The spectre of bloc voting has haunted the United Nations since the Charter was first debated at San Francisco. Since then, the influence of certain groups of states in affecting the outcome of elections has occasioned considerable comment, and it has been suggested that the same groups have been inordinately powerful in deciding substantive issues. Some highly tentative conclusions as to the validity of these contentions may be drawn from a study of certain matters which have come before the Assembly during its first five sessions.

The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development were established and have passed their infancy under a barrage of criticism. There were originally grave doubts as to the wisdom of creating the institutions at all. Four years of operations have been attended by a wide range of adverse comment, varying from attacks on the salary and allowance scale on the one hand, to accusations of perversion and misuse by the United States on the other. The main criticism has been, however, that the institutions were inadequate to meet the economic problems of the postwar world. Evidence for this may be found positively in the proposals for drastic revision of the articles and practice of both institutions put forward by an international group of experts in a United Nations report, and negatively by the recommendations of the Gray report, which calls for stabilization-fund loans to European countries to meet the problem once solved by the establishment of the Fund, and an expanded Point IV program, with additional funds for the Export-Import Bank, to assist the Bank in the discharge of its long-run task.

The United Nations Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources was held in August and September 1949. More than seven hundred scientists, technicians and administrators from fifty countries came together at Lake Success. They had before them for discussion some five hundred and fifty papers applying science and technology to the problem of resource use. How–they asked–could waste of vital resources be prevented? Would critical shortages of essential materials lead inevitably to a lowering of the standard of life? By what methods could a wise use of natural resources make possible the support of the world's increasing population on a higher standard of living?

For the convenience of readers, we are listing here membership of United Nations organs for 1951. Dates in parentheses represent ends of the terms; the states serve through December 31 of the year listed.

The fifth regular session of the General Assembly, meeting at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows from September 19 to December 15, 1950, elected Nasrollah Entezam (Iran), President of the Assembly, by a vote of 32; Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) received 22 votes; Viliam Siroky (Czechoslovakia) received 4 and Stefan Wierblowski (Poland) 1. The seven vicepresidents of the Assembly were chosen on September 23 and were the chief delegates of Australia, China, France, United Kingdom, United States, USSR and Venezuela, and who, with the President, constituted the General Committee. At the same time, the following representatives were elected chairmen of the respective committees: Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez (Colombia), Political and Security Committee; Gustavo Gutiérrez (Cuba), Economic and Financial Committee; G. J. van Heuven Goedhart (Netherlands), Social, Cultural and Humanitarian Committee; Prince Wan Waithayakon (Thailand), Trusteeship Committee; Jam Sahib (India), Administrative and Budgetary Committee; and Vladimir Outrata (Czechoslovakia), Legal Committee.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from the 503d meeting on September 27, 1950 to the 530th meeting on November 30, 1950. The Presidents of the Council were Sir Gladwyn Jebb (United Kingdom), Warren Austin (United States), and Ales Bebler (Yugoslavia) during September, October and November respectively.

The eleventh session of the Economic and Social Council, which had been suspended on August 16, 1950, reconvened at Lake Success in October to consider the urgent problems of assistance to the civilian population of Korea, plans for the relief and rehabilitation of Korea, and the study of long-term measures to promote the economic development and social progress of Korea. In addition, the Council was to complete its work on the calendar of meetings for 1951 and decide upon the venue of the twelfth session.

The General Assembly of the United Nations voted on November 1, 1950 to continue Trygve Lie in the office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an additional three years and following the vote, Mr. Lie addressed the plenary meeting. He stated that the United Nations could not function effectively unless the Secretariat acted in loyal conformity with the decisions and recommendations of the organs of the United Nations and by the same token the Secretariat must act in the collective interest of the United Nations. He pledged that as Secretary-General he would remain impartial to all countries. He pointed out that the United Nations' road to peace required universal collective security, but that a persistent effort for the reconciliation of conflicting interests plus a strong program for an adequate standard of living throughout the world were also necessary for peace.

The International Court of Justice handed down its decision in the Colombian-Peruvian asylum case on November 20, 1950. The application had been submitted by Colombia to the Court under article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Cooperation between Colombia and Peru, Articles 40 and 36, paragraph 1 of the Statute, and article 32 of the rules of procedure. Colombia submitted two questions for the Court's adjudication: 1) within the limits of the obligations resulting from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of 1911 and the Havana Convention of 1938 in particular, and general American international law, was Colombia competent to qualify unilaterally and definitively the nature of the offense for which diplomatic asylum had been granted, and 2) was Peru, the territorial state, obliged to grant a safe-conduct to Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the refugee who had been granted asylum in the Colombian embassy in Lima. The pertinent facts of the case were: 1) on October 3, 1948 there had been a military rebellion in Peru which had been put down immediately; 2) on October 4, 1948 the Peruvian government charged the American People's Revolutionary Alliance, a political party of which Haya de la Torre was the leader, with attempted rebellion and stated that its leaders would be brought to justice; 3) on October 27, 1948 there was a coup d'etat in Peru and a subsequent decree which prescribed summary procedure in cases of rebellion; and 4) on January 3, 1949 Haya de la Torre sought and was granted asylum in the Colombian embassy.

