At its fourteenth meeting, held in Guadeloupe from May 6 to 10, 1952, the Caribbean Commission reviewed the report of the Conference on Industrial Development which met in February in Puerto Rico, expressed its appreciation of the report, and passed it on, together with the commission's comments, to local and metropolitan governments for study of its 33 recommendations. The commission gave special consideration to the conference recommendation relating to an examination by an expert of the effect of income tax laws and practices on “pioneer industries”, instructing the Secretary-General (de Vriendt) to ascertain from the chairman of the United Nations Fiscal Commission or other appropriate international bodies whether the service of an expert on this kind of fiscal problem could be made available. Regarding the recommendation that it should arrange for studies of selected industries, the commission felt that industrialists and industrial organizations concerned, territorial governments and suitable international bodies should be asked to share the expenses of such studies and directed the Secretary-General to investigate possibilities in this respect.

The Arab League Collective Security Pact was signed by the government of Jordan on February 16, 1952.1 The pact had previously been initialed by the six other members of the Arab League and ratified by the governments of Egypt and Syria. Ratification by the governments of Iraq and Jordan followed in March.3 In accordance with Article 13, the treaty would come into effect for the ratifying states fifteen days after receipt by the Secretariat General of instruments of ratification from four states

Responding to an invitation issued in May 1951, fourteen members of the Congress of the United States met in Strasbourg on November 20, 1951 in a special session with twenty members of the Council of Europe. The United States delegation included Senators Benton, Green, Henrickson, Hickenlooper, Humphrey, McMahon and Wiley and Representatives Cox, Ellsworth, Judd, Keating, O'Toole, Reams and Smith. Council representatives were Mssrs. Spaak (Belgium), Brentano (Germany), Boothby (United Kingdom), Crosbie (Ireland), Gerstenmaier (Germany), Glenvil-Hall (United Kingdom), Jacini (Italy), Kieft (Netherlands), Mercouris (Greece), de Menthon (France), Moe (Norway), Mollet (France), Ohlin (Sweden), Parri (Italy), Reynaud (France), Schmid (Germany), Treves (Italy), Urguplu (Turkey), de VallePoussin (Belgium), and Lord Layton (United Kingdom). The session was to discuss “the European Union, its problems, progress, prospects, and place in the Western world”; specifically the agenda included: 1) the economic aspects of rearmament; 2) the political aspects of European defense; 3) the dollar gap and trade between eastern and western Europe; and 4) the problem of refugees and emigration.

The tenth plenary meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee met at Lahore, Pakistan, from February 1 to 9, 1951. The meeting was attended by representatives of nineteen member governments and by observers from seven other governments and the Organization for European Economic Cooperation. An increased budget and work program for the 1951–1952 fiscal year was approved and the secretariat was instructed to continue publication of the “Monthly Review of the World Cotton Situation” and the “Quarterly Statistical Bulletin” as well as undertaking certain other projects. Members were requested to provide the secretariat with cotton statistics and to consider the possibility of “further practical measures for the improvement of their raw cotton price information.” The secretariat was further requested, under the supervision of the Standing Committee, to continue its statistics and research on an international cotton agreement by preparing information on prices, production, exports, imports, consumption and stocks, and by consideration of the problem of the constitution of buffer stocks of cotton. The Standing Committee was requested to keep the balance of payments situation under review and to report to the eleventh plenary meeting in case of a serious deterioration. In connection with the cotton shortage, the meeting resolved to call the attention of the agencies concerned with technical and financial assistance, to the fact that the promotion of increased yields in cotton production in underdeveloped countries “would be very beneficial.”

Mr. Paul van Zeeland (Belgium) presided over the eleventh session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe which was held in Strasbourg, May 22 and 23. Several meetings of the ministers' deputies had been held prior to the convening of the eleventh session to consider primarily the Eden proposals, in particular a memorandum circulated by the United Kingdom deputy expanding his government's ideas. On the basis of this memorandum and on replies to a questionnaire circulated to governments by the deputies, the deputies reported to the Committee of Ministers that “it had not been possible to reach agreement on the action to be taken on the British proposals … the majority of the delegations considered that the Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe … could be used as the ministerial and parliamentary institutions of (the restricted) Çommunities.” At its eleventh session, the Committee of Ministers, noting the report of the deputies, decided to give formal approval to the principles underlying the Eden proposals and to request the opinion of the Consultative Assembly on the best means of giving them effect.

From May 6 to 10, 1952, the fourteenth meeting of the Caribbean Commission was held in Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe. Prominent in the commission's deliberations were preparations for the fifth session of the West Indian Conference, scheduled to open in Jamaica in November. The provisional agenda of this conference session, which was to concentrate attention on the subject of industrialization, included the historical background of and agricultural bases for industrialization, the role of governments in promoting industrialization, and vocational training and other measures to increase productivity of labor. The commission was to consider two proposed conferences, one on trade promotion and the other on the timber trade. A report on the status of technical assistance projects also was on the commission's agenda.

