On December 7, 1950 it was reported that the Council of Deputies of the North Atlantic Pact Organization had resolved the difficulties standing in the way of the creation of integrated military forces for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by accepting a compromise proposal put forward by the United States representative (Charles M. Spofford). The essence of the plan was reported to be that the twelve treaty countries would proceed with the formation of integrated forces under a supreme command, including German combat teams recruited by German civilian authorities under the supervision of the Allied High Commissioners; in the meantime the French would call a conference to explore the possibilities of forming a European army into which German units would be merged. Despite indications from western Germany that the Federal Republic was dissatisfied with the limitation of 6,000 men per combat unit as compared with units of from 10,000 to 15,000 for the twelve members of NATO, the press reported that the compromise was agreed to by the Council of Deputies and by the Military Committee at a meeting on December 12 and 13, 1950.

On September 21, 1950 the Far Eastern Commission approved a policy decision relaxing certain previous prohibitions against the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of Japanese courts over nationals of Members of the United Nations. By this decision, Japanese courts, at the discretion of the Supreme Commander, and subject to progressive relaxation of control of criminal jurisdiction by him, might exercise such jurisdiction over all United Nations nationals with the exception of a) members of the armed forces of any Member of the United Nations, b) officials attached to, or accompanying, and in service of occupation forces, c) United Nations nationals on official business in Japan, and d) members of the immediate family and dependents accompanying these exempt groups. Protection of rights of United Nations nationals was safeguarded by provisions in the new policy by requiring the immediate notification to the head of the mission of the country of the national upon his arrest together with provision for access to the national for purposes of arranging for legal representation. All sentences by Japanese courts were to be reviewable by SCAP and such review was mandatory in the case of capital or life sentence.

Contrary to the first two annual reports of OEEC which had concentrated on an analysis of national programs and common future policy both within the structure of the organization and beyond the end of the program, the third report of OEEC did not draw to any large extent upon individual national programs for the future, nor attempt to describe in detail future problems and action. The report presented an account of the achievements of the western European economy since the inception of the recovery program and of the progress made in stimulating economic cooperation. The problems of the immediate future were discussed in qualitative terms.

The three foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and United States met in Washington from September 10 to 14, 1951. The agenda of the conference included items on: 1) the general situation and measures to contain communist expansion; 2) the Atlantic command and the United Kingdom suggestion for a middle east command; 3) inclusion of Greece and Turkey in the Atlantic Pact;1 4) the French plan for a European army with German units; 5) change in the three governments’ relations with Germany; 6) revision of the Italian peace treaty; 7) French and United Kingdom objections to United States activities in regard to Spain; 8) the Korean war and the consequences of the Japanese treaty on the situation in the far east; 9) war in Indo-China and the French request foreconomic and military aid; 10) question of the Austrian treaty; 11) attitude to be adopted towards communist China; 12) Iranian oil situation and the situation in the middle east; 13) economic and political measures to protect the interests of the western nations behind the “iron curtain”. This item had been suggested by the United States as a result of the Oatis case.

A summary of its activities in 1950 was released by the Organization for European Economic Cooperation in January 1951. During the first two years of its establishment, the report stated, OEEC had been essentially an instrument for the distribution of United States aid but then became increasingly an instrument of cooperation for the solution of European economic problems. In two years, European production had been restored, trade had almost entirely recovered and international financial stability was achieved. The establishment of a European Payments Union was considered one of the main achievements of OEEC during 1950.

At a meeting on March 15, 1951, the Council of the Organization of American States approved the reports of the Committee on Finances relative to the budgets of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History for 1951–52 and of the American International Institute for the Protection of Childhood for 1951 and transmitted them to member governments. The report of the Special Committee on Committees was approved and its recommendations on membership, organization and functions of Council committees adopted. Included among these recommendations were the following: 1) membership in Council committees should be renewed periodically, in order to give all Council members opportunity to participate in committee work; 2) in the appointment of members, geographic representation should be taken into consideration wherever possible; 3) the number of members on each committee should not exceed seven; 4) pursuant to article 41 of the regulations of the Council, the designation of committee members should be left to the Council chairman; 5) the services of the General Committee might be more frequently utilized by entrusting to it matters for which special committees were presently appointed; and 6) appointment of members of the Committee on Finances should be made within two weeks after the budget was approved to avoid interruption in the preparation and study of the budget.

