ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Footnotes continued from p. 63.

NOTE.-Exports are shown by country of destination. Imports are credited to the country in which the merchandise was originally produced, not necessarily the country from which purchases and shipments were made. General imports represent merchandise entered immediately upon arrival into merchandising or consumption channels plus commodities entered into bonded customs warehouses for storage. United States exports to North Korea were embargoed July 1950, and those to Communist China, Manchuria, and Outer Mongolia were embargoed the following December. On March 1, 1951, general export licenses to Eastern European countries were revoked and the requirement of prior approval by license was extended to cover all exports to this area. Imports from North Korea and Communist China, including Manchuria, were placed under license control December 17, 1950, by Foreign Assets Control Regulations of the Treasury Department. Pursuant to the Trade Agreement Extension Act of 1951, benefits of trade agreement tariff concessions were withdrawn from the U. S. S. R. and its satellites and an embargo was imposed on the importation of certain furs from China and the U. S. S. R.

Controls over imports of Chinese merchandise are exercised by the Treasury Department under Foreign Assets Control Regulations issued Dec. 17, 1950. Under these regulations the importation of Chinese goods is prohibited without license by the Treasury Department, and it it against the present policy of that agency to license such imports. Some items of Chinese origin, however, continue to appear in the statistical records of United States imports. For example, dutiable Chinese merchandise brought into the United States and stored in bonded customs warehouses prior to the effective date of the import control regulations is counted in import for consumption statistics at the time of withdrawal from warehouse. Duty-free merchandise permitted entry for customs inspection but subsequently rejected when determined to be of Chinese origin, may also be counted in the statistics. In addition, the figures may include imports licensed to avoid undue hardship to firms and individuals who acquired the Chinese merchandise in good faith and imports, from third countries, of Chinese products in which all Chinese interests had ceased by Dec. 17, 1950. In United States import statistics goods of Chinese origin are credited to China regardless of the country from which they came.

Table C.-United States Exports to Eastern Europe by Principal Commodities, 1956 and 1957

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

1 Adjusted to include exports to Latvia valued at $977,000 consisting of raw hides and skins, except fur, valued at $358,000 and inedible tallow, $619,000. There were no exports to Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania in 1956, nor to Estonia or Lithuania in 1957.

Table D.-United States Imports From Eastern Europe by Principal Commodities, 1956 and 1957

[blocks in formation]

1 Adjusted to include imports from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania valued at $268,000 consisting of fertilizers and fertilizer materials, $262,000; vehicles, except agricultural, $2,000; and other imports, $4,000. 2 Commodity data are reported on the basis of imports for consumption. Less than $500.

Senator MALONE. The reason I ask for that is that we have made quite a play that we do not trade in strategic and critical materials with the Soviet bloc, or so that such materials will be available to the Soviet bloc, have we not?

Secretary DULLES. There is a common list that is agreed upon by an interallied group in Paris of strategic materials and none of us trade in those.

Senator MALONE. In 1955 I was in Paris, I was in Geneva, spent 21⁄2 months behind the Iron Curtain, and I have information for you. I had a list of those materials and many countries were trading in those materials.

I do not know whether your Secret Service organization knew it or not. I hope they did. I was in Austria and anything that was shipped to Austria went on through if Russia really wanted it.

Now Mr. Secretary, you are familiar with the International Tra Organization (ITO) bill that was supplied Congress and which t State Department was very insistent on Congress passing.

I guess it was before your time, but you are familiar with it.
Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator MALONE. And Congress would not approve it.
Then are you familiar and you must be with the Internation
Trade Organization and the Office of Trade Cooperation. You a
familiar with the OTC; are you not?

Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir.

Senator MALONE. Did you not propose it when you were Secretar of State?

Secretary DULLES. I recall having supported it, yes.

Senator MALONE. It came from your Department; did it not? Secretary DULLES. No. It came from the Government generall I think the President transmitted the request.

Senator MALONE. Did the President confer with you before the bi came up here?

Secretary DULLES. He conferred with the Cabinet generally, yes. Senator MALONE. In this foreign trade bill perennially before Co gress you are the dominant figure in such consultations; are you not Secretary DULLES. No, sir.

Senator MALONE. I am glad to hear that. The press makes suc awkward mistakes.

Secretary DULLES. You say you are glad to hear it?

Senator MALONE. Yes; but the publicity refutes such a statemen when such bills are proposed to Congress.

Anyway, Congress refused to pass it.

Secretary DULLES. No, sir.

Senator MALONE. And if they had accepted the OTC or ITO, wha would it have done as far as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is concerned?

What would have been the effect?

Secretary DULLES. The effect of the OTC would have been t create machinery which would have policed more effectively ou multilateral trade agreements.

Senator MALONE. That was almost exactly like the Internationa Trade Organization, was it not?

