Agreement was reached among the members of the Arab League's Palestine Commission to grant visas to pilgrims to the Holy Land during the 1950 Roman Catholic Holy Year, even though the applicants had Israeli visas. It had been the policy of the commission to deny visas to persons having such visas. The commission also decided that the Arab states should continue to prevent the loading or provisioning of vessels bearing or suspected of bearing goods considered war contraband or immigrants to Israel, and recommended that an exchange blacklist be maintained of such vessels.

Ninth Session

The ninth meeting of the Caribbean Commission was held at St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, from December 5 to 9 under the chairmanship of Ward M. Canaday (United States). One of the first items to be considered was the Secretary General's report on secretariat activities since the eighth meeting of the Commission. The Secretary-General (Cramer) reported that in addition to servicing the Commission and the Caribbean Research Council, the secretariat had carried out the publications program of the Commission, had handled numerous requests for information and assistance, and had undertaken studies on such subjects as soil erosion, Caribbean industry and the utilization of sugar by-products. The Commission approved appointments to the Caribbean Research Council and its committees on medicine, public health and nutrition, sociology and education, economics and statistics, engineering, and industrial development. It was decided to convene in 1950 a small conference of territorial statistical officers to discuss standardization of methods of reporting trade statistics. A United States paper on “Socio Economic Surveys in the Caribbean Area” which had been submitted at the eighth meeting was considered in the light of governmental comments on the projects proposed, and the Commission agreed to give priority to two projects deemed to be of the most immediate value to the social and economic development of the area: a study of Caribbean employment patterns and the factors affecting industrial productivity, and a study of educational and leadership requirements. Third order of priority was given to a survey of variations in the cost and levels of living in the various Caribbean territories.

Eighth Session

The eighth session of the Consultative Council of Western Powers was held in Brussels on April 16 and 17, 1950. The main business of the meeting was to discuss how the costs of the joint defense projects could be shared. Up to this time each government had paid the costs of its own contingents at the disposal of the organization and all expenditure incurred within its own territory. From the French point of view this had tended to make the common effort relatively more expensive for France than for the other countries while from the United Kingdom point of view, simply fixing the percentages that each country should, bear of the total expenditure would not necessarily be fair, as an airfield built under the treaty plans could in peace time be an advantage to the country in which it was located. This point of view was, in turn, not particularly favored by the Belgians who felt that Belgium had contributed to the common defense proportionally as much as the other powers. The relative amount in each country's budget devoted to the common pool was not an accurate indication as each budget had been drawn up in an entirely different manner, making comparisons difficult. The only thing which counted was the final result: the number of men trained and equipped as well as the material which each country could put on the line; in this regard the Belgians felt they were certainly not lagging behind. It was finally agreed at the meeting that projects of common interest should be paid for in common. The procedure for such payment was to be the subject of proposals submitted to the governments.

Following the decision of the Committee of Ministers, the government of the Federal German Republic on July 13, 1950 deposited with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe an instrument accepting the Statute of the Council, thereby becoming an associate member of the Council. At the same time the government of the Saar deposited an instrument accepting the Statute and also became an associate member. Germany was to have eighteen seats in the Assembly and the Saar three.1 August 7, 1950 was fixed by the Standing Committee as the opening day of the secondsession of the Consultative Assembly.

Defense Commitee

A week of conferences on strategic plans for meeting the threat of communist aggression preceded the meeting of the Defense Committee on the North Atlantic Treaty organization on April 1at the Hague. The North Atlantic Military Production and Supply Board met for one day on March 24 at the Hague under the chairmanship of Hubert K. Howard, head of the United States delegation. The primary object of this meeting was to consider certain proposals for an integrated and coordinated production of military equipment and supplies by members of the pact. An official statement made at the end of the meeting announced that “encouraging” progress had been made in laying the groundwork for effective operation of production and supply activity. Thestanding group of the Military Committee, composed of military representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, on March 25 resolved final, minor differences in an all inclusive program evolved from plans of the five regional military groups in the pact.

