176. Confidential Report of the Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (Klutznick)1
I—INTRODUCTION
The 32nd Session of the Economic and Social Council was the first summer session attended by a United States delegation under the Kennedy Administration. It is appropriate under these circumstances to analyze the internal arrangements as well as the agenda and relationships within the Council itself. The character of the participation by the United States reflected a change of approach in two principal respects:
- First, an effort was made to induce high-level attendance from our government. This was achieved by the presence of the Chief of the Mission to the United Nations, Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Mr. Harlan Cleveland, and one of the members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Kermit Gordon. More will be said about their contributions elsewhere in this report.
- Secondly, an attempt was made to include certain representatives on Commissions in attendance during portions of the session of the Council. Since our Representative on the Human Rights Commission, Mrs. Marietta P. Tree and our Representative on the Social Commission, Mrs. Jane W. Dick, were both scheduled to be in Europe in any event, we imposed upon them to join the Delegation during the anticipated periods when items which they had handled before their Commissions respectively were in Committee or Plenary.
We believe this practice has substantial merit for the future. It undoubtedly added to the quality of the United States representation and interventions. It also afforded important personalities an opportunity to get some of the flavor of the ECOSOC forums. This two-way transference should provide a precedent for the future. It certainly enhanced the US performance at the 32nd Session.
As a newcomer to the summer session, and to Geneva in that connection, it is difficult to evaluate the relative significance of this session. By and large the atmosphere was calm. The initiatives were very few, [Page 369] and most of them arose from proposals previously or currently undertaken by the United States. A key member of the Secretariat openly stated that unless the US undertook something the Council remained passive. A noticeable tendency not to expand or to enter new areas prevailed among friends and foes. This may be due in some measure to a watchful, waiting attitude with regard to the UN organization altogether.
At the 32nd Session the United States Delegation urged throughout the importance of a balanced concept of economic and social development. This began with an extraordinary speech by Ambassador Stevenson on the World Economic Situation, and the point was made time and time again that the end of all economic work is social betterment. This view was expressed in some detail by Kermit Gordon in his speech on commodity problems. Here he emphasized that the basic test in approaching the solution of price problems was to determine whether or not that solution provided some relief for the problems of the many in the commodity producing countries. Assistant Secretary Cleveland called upon the Technical Assistance Committee to find ways to strengthen its work in the less developed countries, making the point that the search for the many for a better life demanded a better use of our resources. Needless to say, this same theme was expressed in the United States Representative’s speech on the World Social Situation as well as in submitting the volunteer personnel proposal to the Technical Assistance Committee.
A similar tone was struck by the Deputy Representative in the analysis of the problems of coordination. Throughout, the United States kept pounding away on the theme that we faced a new day and a new challenge, as well as a new opportunity. In the World Social Situation speech it was suggested that perhaps a general debate on the world economic situation and the world social situation should be combined, and the two reports should be coordinated.
In this report only certain selected items will be discussed, including certain administrative and procedural questions. The general report will reflect in greater detail all other developments.
II—Economic
The economic phase of the 32nd Session was literally in low gear. Ambassador Stevenson’s opening address on the World Economic Situation was followed by a number of speeches that concentrated primarily on domestic economic situations rather than the global scene. When the Economic Committee went into session there was no general economic debate either. The net result was that the world-wide economic situation came in for limited attention.
Most of the items that were discussed excited very little attention or difference of opinion. We have already commented on the discussions [Page 370] on international commodity problems. This was the kind of problem which, of course, brought out some spirited discussion since there were vital national interests involved.
When the US initiated the discussion on the use of food surpluses there was surprisingly little interest in pursuing the subject to a conclusion. Actually, we were unable to secure sponsors for a resolution which was ultimately adopted with some changes. There was reluctance on the part of some member states to get involved in the possibility of being required to contribute any cash to a $100 million fund. The whole concept of surplus food as a means for economic development, which seems so exciting to some of us, found a few followers, but no great enthusiasm.
[Here follow Sections III–XVI.]
XVII—CONCLUSION
The most common complaint heard on all sides at Geneva concerned the decline in stature of ECOSOC itself. There is a great danger that when enough people begin to believe something it can accelerate that something into becoming a reality. The real trouble is not in the meetings of ECOSOC, even though they seem to labor so painfully to produce so little. The very character of the work and the nature of an international conference makes this somewhat inevitable. But, even producing bricks instead of houses can be a satisfying experience if the direction is right and the plan is clear. It is doubtless the lack of direction and the absence of a real over-all plan with regard to ECOSOC that constitutes the greatest present peril.
In this connection there are at least two deficiencies that must be cured. One is the size of ECOSOC. I realize all of the problems about expansion, but until this happens there will continue to exist a large body of opinion that considers ECOSOC unrepresentative and ineffectual.
Secondly, the major powers, or even the major power, our own, must put more trust in the multilateral economic and social programs. There is a sense of drifting in the absence of such an evidence of progress. The Soviet has no interest in this multilateral process. Our immediate friends are distressed about trusting it or paying for it. Therefore, unless and until we demonstrate a greater belief in multilateral economic and social programs, ECOSOC must decline.
This meeting demonstrated a great interest in improving the coordinating processes through ECOSOC. There is a certain amount of maturing in the Council’s attitude toward these problems. The United States has played a very important role in bringing this about. But, coordination in and of itself is hardly a stimulating goal. What is worse, interest in coordination can only be related to the intensity and importance [Page 371] of substantive programs that need coordination. Consequently, our government is destined by events to reach a virtually unilateral conclusion that may determine the character and stature of ECOSOC. This is an awesome responsibility viewed against its potential.
- Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Departments and Agencies Series, Department of State, 8/1/61–8/4/61, Box 284. Confidential. The 32d session of ECOSOC was held in Geneva July 5–August 4. The report was transmitted under cover of a letter of August 4 from Klutznick in Geneva to Assistant Secretary of State Cleveland.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