Imagini ale paginilor

(dealing with United States personnel missing in action in Southeast Asia), and shall prepare, for the President's transmission to Congress, the reports and other documents required by Sections 402 and 409 of the Act.

Section 8 entrusts to the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations responsibility for the administration of the generalized system of preferences (GSP) under Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461–2465).

Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 62, Mar. 31, 1975, pp. 14291–14294A. See also White House Press Release, Mar. 27, 1975; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, No. 1869, Apr. 21, 1975, pp. 509_512.

Authority of the Executive in Foreign Trade

Kempton B. Jenkins, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, in a letter dated February 12, 1975, to Joseph J. Jasinski, Professional Staff Member of the House of Representatives Banking and Currency Committee, discussed the authority of the President and the Secretary of State in foreign trade matters. The letter outlines the history and legal basis of the trade agreements program, the broadened authority provided by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 872; 19 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), approved October 11, 1962, including participation of the United States in multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the substantial new authority under the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618; 88 Stat. 1978; 19 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.), approved January 3, 1975, to decrease tariffs and deal with nontariff barriers to trade. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Jenkins' letter:

The term “trade agreements" has often been used narrowly to refer to limited authority delegated to the President by the Congress to negotiate agreements when the President found that existing customs, duties or other import restrictions of the United States or any foreign country were unduly burdening or restricting the foreign trade of the United States. The so-called Trade Agreements Program began with the Trade Agreement Act of 1934 (Section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended). The President's authority under the Trade Agreements Program was last renewed by the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958, which extended authority, inter alia to reduce duties, until June 30, 1962.

The Trade Agreements Program, as described, was superseded by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which authorized the President to enter into trade agreements after June 30, 1962, and before July 1, 1967. The authority prescribed was quite 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.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

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:

[ocr errors]

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 ared 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 declares 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


A. Declaration

1. The Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Develop ment 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,


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 develop ment 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 develop ing 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,

« ÎnapoiContinuați »