« ÎnapoiContinuați »
including those of the United States, Haiti, Bolivia, and Guatemala, which had abstained in the vote at Quito. Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay voted against the resolution, and Brazil and Nicaragua abstained.
For the full text of the resolution of July 29, 1975, see the Final Act of the Sixteenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, serving as Organ of Consultation in Application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser. F/11.16, Doc. 9/75 rev. 2, July 29, 1975. See also U.N. S/11786, Aug. 1, 1975.
On August 21, 1975, the Department of State issued to the press a statement concerning steps to be taken by the United States in light of the OAS action on Cuba. The statement read, in part, as follows:
In keeping with this action by the OAS, the United States is modifying the aspects of our Cuban denial policy which affect other countries. Effective today, August 21, 1975, it will be U.S. policy to grant licenses permitting transactions between U.S. subsidiaries and Cuba for trade in foreign-made goods when those subsidiaries are operating in countries where local law or policy favors trade with Cuba. Specific licenses will continue to be required in each case and they will remain subject to regulations concerning U.S. origin parts, components, strategic goods and technology.
In order to conform further with the OAS action, we are taking appropriate steps so that effective immediately countries which allow their ships or aircraft to carry goods to and from Cuba are not penalized by loss of U.S. bilateral assistance. We are initiating steps to modify regulations which deny bunkering in the United States to third country ships engaged in the Cuba trade. We will also seek legislation to eliminate similar restrictions in Title I, P.L. 480 food sales to third countries.
Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1890, Sept. 15, 1975, p. 404.
A determination by Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to permit the provision of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to countries allowing ships and aircraft under their registry to transport goods to and from Cuba, dated August 20, 1975, was published in the Federal Register of September 11, 1975. It provided, in relevant part:
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 101 of Executive Order 10973, as amended, I hereby determine in accordance with section 664 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the Act), that the waiver of the provisions of section 620(a)(3) of the Act with respect to the furnishing of assistance to any country that may allow ships and aircraft under its registry from transporting goods to or from Cuba is in the national interest, and accordingly I hereby so waive the provisions of that section.
See Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 177, Sept. 11, 1975, p. 42222.
Sec. 515.559 was added on Oct. 3, 1975, to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR 515, setting forth U.S. licensing policy with respect to transactions with Cuba by American-owned or controlled foreign firms. For the text, see ante, Ch. 10, 85, p. 641.
On November 24, 1975, the Department of Commerce implemented the August 21, 1975, policy statement, supra; by announcing an easing of trade restrictions. The effect of a revised regulation of the Office of Export Administration, issued November 24, was to provide on a case-by-case basis for licensing the use of insubstantial amounts (20 percent or less by value) of U.S.-origin materials in goods sold to Cuba by Western Hemisphere countries or companies.
Sec. 385.1(b) of Part 385 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Part 385) was amended, effective Nov. 24, 1975, to read, in part:
.. the Department of Commerce generally will consider favorably on a case-by-case basis requests for authorization for the use of an insubstantial proportion of U.S.-origin materials, parts, or components in nonstrategic foreign-made products to be exported to Cuba, where local law requires, or policy in the third country favors, trade with Cuba. U.S.-origin content will generally be considered insubstantial when it amounts to 20 percent or less of the value of the product to be exported from the third country. Approval of requests for authorization for the use of U.S.-origin materials, parts, or components amounting to more than 20 percent by value of the foreign-made product to be exported from the third country to Cuba will be less likely.
Fed. Reg., Vol. 40, No. 230, Nov. 28, 1975, pp. 55314-55315.
On September 25, 1975, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 187 yeas to 209 nays, failed to pass H.R. 1287, to amend the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian chrome. The effect of the amendment would have been to have repealed the so-called Byrd amendment, which allows imports of chrome from Southern Rhodesia in violation of U.N. sanctions imposed in 1966. The Byrd amendment, contained in Section 503 of the Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization Act, 1972 (P.L. 92– 156; 85 Stat. 423; approved November 17, 1971), requires the President to permit the importation of strategic and critical materials from non-Communist countries such as Southern Rhode sia, so long as such commodities are not embargoed from Communist countries. See the 1973 Digest, pp. 413-415, and the 1974 Digest, p. 598.
The Administration had strongly supported H.R. 1287 in letters to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Committee on International Relations, and in hearings before that Subcommittee. Ambassador Robert J. McCloskey commented in a letter of April 25, 1975, on a proposed amended version of H.R. 1287, which would have authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations regarding certificates of origin with respect to shipments of any steel mill product containing chromium, to issue subpoenas for testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence, and to release such shipments for customs custody under appropriate circumstances for entry into the United States. The following is an excerpt from his letter:
the Department has already expressed its strong support for H.R. 1287 which would restore the United States to full compliance with the United Nations economic sanctions against the Smith regime in Southern Rhodesia. We have long urged the reimposition of the full range of sanctions on political grounds and for foreign policy considerations. We have also maintained that the Byrd amendment has brought little or no real economic advantage to the United States during the three years it has been in effect. Initially, the principal rationale for the Byrd amendment was to decrease U.S. dependence on the importation of chrome from the U.S.S.R., but in fact our dependence on U.S.S.R. chrome ore has not decreased. Third countries rather than the U.S.S.R. have absorbed the reductions anticipated by the amendment. We believe that third countries can eventually make up any shortfall in supply that might occur if the amendment is repealed. We also estimate that the economic cost to the United States of the withdrawal of chrome supplies from Rhode sia would not be great, particularly at the present time.
It is in this context that we support the objectives of the proposed amendment to H.R. 1287. It could make the sanctions program more effective by encouraging stricter compliance on the part of other countries. However, the potential extraterritorial application of the investigatory powers conferred by the amendment could pose trade and administrative problems and, in some cases, be impossible to enforce. Accordingly, we would recommend inclusion in the amendment only of those provisions requiring that a certification of origin with respect to imports of steel mill products containing chrome be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury:
... If the intent of the amendment is followed in its application, we do not believe its passage would be at all detrimental to our trade and commerce with other nations, given that most of them support the U.N. sanctions program against Southern Rhodesia.
Ambassador William B. Buffum, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, appearing before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on July 10, 1975, also urged repeal of the Byrd amendment. He pointed out that, according to reports submitted to the Sanctions Committee of the U.N. Security Council, there had been to date 237 cases of alleged violations by various states of the U.N. sanctions against the Rhodesian regime, and that 33 of those cases involved U.S. importation of Rhodesian chrome.
Opponents of H.R. 1287 argued that it would increase U.S. dependence on the Soviet Union for chrome and would endanger American security.
See Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 142, Sept. 25, 1975, pp. H9104–9155 (daily ed.). See also Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Part I, Feb. 26, Mar. 11, 1975, and Part II, June 19, 1975. Ambassador McCloskey's letter is at p. 28 of Part II of the Hearings, followed by letters from the General Counsel of the Treasury Dept. and the General Counsel of the Dept. of Commerce. For the full text of Ambassador Buffum's statement of July 10, 1975, containing a history of the U.N. sanctions with respect to Southern Rhodesia, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1885, Aug. 11, 1975.
Scope of Sanctions
On December 15, 1975, the Security Council Committee established in pursuance of Resolution 253 (1968) concerning the question of Southern Rhodesia adopted a special report recommending that the sanctions against Southern Rhodesia should be expanded. The Committee, although noting reservations by some delegations, recommended to the Security Council that insurance, trade names, and franchises should be included within the scope of the mandatory sanctions. The report included the following summary of the reservations expressed by the United States:
The representative of the United States of America stated that, as a matter of general principle, the United States believed that the Committee's efforts should be concentrated on improving the enforcement of the existing sanctions rather than on widening their scope. His Government could not support the extension of sanctions to include postal, telephonic and telegraphic communications. The United States had voted against a draft resolution in the Security Council which would have required all states to sever all ties with the Smith regime. It had consistently attached great significance to the maintenance of communications.
With regard to the specific proposals, the representative of the United States pointed out that his Government believed that the extension of sanctions to include franchises and trade names would be unenforceable, since there was no way to prevent a Rhodesian company from continuing to use a trade name in its operations. As a practical matter, the United States-related franchises in Southern Rhodesia, namely, Holiday Inn, Hertz and Avis, were not subsidiaries of the parent United States companies but were franchised from wholly owned South African companies. He wished to emphasize that no transfer of goods or services was permitted from the United States to those subsidiaries and that reservations could not be made through or by United States companies to those subsidiaries.
With regard to the question of insurance, the representative of the United States stated that his Government already prohibited domestic insurance companies from insuring or reinsuring the following goods: merchandise in Southern Rhodesia produced there in whole or in part for export; merchandise of any origin shipped to or from Southern Rhodesia unless specifically licensed, such as merchandise intended for medical purposes, educational equipment and foodstuffs in special humanitarian circumstances; and property in Southern Rhodesia which facilitated the export of merchandise from that country. The United States did not prohibit-and would oppose on humanitarian grounds the extension of sanctions to prohibit-domestic United States insurance companies from insuring or reinsuring the lives of persons in Southern Rhodesia or property in Southern Rhodesia which was not related to the import, export or carriage of merchandise. It would also oppose any extension to include duly and specifically licensed shipments.
U.N. Doc. S/11913, Dec. 15, 1975.
Effective December 1, 1975, the Export Administration Regulations concerning restrictive trade practices or boycotts, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 369, were amended in several respects to respond to the discriminatory effects of foreign boycott practices.
The regulations were revised first to prohibit U.S. exporters and related service organizations from taking any action, including the