Council of OEEC

On April 4, 1950, the Council of OEEC held its annual election. Dr. Dirk U. Stikker, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and political conciliator of OEEC, was elected chairman of the Council, thus combining the functions of those two OEEC offices. Representatives of Austria and Switzerland were elected as vicechairmen of the Council, while new members of the executive committee of OEEC were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom retained the presidency of this committee and France the vice-presidency and Turkey replaced Switzerland as rapporteur géndral. The Council also decided to do away with the consultative group of eleven which had proved to be unwieldy and to eliminate the practice by which the chairman and vice-chairmen had been expected to spend two days of every week in Paris. It was decided that: 1) the full Council should meet at the ministerial level on the first Friday of every second month; 2) whenever circumstances demanded, the executive committee could be convened at the ministerial level, with the participation of the chairman of the Council and possibly at his call; 3) the chairman was empowered to ask the vice-chairmen to meet with him in Paris at any time to review progress or to discuss action. In response to a request from the Council of Europe, the Council of OEEC appointed a subcommittee of three members to meet with a similar subcommittee from the Council of Europe to discuss closer cooperation. Sweden and Italy were named to the OEEC subcommittee with a third member to be announced later.

Council of the Organization

Meeting on April 8, 1950 as the Organ of Consultation in conformity with the Inter-American treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the Council passed nine resolutions based on the recommendations of the Investigating Committee appointed January 6, 1950. Declaring that the facts verified by the InvestigatingCommittee were in violation of several inter-American treaties, such as the Rights and Duties of States, 1933, the Additional Protocol Relative to Non-intervention, 1936, and to the principles of Article 15 of the Charter of OAS, the Council resolved to 1) request the government of the Dominican Republic to take “immediate and effective measures to prevent government officials from tolerating, instigating, encouraging, aiding, or fomenting subversive or seditious movements against other Governments;” 2) request the Dominican Republic to comply with the Joint Declaration of June 9, 1949; 3) point out to both governments the advisability of strengthening their relations by a bilateral treaty, incorporating the aims of the Havana Convention of 1928 on the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife and containing a special provision to prevent ”the inhabitants, national or foreign, of each country from taking part in activities of any kind capable of disturbing the internal order of the neighboring country;” 4) point out to both governments the advisibility of reaching a bilateral agreement to deal with problems connected with the employment of Haitian workers in the Dominican Republic; 5) request both governments to take whatever action lay within their power to prevent the continuation of systematic or hostile propaganda, by any medium whatsoever, against each other or against any other American countries and their respective governments; and 6) express the hope of the Council that good relations be reestablished between the two countries.

First South Pacific Conference

Sir Brian Freeston, Governor of Fiji, was chairman of the first South Pacific Conference which met at Nasinu, Fiji, April 25 to May 5, 1950. The proposed agenda items had been assigned to the member governments for the preparation of introductory papers to serve as discussion guides; Australia reported on mosquito control and die improvement and diversification of food and export crops; the United States on village health; New Zealand on the village school; Netherlands on vocational training; the United Kingdom on cooperative societies; and France on fisheries methods. The conference adopted recommendations in each of these fields as well as exchanging ideas and information on administrative matters. Delegates attended the Conference from Papua, New Guinea, Nauru, New Caledonia and dependencies, French Oceania, the Netherlands, New Guinea, Western Samoa, Cook Islands including Niue, Fiji, British Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands, Ellice Islands, American Samoa, New Hebrides, and Tonga.

The United States High Commissioner (Keyes) reported that the question or Austrian communications continued to absorb the time of the Allied Commission for Austria during the first quarter of 1950. One of the questions referred to the Allied Council by the Executive Committee concerned the redistribution of radio frequencies for Austrian broadcasting stations. The United States, the United Kingdom and French High Commissioners recognized the necessity for additional wave lengths in Austria and, with one exception, gave full support to the proposal of the director general of the Austrian Post and Telegraph Administration made in January 1950 allocating new wave lengths. The Soviet High Commissioner demanded that Austrian radio stations be limited to the four frequencies allotted by the European broadcasting convention held in Copenhagen in 1948, which had been rejected as inadequate in number and of improper wave length for mountainous terrain by Austria. After considerable discussion, during which no agreement was reached, the question was dropped.

Reorganization of the Coal and Steel Industries of the Ruhr: On March 29 the Allied High Commissioners met with west German trade union leaders to discuss the contemplated revision of the anti-trust provisions for Ruhr iron and steel and coal industries of United States-United Kingdom Law 75, passed by the bipartite military government organization in November 1947. After two days of continued negotiations on the proposed law, which would reorganize the iron and steel industries of the Ruhr, the Allied High Commission on April 14 issued a communiqué stating that the draft of the law had been adopted with certain amendments. The communiqué further stated that the decision to adopt the preamble had not been unanimous and that an appeal had been made against it. When Sir Brian Robertson (United Kingdom) and John J. McCloy (United States) voted in favor of the preamble, André François-Poncet (France) appealed to the French government against a clause granting the federal government the right to decide the eventual ownership of die iron and steel and coal industries. Following rejection of the French appeal the Commission made public the reorganization law on May 17.

On April 26 the Council of Foreign Ministers' deputies resumed negotiations on the Austrian treaty in London; no progress was made, however, and the meeting was adjourned to allow further time for direct negotiations between the Soviet Union and Austria on Austrian payment for Soviet goods and services received since the end of World War II.

Report of the Secretary-General for 1949: During the four years the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency had been in existence, the rate at which German industrial and other reparation had been made available to it by the occupying powers in Germany and by neutral countries had been extremely slow and the total pool of expected reparations had been subjected to continual reductions. By the end of 1949, however, the agency finally knew roughly the amount and value of the final pool of reparations and could foresee the end of its task. Of the two chief forms of reparations, industrial capital and German external assets, the allocation of the first was expected to be completed by the spring of 1950 and the final accounting of the external assets was scheduled to take place in January 1951. It was expected that by the time accounts were closed member governments would have received $517,000,000 in reparations from Germany.

The twentieth annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, which reviewed the period from April 1, 1949, to March 30, 1950, noted that “despite much political anxiety, economic recovery has in general been achieved on a more substantial scale than seemed possible after the convulsions and destruction brought about by the second world war.” World production levels stood 35 percent above pre-war, with the peak increase of 70 percent occurring in the United States. Given this increased production, however, the Bank pointed out that the increase in the total national income had not kept pace with the increase in population. Industrial production had risen more than the output in agriculture and other fields. Yet reconstruction needs and increased military expenditures resulting from the uncertain political situation prevented the full benefit of the increased production to be realized. Patterns of trade had also been disarranged as, for example, between eastern and western Europe; and disturbing influences and other forms of disorganization created by the war still affected the monetary system. In addition to considering the significance of mounting production, the report dealt also with 1) the return to a balanced system as between national receipts and expenditures; 2) the approach to more normal price relationships; 3) foreign trade in 1949; 4) the effects of the 1949 devaluation cycle; and 5) intra-European payments and compensation.

Established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Central Commission of the Rhine assumed its present character as a result of modifications provided in the Treaty of Versailles (1919). Its operations terminated vis-à-vis Germany in 1936 and suspended completely in 1939; the commission was reorganized on a provisional basis in 1945 as a result of the Potsdam Conference and the proposal made there that nations take immediate steps to establish interim machinery for the internationalization of each of the principal waterways of Europe. Six member governments – Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United States and United Kingdom – agreed to the provisional organization, Germany's interests being represented by the delegations of the three western occupying powers. Four meetings of the commission were held during 1949 at which decisions involving technical aspects of improvement of navigation conditions and maintenance of full navigability were reached. The budget for 1949 was estimated at 16,320,000 French francs.

On November 15, 1949 the United States, United Kingdom and France sent parallel notes to the governments of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia declaring that the United States, United Kingdom and France did not recognize the Convention of August 18, 1948, establishing the Danube Commission, as having any valid international effect. Declaring that the convention violated concepts of international waterways which had been recognized in Europe for 130 years, the note stated that it also failed to carry out the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers of December 6, 1946. The convention deprived the United Kingdom and France of rights established by international agreement in 1921, and disregarded the “legitimate interest of non-riparian states.”

The International Cotton Advisory Committee held its ninth plenary meeting in Washington from May 22 to 31, 1950. Principal goals of the meeting were to further progress toward the committee's three major objectives of 1) furnishing information on the current economic international position of cotton, 2) serving as a forum for the exchange of views and ideas looking toward a solution of the international cotton industry's problems, and 3) formulating suggestions for international economic study in dealing with world cotton problems. Representation at the meeting was the largest since the committee had been organized in 1939; delegates from the following governments participated: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

First established at the International Penitentiary Congress of London in 1872, the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission was organized as it now exists by constitutional regulations adopted in 1880, confirmed in 1886, and revised in 1926, 1929, 1946 and 1948. Eleven international congresses have been convened, the last in Berlin in 1935; and the commission held its most recent meeting in Bern in August of 1949. The commission took as its terms of reference responsibility for promoting exchanges of views among expert penologists of all countries in order to develop standards and advise as to the development of progressive methods of preventing crime and treating offenders: The expenses for 1949 were estimated at 121,400 Swiss francs ($28,365), payable by the members at a ratio of 170 Swiss francs ($39.64) per one million inhabitants. By a resolution of October 16, 1948, the commission and other major international organizations concerned with the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders agreed on the various aspects of the field in which each would work and on cooperation with the United Nations. ILO, WHO, and UNESCO were among the specialized agencies which agreed to the resolution. A later resolution on cooperation with the United Nations, adopted by the commission in August 1949 was reviewed by ECOSOC which, in turn, requested the United Nations Secretary-General to coatinue consultations with IPPC with a view toward its integration in the United Nations system.

In June 1949, the International Tin Study Group appointed a working party to 1) prepare a statement on the position and prospects of the tin industry for the guidance of a proposed United Nations conference in determining whether, under Article 62 of the International Trade Organization's charter, a commodity control agreement on tin might be desirable; and 2) to prepare the draft of such an agreement. The working party met at The Hague in October and November 1949 for these purposes and submitted both the completed statement and the draft convention to the Study Group which subsequently met in its fifth meeting in Paris from March 20 to 29, 1950. At this meeting, attended by representatives of all fifteen members of the group, the draft agreement was considered, modified, and amended; the final draft text was completed on March 29. The agreement, as approved, set forth its objectives as follows: 1) to prevent or alleviate widespread difficulties arising from an inability of adjustment between tin production and consumption; 2) to prevent excessive fluctuations in the price of tin; 3) to ensure the availability of supplies of tin adequate at all times to satisfy world demand at reasonable prices; 4) to provide the framework for the consideration and development of measures to effect economic adjustments designed to promote the expansion of tin consumption and the development of secondary industries based upon domestic production of primary commodities; and 5) to maintain and develop natural tin resources. Any government accepting the agreement as either a producing country

The International Whaling Commission, created by a convention signed on December 2, 1946, which entered into force on November 10, 1948, held its first meeting in London from May 30 to June 7, 1949. Of the seventeen signatories to the convention, thirteen had ratified or adhered and, accordingly, were represented: Australia, Canada, France, Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States; Union of South Africa and USSR. The commission, within the framework of the convention, determined its course of work as follows: 1) to amend from time to time as required the schedule of regulations controlling whaling; 2) to organize studies and investigations relating to whales and whaling; 3) to collect and analyze statistical information; and 4)to study, appraise and disseminate information concerning whaling stocks. At the first meeting of the commission, two standing committees were created: a Scientific and Technical Committee and a Finance and Administrative Committee.

The International Wool Study Group met at London from November 7 to 9, 1949. The meeting noted that world wool production had increased slightly since the war to a point where it was equal to prewar production. The group for the first time decided to release for publication its report on the world wool situation and reports on the wool situation in member countries, unless requested otherwise; On the basis of review it was decided that no immediate problems called for intergovernmental collaboration in world trade of wool; although it was recognized that the problem of surplus stocks which had led to the establishment of the group in 1946 had largely disappeared, it was felt that the group would prove a useful means for the improvement of wool statistics and a useful body to which world wool problems could be referred.