c) Nutritional levels in the underdeveloped parts of the world have crept up slightly.

d) Agriculture generally has kept abreast of or ahead of the population increase.

e) American export trade in agricultural products has increased, both in terms of total movement and dollar sales.

III. Many governmental agencies cooperate in the Food-For-Peace program.

A. The Departments of Agriculture and State, including ICA, have major responsibility.

B. Other Departments and agencies which have responsibility are Treasury, Budget, Commerce, Ex-Im Bank, and Defense.

C. Consultations, formal and informal, are held with other governments and with agencies of the United Nations.

1. Cooperative efforts are under way with other major wheat exporting countries Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Francethrough a Wheat Utilization Committee.10 This Committee, with the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as an adviser-observer, is investigating the possibility of increasing and making more effective coordinate use of wheat surpluses to promote economic development, improve nutritional standards, and expand world commercial trade in wheat.

IV. The program presents both accomplishments and hazards.

A. Accomplishments of the Food-For-Peace program have been significant.

1. We have relieved our heavy inventory position. Without Public Law 480, the CCC investment in surplus commodities would be about twice its present level.

2. We have won good will abroad. The "Indian Express" editorialized thus after signing of the recent Public Law 480 program with India :

The Eisenhower-Patil food agreement stands out as an act of good faith in human relations. It is of high material value enhanced by the terms and the timing. It is of far greater import in terms of the spirit . . . of faith in human ideals and in the striving to retain them.

3. We have helped some countries (Japan, Italy, Austria, and other countries of Western Europe) "graduate" from sales for foreign currencies to sales for dollars. The special export programs have meant additional exports; sales of farm products for dollars have likewise increased.

4. Through market development, we have built new dollar markets such as the market for U.S. poultry in Germany and for U.S. fats, oils, and wheat in Japan.

B. The Food-For-Peace program is not without its hazards.

1. We must not hurt the economies of other agricultural exporting countries by usurping their markets.

10 See ibid., pp. 1489-1492.

2. We must beware of making the developing countries dependent upon us, indefinitely, with their growing populations, for our continuing help.

3. We must avoid flooding the recipient countries with our food, depressing their farm prices and hurting their agriculture.

4. We must not unwisely stimulate agricultural production abroad, thereby depriving the United States of legitimate export markets. 5. We must not give away, barter, or sell for foreign currency food and fiber that we could otherwise sell for dollars.

6. We must not, through the accumulation of excess supplies of foreign currencies, create fiscal problems for our own or for foreign governments.

7. We must not, by our use of these surpluses, provide a rationale for the continuation of unwise farm legislation.

8. Most important, we must not, for fear of the above hazards, forego the use of our capability in the agricultural field. We must not bury our talent.

C. An evaluation is in order.

1. The accomplishments of the program have been demonstrated; for the greater part the hazards have been avoided. The Departments of Agriculture and State, including ICA, which are the major respon sibility-bearing agencies, have done an outstanding job.

2. Accomplishments exceed public understanding. There is need for greater enlightenment.

3. Public Law 480, which began primarily as a surplus disposal program, has demonstrated its usefulness as a positive arm of ̃U.S. foreign economic policy.

V. Some questions and some answers.

A. Can and should the program be expanded?

It can and should. Increased movement of surplus, however, is likely to be modest rather than sensational.

B. How can our performance be improved?

By being opportunity-oriented, not problem-prone.

By improving the understanding of this program at home and abroad.

By searching out and welcoming opportunities to improve the

program.

C. Can this program "solve the farm problem"?

No, not by itself.

D. Is additional Food-For-Peace legislation needed?

Only slight changes in Public Law 480. Legislation with respect to the program is generally adequate.

387. AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10560, PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED: Executive Order No. 10884, Issued August 17, 1960 11

11

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is ordered that Executive Order No. 10560 of September 9, 1954, as amended,12 providing for the administration of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended,13 be, and it is hereby, further amended by deleting therefrom sections 1 and 5 and by inserting in lieu thereof the following sections 1 and 5, respectively: "SECTION 1. Department of Agriculture. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this order, the functions conferred upon the President by Titles I and IV of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, are hereby delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture.

"(b) The administration on behalf of the United States of the credit provisions of agreements entered into pursuant to Title IV of the Act (including the receiving of payments under agreements) shall be performed by such Federal agency or agencies as shall hereafter be designated therefor by the President.

"SEC. 5. Reservation of functions to the President. There are hereby reserved to the President the functions conferred upon him by section 108 of the Act (including that section as affected by section 406 of the Act), with respect to making reports to the Congress.'

THE WHITE HOUSE,

August 17, 1960.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

"25 Fed. Reg. 8019 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 5, 1960, p. 366).

12

Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959, pp. 1493–1497. 13 See the unnumbered title, ante, p. 811.

F. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

388. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE, GENEVA, MAY 16-JUNE 4, 1960: Report of the U.S. Delegation, Released June 6, 1960 1

1

On Saturday, June 4, the 42 countries which participate in the work of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) ended their 16th session. This was after 3 weeks of intensive work in Geneva on current problems of international trade. Noteworthy developments at the session included announcements by a number of countries on planned reductions of import restrictions; an examination of the European Free Trade Association and the Latin America Free Trade Area; agreement to attack the problems involved in "market disruption" which may be caused by sudden increases in imports of specific commodities; further progress in carrying out the GATT "program for the expansion of international trade"; and agreement on arrangements looking toward the provisional accession of Spain and Portugal to the General Agreement.

REMOVAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

During the session various delegations announced actions they are taking or plan to take in the further removal of import restrictions. According to statements made by representatives of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Malaya, and the Netherlands, these countries will announce new liberalization lists in the near future. It is expected that import restrictions will be removed on a number of products of particular interest in the United States. Furthermore, Australia and the United Kingdom stated that action will be taken looking toward the easing of remaining restrictions. These announcements are particularly gratifying to the United States, which has played a leading role in the drive for the removal of import restrictions by countries which have emerged from balance-of-payments difficulties.

The GATT Balance-of-Payments Committee' held consultations before and during the session with a number of countries (Austria, Brazil, Greece, India, South Africa, and Uruguay) which still maintain import restrictions for balance-of-payments reasons. The United States took an active part in these consultations in order to encourage the maximum possible degree of progress in the further removal of restrictions that hamper the export of American goods.

The Contracting Parties discussed the question of the best way to deal with the import restrictions that may be retained after a country

1Department of State press release No. 306 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, June 27, 1960, pp. 1033-1036).

2

Established at the 11th session of GATT; see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1956, p. 1206.

renounces its resort to the balance-of-payments exception in the agreement. There was a consensus that the full influence of the Contracting Parties should be used to minimize the extent of such restrictions and that the existing procedures of the Contracting Parties should be applied effectively and expeditiously to any restrictions that are retained. To expedite action a contracting party that emerges from balance-of-payments difficulties should promptly report any residual restrictions to the Contracting Parties, present its plans and policies for dealing with them, and stand ready to consult with other countries whose export interests are affected by the restrictions.

Specific commodity problems were discussed by the U.S. delegation on a bilateral and informal basis with other delegations, including those of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Italy. The discussions included a number of agricultural and industrial commodities for which American producers and exporters had requested information and assistance regarding trade restrictions. It is hoped these conversations will result in the relaxation of restrictions on U.S. products in the near future.

REGIONAL MARKET ARRANGEMENTS

3

The Convention for the Establishment of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which had recently been ratified by Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, was examined by the Contracting Parties in the light of relevant provisions of the GATT. The spokesman for the Seven emphasized that the Stockholm Convention had been drawn up with the intention of freeing their trade not only with one another but also with the rest of the world. He stated that the signatories to the convention were agreed that their cooperation in the EFTA should be firmly based on the principles of the GATT. The U.S. representative expressed the belief that, while certain aspects of the trade arrangements provided for in the convention raised questions which might call for an adjustment on the part of the member states, the Stockholm Convention on balance deserved the support and approval of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement. The provisions of the convention were subsequently examined and discussed in detail by a working party, which submitted an interim report. It was agreed that the consideration of the Stockholm Convention should be continued at the 17th session.

The Latin American Free Trade Area was also discussed at the current session. This new free-trade area was established by the Treaty of Montevideo, signed on February 18, 1960,6 by representatives of four countries which participate in the GATT (Brazil, Chile,

"Ante, doc. 142.

For the text of the U.S. representative's statement, made May 17, see the Department of State Bulletin, June 13, 1960, pp. 975–976.

The report, adopted June 4, appeared as GATT doc. L/1235; text in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, Ninth Supplement, pp. 70-87.

"See the unnumbered title, ante, p. 276.