In the annual report on the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization for the year 1949/50, the Director-General, Norris E. Dodd, stated that FAO activities especially in technical assistance and farming methods could fill a great need in existing world conditions. Recent developments expected to have an influence on FAO were listed as the 1) Korean crisis, 2) expanded technical assistance program, 3) removal of FAO headquarters to Rome and 4) possibility of ECOSOC studies on full employment. There was to be a continued differentiation between the usual technical assistance program of FAO which was concerned with short-range projects and the expanded technical assistance program which would involve the assignment of technicians for lengthy periods; the two programs were to be subject to separate accounting. The removal of the organization's headquarters to Rome necessitated the establishment of a regional office in North America to maintain close contact with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund because with the expanded technical assistance program cooperation with these agencies was more important than ever. The Director-General proposed that four sub-regional offices for Latin America be established: one at Mexico City for Mexico and the Caribbean area, one at Rio de Janeiro for the eastern portion of South America, and another at Santiago for the western portion of South America, and finally one at Bogotá or Caraças for the Gran Colombian region.

The fifth annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development met simultaneously in Paris from September 6 to 14, 1950 with the Board of Governors of the International Fund. In a supplementary report by the President to the Board, Mr. Black announced that the Bank had informed the government of Iran of its willingness to open discussions for a loan of up to $3 million to meet the foreign exchange requirements for the project for rehabilitation and expansion of the port of Khorramshahr, and that the Bank had concluded its preliminary review of the proposed development program for southern Italy. The Bank notified the Italian government that it was prepared to send representatives to Italy immediately to examine the technical features of the program and to select individual projects which might be suitable for Bank financing. Between July 1, 1949 and September 1, 1950 the Bank made sixteen loans totalling $315.7 million bringing the total of loans granted up to September 1, 1950 to $965.8 million. On September 14 the board approved the reports of the Committee on Organization and Administration, of the Executive Directors on the establishment of reserve and disposition of surplus, and approved the recommendation that a study be made of the Advisory Council and that until the study was completed the election of new members to the council be deferred. At the September 15 meeting nine Executive Directors were elected to serve two-year terms. Czechoslovakia abstained from voting and was therefore not represented on the new board. At the same time, the Executive Directors representing the five largest stockholders of the Bank were appointed: one each from the United States, United Kingdom, China, France and India.

The second part of the eleventh session of the Council of ICAO was convened in Montreal on September 27, 1950. The government of Spain dispatched a delegation to Montreal to take part in the meetings and arrange for that government's entry into the International Civil Aviation Organization. The agenda included: 1) appointment of members to serve on the Air Navigation Commission, Air Transport Committee, the Committee on Joint Support of Air Navigation Services, and the Finance Committee; 2) the proposals of the Secretary-General, Dr. Albert Roper, for reorganization of the secretariat and the question of his successor for 1951; 3) the site for a permanent office for the far east and the Pacific; 4) schedules for meetings of the subordinate bodies of the organization for 1952; and 5) a preliminary scale of contributions for 1952. The work of the Air Navigation Commission was surveyed in the report of the commission on 1) “differences” from ICAO standards, 2) sites for AIR, OPS and COM division meetings, and 3) necessary changes in abbreviations and symbols. Special attention was given to the formulation of ICAO's position on charges for airline operated agency messages carried over the aeronautical network and a study of this problem was to be undertaken in collaboration with the International Telecommunication Union. The Council also was to discuss the communication to the Universal Postal Union on air mail charges upon which the member governments had made comments.

In preparation for the 34th session of the International Labor Conference, the International Labor Organization published recently four reports covering the following topics: 1) industrial relations, 2) equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, 3) minimum wage fixing machinery in agriculture, and 4) objectives and minimum standards of social security. The reports on the first three topics contained summaries of the proceedings of the 33rd General Conference relevant to them, while the report on the fourth subject envisaged adoption of a new general convention on social security.

The annual joint meeting of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was held at Paris from September 6 to 14, 1950 at the same time as the annual meetings of the Governors of the two organizations. At the opening joint meeting of the Fund and the Bank on September 6, the first matter considered was a draft resolution submitted by the Governor for Czechoslovakia requesting that delegates from the People's Republic of China be substituted for the delegation from the “Kuomintang group”. This proposition was vehemently resisted by the Governor for China but supported by the Governors for India and Yugoslavia. After a show of hands the motion was defeated at the second joint meeting. At the fourth joint session it was agreed that the sixth annual meeting of the two organizations in 1951 would be held in the United States. Following that recommendation the joint session approved the nomination of the Governor for Canada (Douglas Abbott) as chairman for the ensuing year and the Governors for China, France, India, the United Kingdom and the United States as vice-chairmen.

In the annual report covering the period July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, J. Donald Kingsley, the Director-General of IRO, stated that the organization began the year covered in the report with a total caseload of 694,823 refugees and at the end of June 1950 the total caseload had been reduced to 539,579 refugees; the over-all reduction resulted from 4,759 refugees who had been repatriated and the 264,078 refugees who had been resettled. The reductions, however, were offset by 195,950 new registrations, many of which came as a result of the announcement of the cut-off date for new applications for assistance (August 31, 1949). Mr. Kingsley reported that the resettlement program had not progressed as rapidly as had been expected and that final figures had fallen short of the estimated 343,000 because: western Europe which had absorbed large numbers in the past was unable to accept any further large labor resettlement; the volume of visa issuance for the United States had declined; and the anticipated curtailment of the Australian scheme for resettlement had become a reality in the last quarter of the year. The Director-General made a supplementary report on August 30, 1950 in which he stated it was impossible for IRO to complete its work by March 31, 1951 and noted that the amended United States Displaced Persons Act had expanded resettlement opportunities by providing approximately 140,000 openings and admission to 54,000 Volkesdeutsche (persons of Germanic ethnic origin). At the request of the United States Displaced Persons Commission, IRO had undertaken to transport the Volkesdeutsche group to the United States on a reimbursable basis.

Forty-four nations were represented at the fifth session on tariff negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Torquay, England which convened on September 28, 1950. Of the nations which took part in negotiations, 32 were contracting parties to GATT and seven (Austria, Korea, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines, Turkey, Uruguay and the Federal Republic of Germany) attended the conference with the hope of becoming signatories upon the completion of negotiations. There were five countries (Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela and Switzerland) which sent observers. L. Dana Wilgress of Canada was the chairman of the meeting. The United States withdrew its request to have Japan restored to full trading equality at the conference because of the indications that other nations were not yet willing to grant most-favored-nation treatment to Japan. The contracting parties negotiated among themselves for newer and broader tariff concessions than those obtained at Geneva in 1947. At the conclusion of the country-with-country bargaining, the results wtere examined by all the participating countries and upon their approval were integrated into the agreement. Other items of importance to international trade discussed were 1) the discrimination against dollar goods as practiced by some countries and 2) the relation of the Schuman Plan to the most-favored-nation clauses in existing agreements. The conference established a tariff negotiations working party of eleven to act as expeditor and policeman if the delegations were slow in initiating negotiations or dragged them on too long.

During the period under review (September-October 1950) the five Brussels Pact nations continued their collaboration in defense and defense training matters. The powers, with the participation of the United States, carried out a successful demonstration of new and improved anti-tank weapons at the School of Infantry, Warminster in England on September 4, 1950 as well as a demonstration of United Kingdom armored artillery and infantry weapons. As a result of the tests, it was reported that good progress had been made in the army's firepower generally and that the infantryman's anti-tank potential was increasing.

During the period under review arrangements were being completed for the fourth session of the West Indian Conference, which was to be held in Curasao, Netherlands West Indies from November 27 to December 10, 1950. Prominent in the provisional agenda, which was circulated to all interested parties prior to the conference was the topic of agricultural problems of the Caribbean. This agenda topic had been decided upon by the third session of the conference and was in conformity with its recommendations as well as those of the Caribbean Research Council and its research committees. Under this topic representatives would discuss the importance of agriculture in Caribbean economy, with reference to the world market; farm management; soil conservation and fertility; water control; animal husbandry; types of farming; rural welfare; land tenure and settlement; rural housing, including potable water supply; extension services; general rural education; marketing problems; and agricultural credit, labor, mechanization and research.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, together with representatives of the German Federal Republic and the Saar met at Rome on November 4, 1950 under the chairmanship of Count Sforza (Italy). Prior to the meeting the ministers had agreed that Germany and the Saar should be represented at all meetings of the committee and not only at certain specified times. Two decisions were taken by the ministers: not to discuss the Assembly recommendation for the formation of a European army under a European defense minister; and to approve the convention on human rights. The committee felt that the Atlantic army proposed by Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson (United States) and the release of the Pleven Plan by France had overshadowed the Assembly recommendation. The matter was being discussed by the North Atlantic Pact Organization and the ministers believed that it was better to leave the question to be handled by the governments rather than risk a clash of views in the Council of Europe. Furthermore, the ministers agreed to establish a refugee office within the Secretariat and to encourage the drafting of a European Code of Social Security. The ministers were also sympathetic to the need for revision of the Statute to allow for ”specialized authorities” within the framework of the Council of Europe.

The final communiqué of the second annual meeting of the North Atlantic Council stated that the ministers had agreed upon the establishment at the earliest possible date of an integrated force under centralized command adequate to deter aggression and insure defense of western Europe. The integrated force was to be based on the following principles: a) the force was to be organized and subject to the political and strategic guidance of the appropriate agencies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; b) the force was to be under a supreme commander with sufficient delegated authority to ensure effective training of an integrated force by an international staff representing all the nations participating; c) the standing group of the military committee was to be responsible for higher strategic direction of the integrated force. The Defense Committee was requested to recommend the steps necessary to bring the force into being, the changes and simplifications necessary to ensure close working relationships between member governments, the character and composition of the forces to be allocated to the integrated force by the member governments, and the utilization of German manpower–on which subject the Council was agreed that Germany should be enabled to contribute to the buildup of the defense of western Europe.