Secretary DULLES. I do not think it was, but I am not particularly familiar with the ITO.

Senator MALONE. In any case, either one of those acts would hav approved the organization of GATT under which they are operating now in Geneva, 36 foreign competitive nations, with our Nation making 37, would it not?

Secretary DULLES. I think it would have; yes.

Senator MALONE. Aren't you sure of it?

Secretary DULLES. I'm sorry, I do not recall the legislation suffi ciently.

Senator MALONE. Maybe your assistant would know. You pressed the legislation hard enough before this committee to remember it. Secretary DULLES. I think you have got it the wrong way around, Senator.

Senator MALONE. Explain it.

Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. We have these agreements, these trade agreements, general agreements on tariffs and trade. These agreements provide certain trade rules. The OTC would not have approved that. It was set up to carry out GATT.

In other words, it is the child and not the parent, you might say. Senator MALONE. But, in any case, the operation in Geneva, a method under which to make multilateral trade agreements were made, would have been approved and made effective if OTC had been approved by Congress.

Secretary DULLES. The OTC would have been set up to carry out more effectively what is already agreed to in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Senator MALONE. In other words, the Congress then would have approved what you are doing in Geneva through OTC?

Secretary DULLES. No.

Senator MALONE. Explain it.

Secretary DULLES. Congress authorizes a general agreement.
Senator MALONE. Did they?

Secretary DULLES. If Congress had approved of the OTC, it would have set up an arrangement to administer and police the general agreement.

Senator MALONE. But they are approving the agreements.
Secretary DULLES. No, sir.

Senator MALONE. Didn't you just say, or did I misunderstand you, that the Congress had approved the agreements or GATT. You did not say that; did you?

Secretary DULLES. No.

Senator MALONE. I misunderstood you and I am glad that I did. Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator MALONE. Because Congress has refused to approve the GATT organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, every time it has been presented; haven't they?

Secretary DULLES. It is not explicitly approved; no.

Senator MALONE. It has not approved it at all; has it?
Secretary DULLES. It has never been asked to approve it.

Senator MALONE. Except in a round-about way through international trade organizations.

Secretary DULLES. That is where you and I differ.

You say the OTC was designed to approve of the General

Senator MALONE. Just what could you have done in Geneva if Congress had approved the OTC?

Secretary DULLES. If Congress had approved the OTC it would have approved a mechanism for carrying out the agreement.

Senator MALONE. When you were supporting OTC, as I remember your testimony, you said that you were doing your job under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva under the general authority of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act as extended.

Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator MALONE. You said that; did you not?

Secretary DULLES. Yes; I believe so.

Senator MALONE. And you were going to continue to do that whether or not we approved OTC. You testified to that. Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator MALONE. You are then conducting the whole operation under the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. In this basic general agreement then signed at Geneva on October 30, 1947, article 31 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provided that any contracting party may withdraw from the agreement on or after January 1, 1951, upon 6 months' notice.

The United States can withdraw and cancel all multilateral trade agreements upon 60 days' notice.

Article 26 of the agreement provides for the definitive entry into force thereof under specified conditions.

The agreement, however, was never entered definitively into force. This is a letter from the Tariff Commission:

It has been applied by the United States since January 1, 1948, pursuant to the protocol of provisional application of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on October 30, 1947, the same date which the general agreement itself was signed.

Paragraph 5 of the protocol, the provisional application, provides that

Any government applying this protocol shall be free to withdraw such application.

Such withdrawal shall take effect on the expiration of 60 days from the day on which written notice of such withdrawal is received by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

All of the products then revert to the Tariff Commission, an agent of Congress, upon the expiration of 60 days. Tariffs upon such products thereafter to be regulated under section 336 of the 1930 Tariff Code.

I understood you to testify earlier that it required 6 months. Secretary DULLES. It was my recollection that the withdrawal clause required 6 months' notice. If I am wrong in that

Senator MALONE. I wish you would check it for the record. Sixty days' notice is all that is required and the products so covered revert to the Tariff Commission on the statutory rate.

Secretary DULLES. Yes. I noticed from what you read there there was a reference to a 6 months' withdrawal notice.

Senator MALONE. The definitive entry into force thereof under specified conditions never was really approved under conditions that would have made it effective for the 6 months' withdrawal.

You may answer it in your own way.

Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Senator MALONE. Now this is a letter from the Tariff Commission dated March 4, 1958, which I will later include in the transcript.

A first letter of January 29 from the Tariff Commission was not entirely clear to me. That is the reason I asked for the second letter as to why 2 months' notice would do the job. Both these letters are signed by Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman of the Tariff Commission. This is what he says in regard to the withdrawal:

Any contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), including the United States, in accordance with the terms of the protocol provisional application of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade--which he later explained further in the second letter

is free to withdraw from the agreement upon the expiration of 60 days after notice of such withdrawal is received by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »