances in the developing countries as a whole, in spite of serious efforts on their part, and that, in many cases, the dependence of their economies on the export of primary goods and the measures taken in the majority of the developed countries have not made it possible to achieve a profound dynamic effect which would be capable of transforming internal socio-economic structures and laying the basis for real development,

14. Bearing in mind that any real process of industrialization worthy of the name must conform to the broad objectives of self-sustaining and integrated socioeconomic development and that all countries have the sovereign right to make the necessary changes to ensure the just and effective participation of their peoples in industry and share in the benefits deriving therefrom,

15. Noting with anxiety that the present international crisis has aggravated the industrialization problems of the developing countries, resulting, inter alia, in the under-utilization of resources, constraints in the planning and execution of industrial projects and increasing costs of industrial inputs, equipment and freight charges,

16. Aware that some of the obstacles which are inhibiting industrial expansion in the developing countries are of an internal structural nature, and that there also continue to exist numerous impediments arising from colonial and neocolonial policies or new forms of dependency,

17. Considering the present general trend of industrialized countries to reduce the technical and financial assistance needed to promote the economic and social development of developing countries in general and their industrial