Japanese Peace Treaty: In response to invitations sent by the United States, as the host government, delegates from 51 nations met at San Francisco from September 4 to 8, 1951 for the purpose of concluding and signing a peace treaty with Japan. Copies of a final draft treaty had been circulated to all members on August 13, as well as two draft declarations by the government of Japan and a draft protocol which was to be open to signature at any time. Further revisions, which had been incorporated in this final draft after comments had been received from participating countries on the July 3 and July 20 drafts, included insertions and substitutions dealing with the Allied Powers recognition of the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters; the disposition of property of Japan and Japanese nationals; the return of Japanese military forces to their homes; the payment of reparations; and acts and omissions of the period of occupation. Among the delegates at the conference, press reports stated, were representatives from the Indo-Chinese states, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, which had made official requests to participate in the conference — requests which had been strongly supported by France.

The General Assembly,

Considering that difficulties may arise regarding the representation of a Member State in the United Nations and that there is a risk that conflicting decisions may be reached by its various organs,

Considering that it is in the interest of the proper functioning of the Organization that there should be uniformity in the procedure applicable whenever more than one authority claims to be the government entitled to represent a Member State in the United Nations, and this question becomes the subject of controversy in the United Nations,

Considering that, in virtue of its composition, the General Assembly is the organ of the United Nations in which consideration can best be given to the views of all Member States in matters affecting the functioning of the Organizaation as a whole,

At its meeting of December 6, 1950, the Council referred to the Inter-American Economic and Social Council studies in regard to a permanent Inter-American Committee on Social Security for an advisory opinion; and, noting that some seven members of the Inter-American Indian Institute had approved a draft agreement between it and the Council of the Organization, requested the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States to ascertain whether the other governments approved the draft.

The twenty-first annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, which covered the period from April 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, stated that, in spite of the changing trends in prices, production, and international trade and payments caused by the Korean conflict, 1950 was “essentially a year of continued consolidation of that astonishing progress which Europe had been making … since the crisis of 1947”.

At the seventh session of the South Pacific Commission, which convened at Noumea, New Caledonia from April 28 to May 7, 1951, Sir Brian Freeston, present Governor of Fiji and High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, was chosen Secretary-General to succeed Mr. W. D. Forsyth.

The General Assembly,

Having regard to its resolutions of 14 November 1947 (112 (II)), of 12 December 1948 (195 (III)) and of 21 October 1949 (293 (IV)),

Having received and considered the report of the United Nations Commission on Korea,

Mindful of the fact that the objectives set forth in the resolutions referred to above have not been fully accomplished and, in particular, that the unification of Korea has not yet been achieved, and that an attempt has been made by an armed attack from North Korea to extinguish by force the Government of the Republic of Korea,

The sixth session of the South Pacific Commission was held at Headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia from October 23 to November 2, 1950 and was attended by the Commissioners of the six member governments (United States, Australia, New Zealand, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom). The principal agenda items included: 1) the work program for 1951 in health, economic development and social development; 2) resolutions of the first South Pacific Conference held in May 1950; 3) membership in the Research Council for 1951; 4) technical assistance; 5) information program and publications; 6) budget for 1951; and 7) relationship with the United Nations and specialized agencies. It was decided to hold the second South Pacific Conference in April 1953.

At the first meeting of the foreign ministers of the British Commonwealth of Nations in Colombo, Ceylon, January 9 to 15, 1950, the Minister of External Affairs of Australia (Spender) proposed a program of economic assistance to south and southeast Asia aimed at supplying, first, the necessary consumers goods to maintain a minimum standard of living in areas now on the verge of starvation; second, assistance necessary to increase production; and, third, capital equipment. The proposal was referred to the several Commonwealth governments, as, in the words of the final communiqué, “Executive decisions are not taken at Commonwealth meetings of this kind; but, as a result of the valuable exchange of views which has taken place, recommendations for the furtherance of economic development in South and Southeast Asia will be submitted to Commonwealth Governments for their consideration”.

On 14 December 1950 the General Assembly adopted the following resolution which had been sponsored by thirteen Asian Powers:

“The General Assembly,

“Viewing with grave concern the situation in the Far East,

“Anxious that immediate steps should be taken to prevent the conflict in Korea spreading to other areas and to put an end to the fighting in Korea itself, and that further steps should then be taken for a peaceful settlement of existing issues in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations,

According to the report of the United States High Commissioner for Austria (Donnelly) covering the first quarter of the year 1951, the most significant political event of the period was the decision of the Austrian government to elect its new president, successor to Dr. Karl Renner who died on December 31, by popular vote instead of by parliamentary ballot. This new presidential election law, enacted by the Austrian parliament on January 16, was one of the subjects under discussion at the February 9 meeting of the Allied Council. Although the three western powers voiced their approval of the new law, the Soviet delegate contended that since the Austrian constitution of 1929 had not been approved by the Allied Council he saw no legal basis for the law and insisted on having it replaced by a “special constitutional law”, which would have been subject to the Soviet veto. The United States representative supported the validity of the Austrian constitution, pointing out that the Soviet Union had already approved many laws modifying the 1929 constitution —a slightly amended form of the 1920 constitution — which had been voided by the Nazis in 1938. The point at issue was the fact that instructions had been given to the Austrian government to prepare a new draft constitution by July 1, 1946, and the Austrian parliament, instead of attempting the task of formulating a constitution which would be acceptable to all members of the Allied Council as well as to Austria, had passed resolutions in April 1946 reviving the Federal Constitutional Law of 1929.

There is given below a brief general statement of the type of treaty envisioned by the United States Government as proper to end the state of war with Japan. It is stressed that this statement is only suggestive and tentative, and does not commit the United States Government to the detailed content or wording of any future draft. It is expected that after there has been an opportunity to study this outline, there will be a series of informal discussions designed to elaborate on it and make clear any points which may be obscure at first glance.

The notes of protest which the United States, the United Kingdom, and France sent to the Danube Commission governments on November 15, 1949, were answered by the Soviet Union on March 9, 1950, and by Bulgaria on March 28, 1950. Both governments rejected the western protests, the Soviet note commenting that the Danube Commission's Convention of August 18, 1948, eliminated the injuristices of previous international waterways concepts and established the jurisdiction of the riparian states. The note added that the Soviet government would not consider the protests registered by Belgium, Italy and Greece since they were not members of the Danube River Commission under the previous navigational treaty of 1921.

The three commandants of west Berlin on June 11 sent a note to the Soviet Control Commission protesting the restrictions by the Soviet authorities against the export of certain commodities from west Berlin to western Germany. Under the new export regulations seventeen categories of goods could not be forwarded to western Germany unless special certificates listing the sources of raw materials used for their manufacture were attached to the bills of lading. The commandants considered these measures illegal because they were contrary to the agreements of New York and Paris of 1949 which put an end to the blockade of Berlin. It was reported that measures were being discussed by western High Commissioners at Bonn to counter the Soviet Union's “little blockade”. According to press reports, a reply from the Soviet Control Commission on June 18 asserted its right to control Berlin shipping.

The report of the United States High Commissioner for Austria (Donnelly), covering the last quarter of the year 1950, listed the communist-led general strike and its subsequent repression as the most outstanding event for the period under review. The Federal Chancellor of Austria (Figl) charged the Soviet element of the quadripartite government for Austria with aiding and abetting the general strike, and interference with the Austrian police in its attempt to restore order. At the Executive Committee meeting of November 3, 1950, the United States, United Kingdom and French deputy commissioners advocated the adoption of a resolution upholding “the right and duty of the federal police authorities to exercise all rights and duties vested in them” to maintain law and order. The High Commissioner reported that the coalition government was considerably bolstered by the prestige and confidence it received from its resolute handling of the communist-led disturbance of October.