Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

become necessary in order to reply to an aide-mémoire received on July 16 from the British. This special subcommittee met but once formally and was composed of Messrs. Davis (Chairman), Dunn, Hackworth, Pasvolsky, and Taylor, General Strong, and Admiral Hepburn. Its conclusions were reflected in our discussions with the British at the first Quebec Conference and in the new impetus given just prior to that conference toward the initiation of negotiations on a general international organization.

In addition to these groups, need had been felt by the officials of the Advisory Committee as early as the autumn of 1942 for the establishment of a different type of body to function on a standing basis at a technical level. The Security Subcommittee had increasingly found it impossible to give sufficient attention in its own meetings to security problems concerning individual countries, other than the principal enemy states. It therefore instituted, by a decision December 5, 1942, a Security Technical Committee, working under its general direction, particularly to integrate the high staff-level consideration of country security problems with the work of the Territorial and Political Subcommittees.

The Security Technical Committee was composed of officers of the research staff, of representatives of the War and Navy Departments, and of desk officers from the geographic divisions of the Department. Its regular members were Mr. Kirk of the research staff, Chairman, Mr. Cannon (Liaison Officer for the Geographic Divisions of the Department of State), members of the security unit of the research staff, Messrs. Sandifer and Howard from other units of the research staff, and Captain Pence (Navy) and Colonel Olive (War). The Geographer's Office was usually represented by Otto Guthe, and a large number of other officers of the Department attended at different times as subjects of direct concern to them arose. This committee functioned from December 23, 1942, to July 2, 1943, holding a total of twenty-one meetings. It proceeded systematically with studies of the countries of Europe and then those of the Near East, Africa, the Far East, and the Pacific, giving attention at all times to our national security interests and to related Western Hemisphere factors. Thereby it examined most of the world's strategic problems in considerable detail. Its documentation was utilized directly in the research conducted for the Political and Territorial as well as for the Security Subcommittee. When the meetings of this technical group had terminated, its military and naval experts and the members of the research staff kept in touch. This association provided a continuing link among the three Departments after August 11, 1943, when the Security Subcommittee completed its work, until a new interdepartmental structure was developed for coordination of views on terms of surrender and the con

trol arrangements for enemy countries.19 The remaining over-all work of the Security Subcommittee was absorbed, as will be seen, by the group taking responsibility for the consideration of general international organization after the departure from the original structure of the Advisory Committee in the latter half of 1943.

THE TWO ECONOMIC SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE COMMITTEE ON POST-WAR FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY

THE SUBCOMMITTEE on Economic Reconstruction and the Subcommittee on Economic Policy differed considerably from the subcommittees in the political field in function, composition, and organizational experience. The principal reasons for this difference were the relatively advanced stage of general economic policy formulation reached before these subcommittees began work and the diffusion of economic activity throughout the old-line and wartime agencies of the Government during the period of the preparation.

General economic foreign policy was in process of elaboration, rather than of exploration and consideration, when the Advisory Committee was instituted. The economic policy statements of the 1930's, the Atlantic Charter, and Article VII of the United StatesUnited Kingdom Mutual Aid Agreement were relatively explicit, and showed a high degree of continuity. The essential elements on which United States economic foreign policy was based were not undergoing shifts and alterations of such major proportions as those determining political policy. The contrast between the functioning of the economic and political subcommittees was apparent in the first subject considered by the former, relief. Arrangements for meeting this problem were already in the early stages of negotiation by the time of the first subcommittee meetings, and the Subcommittee on Economic Reconstruction could immediately agree on the need of a relief organization and proceeded to consider its character.

Likewise, the first long-range subject considered by the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, preparation for Article VII discussions, necessitated essentially only a further development on the basis of policies already formulated.

Certain circumstances tended to cause somewhat uneven consideration of general economic policy problems in the period February 1942– March 1943. In view of the appreciable extent of continuity among the relevant economic considerations extending beyond the war itself into the postwar period, the line between short- and long-range problems

"The Interdepartmental Working Security Committee established in December 1943, described later, p. 225.

was often indistinct, and any attempt to be guided by it was sometimes justified only for purposes of orderly analysis. Moreover, given the uncertainties in regard to postwar political policy, the economic subcommittees could proceed to detailed preparation only to a limited extent in several most important fields, pending decisions on over-all political policy questions. These and related factors, including the increasingly evident advisability of having high-level governmental coordinating structure to arrive at agreed policy on the problems in this field, were influential in producing fundamental changes in the organization for the economic field after the first year.

The diffusion of the Government's economic postwar work had been reflected in the initial membership of the subcommittees. As Under Secretary Welles explained at the first meeting of the Advisory Committee, the postwar planning function in the economic field was divided between the Board of Economic Warfare and the Department of State, although recommendations to the President from both agencies were to be made through the Secretary of State. Other parts of the Government were directly interested in the subjects under consideration, however, and the interdepartmental character of the two subcommittees was initially and increasingly evident. Representation of official jurisdictions, rather than selection of members on the basis primarily of personal qualifications, consequently determined the composition of the subcommittees in the economic fields more than in the political fields.

As previously noted, the Advisory Committee used the device of two subcommittees and two chairmen to insure due concentration on both short-range and long-range economic problems, but provisions had been made for a large degree of common membership and for freedom of members to attend the meetings of both subcommittees. Similarly, while the short-range problems of relief and of restoration and reconstruction of production facilities were assigned to the Reconstruction Subcommittee and the long-range problems of commercial policy and relations, monetary relations, credit and investment, and international commodity agreements and cartels were assigned to the Economic Policy Subcommittee, certain problems were assigned to both subcommittees. This was done to assure adequate examination first of shortrange and then of long-term aspects of these problems. Such common assignments included demobilization of persons and movements of populations; labor conditions, social security, and voluntary migrations; and shipping and land transportation. Aviation, broadcasting, and economic sanctions were also assigned to both, though priority of consideration for these fields was vested in the Security Subcommittee.

The organization as established by the Advisory Committee and amplified at the first joint meeting of the economic subcommittees in February 1942 remained unchanged until July 17, 1942. During that

period the following served as members of both subcommittees: Messrs. Acheson (Chairman of the Economic Policy Subcommittee), Berle (Chairman of the Reconstruction Subcommittee), Appleby, Feis, Hawkins, and Pasvolsky. Messrs. Cohen, White, and Bean were members of the Economic Policy Subcommittee only but attended some meetings of the other subcommittee. Conversely, Messrs. Davis, Niles, and Myron C. Taylor were members of the Reconstruction Subcommittee but attended some meetings of the Economic Policy Subcommittee. Mr. Stone was present only at meetings of the Subcommittee on Economic Reconstruction. H. Julian Wadleigh served as secretary to both subcommittees and, until October when Walter A. Radius participated, was the only attending subordinate officer from the research staff.

During the period February 20-July 17, 1942, there were eighteen meetings: two joint meetings, ten meetings of the Reconstruction Subcommittee, and six of the Economic Policy Subcommittee. Although it was intended to have the subcommittees meet on alternate weeks, actually the scheduling of meetings was determined by the urgency for dealing with the subject under consideration. International relief was the subject at the ten meetings 20 of the Reconstruction Subcommittee. The discussions ranged from operational activities in connection with a preliminary exchange of views with the British Government to the drafting of a detailed charter for what became, in the next year, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. In the Economic Policy Subcommittee, a start was also made on preparing for discussions under Article VII of the lend-lease agreements in meetings on March 6 and 27 and April 10 and 24, leading to the initiation of necessary research on the full array of problems encompassed in that article. A significant feature of this initial approach was the emphasis placed on calculating the probable conditions of the postwar economies of various nations and on determining the measures that would be required to restore and to promote their economic health. While the probable status of British balance of payments was first explored, strong emphasis was placed on the need to bring the Soviet Union, the nations of Latin America, and other countries into Article VII discussions.21 On May 22 and June 26, 1942, consideration of the economic aspects of the several suggestions currently being made for a regional arrangement in Eastern Europe was undertaken at the request of the Political Subcommittee. From the earliest meetings, a general international organization, although outside the province of the economic subcommittees, was regarded as desirable; its precise

"On Mar. 6, 20, Apr. 3, 17, May 1, 15, June 5, 12, 15, and 19, 1942.

21 By the end of 1945, twenty-three nations had either signed lend-lease agreements incorporating Article VII or comparable provisions or through other agreements had subscribed to the principles embodied in Article VII.

843388-50-10

nature and the relationship of any postwar organization in the economic field to it was, however, to remain for long a major question.

The experience with these initial discussions was reflected in the reallocation of fields of work involved in the first readjustment of the Advisory Committee structure for economic preparations. This change was instituted on July 17, 1942. It was on this occasion, it will be recalled, that Messrs. Emeny, Reuther, and Watt commenced their attendance as members. The readjustment stemmed directly from proposals made on that date at a joint meeting of the economic subcommittees. Mr. Berle proposed that he handle long-range problems and have on his subcommittee Messrs. Bean, Feis, Niles, Pasvolsky, Reuther, Myron C. Taylor, and White, and that Mr. Acheson's subcommittee should handle short-range and transitional problems, and be composed of Messrs. Appleby, Cohen, Davis, Emeny, Hawkins, Pasvolsky, and Watt. These proposals, which included suggestions that the two subcommittees should meet on alternate Fridays and that copies of the agenda and documents of each should be circulated to the other in recognition of the special interests of individual members in particular subjects, were accepted and followed until the next spring. This procedure, which encouraged an intermingling of attendance and discussion, rendered the two bodies in effect one committee with dual chairmanship. Their minutes and documentation were numbered in a single series and the prior records of the subcommittees on reconstruction and economic policy were incorporated into this series.

The combined membership during the period July 1942-March 1943 was Messrs. Berle (Chairman at sixteen meetings), Acheson (Chairman at eight meetings), Appleby, Cohen, Davis, Emeny, Feis, Hawkins, Niles, Pasvolsky, Stone and Bean (for Milo Perkins), Reuther. Myron C. Taylor, Wayne C. Taylor (who joined the committee July 24, 1942), Watt, and White. In January 1943 Mr. Stinebower succeeded Mr. Wadleigh as secretary. During 1943 there was notably active participation by the staff in discusssions and in initiation of work.22 During this period as a whole, four major problems were considered: relief, European economic organization, shipping, and general commercial policy. The first of these was in a negotiating stage.

"Additional officers from the research divisions who attended some of the meetings were Allen T. Bonnell, Shepard B. Clough, Mrs. Eleanor L. Dulles, Richard Eldridge, Harold V. Fay, David Harris, Melvin M. Knight, Walter A. Radius, Alexander M. Rosenson, Robert P. Terrill, and John P. Young. Other officers in the Department who attended occasionally were Samuel W. Boggs, Robert Carr, Herbert Cummings, Julian Foster, John S. Hooker, and Eugene Rostow. Occasionally officers from other government Departments, and especially wartime agencies, attended meetings, reflecting the range of specialized contributory interests involved in such problems as relief and shipping.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »