addressed to Antarctic stations occupied by other participating countries;

(b) invite the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union to advise other postal administrations to send correspondence addressed to an Antarctic station to the postal administration of the country occupying the station for onward transmission;

(c) recognize as duly prepaid correspondence originating in an Antarctic station occupied by another participating country and prepaid in postage stamps issued by that country;

(d) accept such prepaid correspondence for transmission from the Antarctic by all available means of transport to the most convenient office of exchange in a participating country;

(e) reforward the correspondence from the office of exchange to its destination in accordance with the provisions of the Universal Postal Convention,15 particularly those concerning transit payments; (f) put their mail services, subject to prepayment in the normal way, at the disposal of the personnel of any Antarctic station occupied by another participating country which is for any reason prevented from using the stamps of that country for the prepayment of its correspondence.

In respect of Recommendation I-XIII, the Chilean Delegation stated that it understood that the declaration in no way implied a change in Article V of the Antarctic Treaty, and the French Delegation stated that it considered that the information exchanged should also be brought to the notice of the International Atomic Energy Agency when Governments considered this was appropriate.

In respect of Recommendation I-XIV, the New Zealand Delegation expressed the hope that any consultations pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 would take place in a capital where New Zealand had diplomatic representation.

"TIAS 4202; 10 UST 413.

Part IV

THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY
AND WESTERN EUROPE

A. The Atlantic Community-Efforts To Achieve an Equitable Sharing of the Burden of Common Defense (ÑATO) and of the Resources for Economic Development (OECD)

164. APPOINTMENT OF AN ADVISORY GROUP TO STUDY UNITED STATES POLICY IN NATO: Statement Made by the President (Kennedy) at a News Conference, February 8, 1961 1

I do want to say a word or two about NATO. This is our central and most important defensive alliance, but in the larger sense it is much more. The members of NATO must be leaders also in and out of NATO itself, in such great causes as the integration of Europe and the cooperative development of new nations. We, for our part, mean to go on as full and energetic partners in NATO, and, in particular, we wish to maintain our military strength in Europe. Secretary Rusk is making an especially careful study of our policy in this great organization, and I am delighted to say that he will have the help not only of Ambassador Finletter but of an advisory group under the direction of one of the true founders of NATO, a distinguished former Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson.2

1

1 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1961, pp. 66-67.

2 At his Mar. 9, 1961, news conference, the Secretary of State, in response to a question, said: "We do not expect that there will be a formal Acheson report. He is helping us to develop our normal governmental views within the Department." (Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 27, 1961, p. 438.)

165. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT: Address by the Secretary of State (Rusk) Before the Government-Industry Conference, Washington, February 13, 1961 (Excerpt) 3

One of the steps we hope to take to join with the free peoples of Europe and Canada to meet jointly some of the crucial economic problems confronting us will come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow morning.

After nearly a year of negotiations my colleague, Secretary Dillon, signed on behalf of the United States last December 14 a convention establishing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, commonly referred to as the OECD. We consider the establishment of the OECD as potentially a historic step in our economic relations with our friends of the Western World.

The initial members of the OECD will be the six countries of the Common Market (France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy) and the Outer Seven (United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland), as well as Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Turkey, Spain, and the two North American countries, Canada and the United States.

The OECD will not be wholly new, nor will it simply be an extension of the past. Some 131⁄2 years ago my distinguished predecessor, General George C. Marshall, issued a call for mutual cooperation among the war-torn European nations to achieve recovery with the help of the United States. From this call flowed the Marshall plan and the Organization for European Economic Cooperation. OEEC thus came into being to administer United States assistance, but it quickly became the forum for European cooperation in a multitude of economic tasks, not the least of which was the reduction of trade barriers.

The

The basic objectives of the OEEC have been achieved. The industrialized nations of Europe have not merely recovered but have achieved unprecedented economic vigor. At the same time, in fact partly as a consequence, the economies of Europe and North America alike have become increasingly interdependent. It is no longer simply a case of "When the United States sneezes, all of Europe contracts influenza." We are all susceptible to the contagion of economic maladjustments. It was in recognition of this increasing interdependence

'Department of State press release No. 66 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 6, 1961, pp. 323-326). The Government-Industry Conference was sponsored by the National Industrial Conference Board, Inc.

6

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 333-335.

See A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941-1949, pp. 1268-1270.

For the text of the convention establishing the OEEC, see American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, pp. 992-1000.

that the United States took the initiative in proposing the OECD to supersede the OEEC."

One type of maladjustment which has been widely publicized in recent months is the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit. This is not merely of concern to us but to our European friends as well. Why is this so? Are they simply being asked to worry about our difficulty because we once worried about theirs? There is more to it than that. What happens to the dollar has a direct effect upon the European economies. The dollar is a world currency and shares with gold and sterling the burden of providing reserves for international trade. The bulk of the dollars held abroad on official account are held by the European countries. Hence they share with us the desire and will to maintain the value of the dollar, which this Government is, of course, determined to do.

Furthermore the U.S. deficit is only one side of the equation. There is also a surplus-the surplus of Germany and other countries-which equally presents long-run problems. It is not sufficient that we, alone, take action to eliminate the U.S. deficit. It is equally important that those countries enjoying substantial surpluses adopt appropriate economic policies. Otherwise we would be merely passing our deficit on to some other country and aggravating its balance-of-payments problems and would start down the path of shrinking rather than expanding economies.

It is clear, I think, that we must attack both aspects-the deficit and the surplus of the imbalance in the payments situation. But can the OECD itself take action to cure this problem? Literally, it cannot, of course. It is an organization of independent nations who must make their own decisions. But the OECD provides a framework where these nations can consult about their policies to assure that each country, in making its decisions, is aware of the implications of its policies for other countries. We do not expect or desire all countries to follow the same policies, but we want to assure that the policies are, so far as possible, harmonious and help to achieve our common goals.

Some of these goals are stated clearly in the OECD convention." The first aim of the Organization is the promotion of policies designed to attain and to maintain the highest sustainable rate of economic growth and employment. This includes the need to achieve a rising standard of living. If we are to achieve such a rise and at the same time contribute to world security, our economies must expand at a high

rate.

The second goal-which is at the same time the principal new feature of the OECD as compared to the OEEC-is the expansion and improvement of our financial and technical assistance to peoples in other areas of the world. If we are to meet the critical needs of these peoples for the help which can only come from the outside, we must form a partnership with the other free, industrialized countries of the world, many of which are becoming more aware of their responsibilities.

7

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 319–326. 8 See ibid., pp. 786-795.

"Text post, doc. 176.

The problem of assisting less developed countries is so urgent that we decided not to wait until the new Organization was established. Accordingly, the Development Assistance Group was established in January 1960," when the negotiations for the OECD were initiated.

The DAG consists of those countries which are providing a substantial amount of bilateral long-term assistance to less developed countries namely, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, and the Commission of the European Economic Community. The DAG has had three meetings at which information on aid programs has been exchanged and the adequacy of each country's aid programs and of the terms on which it is given have been reviewed." These discussions are gradually beginning to bear fruit. Some of the European countries are increasing their aid programs, are now making budgetary provision for such assistance, and are now making grants as well as loans and providing long-term development credits as well as short-term export credits.

Much remains to be done, but an encouraging beginning has been made. Upon the inception of the OECD the DAG will be reconstituted as its Development Assistance Committee.

Finally, the convention calls for the promotion of policies to expand world trade on a multilateral nondiscriminatory basis. I can state unequivocally that the OECD will not assume broad trade functions. It will not cut tariffs. It will not assume any of the functions which had been planned for the Organization for Trade Cooperation." Nor will the OECD in any way infringe upon or control the GATT [General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade].

I am informed that the Congress is being bombarded by letters and telegrams opposing approval of the OECD-but on false grounds. I deeply regret that there is apparently an attempt to misinform the public and to engender needless fear. Essentially these communications state that the OECD will take the tariffmaking and commercial policy functions away from the Congress and will cost workers their jobs. The facts, of course, are: The OECD will have nothing to do with tariffmaking. It carefully recognizes the constitutional requirements in the United States. It is designed to expand economic activity, including U.S. export markets, not to contract it. It is an essential instrument in our efforts to develop the strength and cohesion of the entire free world.

But it will have a Trade Committee with carefully delineated functions. The first of these functions is the confrontation of general trade policies, an essential adjunct of the review of the economic policies of the members. This will provide the United States with another forum in which to press those countries which still maintain restrictions on our exports, particularly our agricultural exports. The second function is primarily designed for the airing of complaints about trade

11

12

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, p. 327.

See ibid., pp. 329–333.

See American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, pp. 3014-3021.