Delegates from nineteen governments including the newest member, Mexico, and observers from six other governments attended a meeting of the International Sugar Council in London on June 26, 1951. The council adopted the report of its Statistical Committee which contained an estimate of the statistical position for the crop year ending August 31, 1951. Governments which had signed the protocol extending the international sugar agreement of 1937 to August 31, 1951 were asked to sign another protocol extending the agreement for one additional year. The new protocol, however, was to contain a provision terminating the protocol if a revised sugar agreement should come into force during the year. Other items dealt with by the council were the budget and administrative matters.

Austrian State Treaty: On October 31, 1951, the Foreign Minister of Austria, Karl Gruber, transmitted to the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union in Vienna a note requesting these countries to reopen negotiations on the Austrian state treaty at the earliest possible moment. Subsequently, the United States High Commissioner for Austria, Walter Donnelly, stated that it was “consistent with the unswerving policy of the United States Government to terminate the occupation of Austria by means of a state treaty” and was “also in keeping with the statement of the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States in Washington on September 14.” He added that the United States would continue to press for the conclusion of the treaty and withdrawal of troops from Austria, but would not withdraw until all the occupying powers were prepared to do likewise.

The second annual report of the International Wheat Council reviewed operations under the International Wheat Agreement for the crop year 1950–1951. It was stated that prices for transactions under the agreement had not fallen much below the agreement maximum and that prices for wheat and flour bought outside the agreement had generally remained above that maximum. The structure of the agreement had been “severely tested” due to continued trading at the “ceiling” price, and most of the operational problems with which the council had been faced had been due to the restricting elements incident to trading at the maximum price. Had prices moved between the maximum and minimum of the price range these problems would not have arisen.

Military and Economic Matters: One of the major questions discussed during the summer and autumn of 1952 both in organs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and between its members was the degree to which the 1952 defense commitments undertaken by NATO states at the Lisbon meeting of the Council in February, 1952, had been met. Preparatory to another meeting of the foreign ministers of NATO countries scheduled for December 15, 1952, preliminary estimates of the program for the coming year were being prepared on the basis of replies to questionnaires on the success of the current program and the outlook for 1953.

The eighth meeting of the North Atlantic Council met in Rome from November 24 through November 28, 1951, under the chairmanship of Lester B. Pearson (Canada) and with representatives of Gṙeece and Turkey participating as observers. Press reports indicated that the agenda included: 1) discussion of an interim report on the non-military objectives of the Atlantic alliance prepared by a five-power committee consisting of representatives of Canada, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium; 2) the report of the Military Committee calling for increased rearmament pledges for 1954 and increased commitment of military contingents in 1952; 3) a report by Dean G. Acheson (United States) on discussions held between Konrad Adenauer (Germany) and the foreign ministers of the United States, United Kingdom and France; 4) a recommendation that the Council of Deputies receive more power; and 5) an interim report by the Temporary Council Committee appointed at Ottawa to survey the economic resources of the members of the alliance.

Revision of the Italian Peace Treaty; Trieste: Meetings between the United States, United Kingdom and Italy on the administration of Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste which had begun in London on April 3, 1952 were adjourned April 11 after the three delegations had reviewed the economic, financial and administrative organization of Zone A. On April 16 the meetings were resumed and a drafting committee established. The three powers issued a communication on May 9 announcing new arrangements for the administration of Zone A designed “to give greater practical recognition to the predominantly Italian character of the zone” without prejudicing the ultimate decision on the Free Territory as a whole. The three governments agreed to the appointment by Italy of an Italian political adviser to the Zone Commander with a status similar to that of the political advisers appointed by the United States and United Kingdom.

On April 2, 1952, in letters to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to the United States Secretary of Defense (Lovett), the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (Eisenhower) asked that steps be taken to assure his release by June 1, 1952. The appointment of General Matthew Ridgway (Supreme Allied Commander, Far East) to succeed as Supreme Commander in Europe was unanimously approved by the NATO Council on April 28; the nomination had been made by the President of the United States (Truman) at the request of the Council. It was simultaneously announced that Alfred M. Greunther would continue in his capacity as Chief of Staff. The change in Supreme Commanders was effected at Rocquencourt on May 30, 1952.

On October 23, 1951, it was announced that, following informal discussions regarding the North Pacific Fisheries, Canada, Japan and the United States had agreed to participate in negotiations for a North Pacific fisheries convention. The conference was held at Tokyo from November 4 to December 14, 1951. All three countries had expressed desires to conclude a fisheries convention: the United States, to safeguard its major conservation programs in the North Pacific, to provide the facilities for cooperative research and management of joint fisheries not yet covered by treaties, and to avoid friction between United States fishermen and those of other countries which threatened to increase with the expansion of Japanese fishing operations; Canada, to safeguard its conservation programs without complicating or restricting its participation in the exploitation of stocks of fish along the adjacent coasts of the United States or complicating its past fishery relations with the United States; Japan, to satisfy the terms of article 9 of the Treaty of Peace, to show its willingness to cooperate with other countries in fishery conservative programs, and to reiterate its claim to the right of Japanese fishermen to exploit stocks of fish anywhere on the high seas. The delegations, which were composed of representatives of industry in each of the three states as well as governmental representatives, spent most of the first week in explaining and answering questions with respect to certain conservation proposals which the United States had offered as a basis for the talks. The conference then turned to a consideration of the Japanese counterproposals and, on December 14, representatives of the three countries signed a document entitled “Resolutions and Request of the Tripartite Fisheries Conference” which expressed their mutual concern in the development and proper utilization of fish stocks in the North Pacific, recommended the adoption of a convention conforming to the draft agreed to by the conference, and recommended that, in negotiating with other governments in respect to problems similar to those covered by the convention, the contracting parties should give full consideration to the spirit and intent of the convention.

European Payments Union: On June 30 the Council of EPU decided that the organization should continue for an additional year in accordance with Article 11 of the agreement. Special arrangements had to be made with the Belgian-Luxembourg economic union and with Portugal to settle surpluses beyond their respective quotas up to June 30, 1952. The settlement with the Belgian-Luxembourg economic union consisted of a payment by the union of $80 million in gold as part repayment of the credit and, on the part of the Belgian-Luxembourg economic union, a supplementary tranche beyond her creditor quota of 85.2 u/a settled as 42.6 million in gold and 42.6 million in credit. After the various adjustments, the cumulative accounting surplus of the Belgian-Luxembourg economic union came to 415.8 million u/a of which 33.6 million were within the quota and 85.2 million were beyond the quota. In the case of Portugal, the union waived its rights to recover $3 million in gold and the Portuguese accounting surplus was reduced to 15 million u/a settled as to 6 million in gold and 9 million in credit.

An arrangement proposed by the managing board of the European Payments Union to meet the situation which had arisen as a result of Belgium's having granted to other member countries far in excess of its stipulated quota was approved by the Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation on October 18, 1951. The plan provided that Belgian excess credits in EPU would be met for the next three months partly by payments in gold and partly by the granting of credit. Possible long-term solutions of the problem were to be investigated by the executive committee, which was to report by the end of the year.

The third survey of European Economic Cooperation prepared for the Council of Europe by the Organization for European Economic Cooperation was published in May 1952. The survey was presented as an interim report since, in accordance with decisions of the Council of OEEC in March 1952, a number of studies had been undertaken by OEEC results of which would not be available for several months.

Following extensive discussions in London during July of 1951, the Tripartite Commission on German Debts, whose members were Sir G. Rendel (United Kingdom), F. D. Gregh (France) and W. L. Pierson (United States), met again in London on November 26, 1951, with the delegation of the German Federal Republic, headed by H. J. Abs. The meeting was held to discuss the question of the settlement of Germany's debt in respect of postwar economic assistance received from the governments of the United Kingdom, France and the United States and, in addition, to discuss matters relating to the preparation for the international conference on prewar German debts which was to be held in London early in 1952 with the representatives of creditors from all countries having a significant interest in the matter. At the beginning of the meetings the German delegation was informed of the details of the tripartite postwar claims, the totals of which were as follows: United Kingdom, £201,000,000; France, $15,700,000; and United States, about $3,200,000,000. The priority of these postwar economic assistance claims over all other claims had been recognized in an exchange of notes of March 6, 1951, between the Allied High Commission and the government of the Federal Republic. The three governments had already made it clear, however, that they would be prepared to modify that priority in order to make possible a comprehensive and equitable settlement of the remainder of Germany's external debt. They expressed a willingness to make important concessions, both in respect to priority and the total amounts of their claims, on the clear understanding that the concessions were conditional on the achievement of a satisfactory and equitable settlement of Germany's prewar debts.

The Council of the Organization of American States, acting upon the decision of the Ninth Inter-American Conference held in Bogota in 1948, began preparation for the Tenth Inter-American Conference, scheduled to meet in Caracas in 1953. A special committee of eleven members, to be appointed by the Chairman of the Council, was established to prepare the program for the Conference.

Receiving primary consideration by the Fisheries Conference of specialists representing the six member governments of the South Pacific Commission, which met at Commission headquarters from May 14 to 22, 1952, was the development of fishing within the south Pacific area to meet the nutritional needs of the people. The conference stressed that in some territories populations were growing so rapidly that even present levels of fish consumption could be maintained only by increasing production. After discussing potential sources of fish foods, the conference considered that present methods used in processing, marketing and distribution of fish in the south Pacific were generally inadequate. It recommended the establishment where necessary of territorial fishing services to encourage development of the industry; requested the commission to explore the possibility of providing a special lecture course on fisheries administration for officers recruited within the region; and recommended that governments promote the development of community fishing enterprises, encourage the use of modern fishing techniques, and aid fishermen to acquire the necessary powered craft and modern equipment.