The meeting of the Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation at Paris on October 6 and 7, 1950 had before it a memorandum submitted by the Secretary-General of the organization (Marjolin) concerned chiefly with the economic problems arising from the new international situation and the threat of inflation as a result of the western rearmament effort. The Secretary-General strongly emphasized collective action by member governments rather than on individual solutions to check inflation before it gathered greater momentum. The Council, using the memorandum as a basis, made decisions on the following present and potential problems: international financial stability, investments, raw material shortages, electrical energy, manpower, trade and payments.

After approving the report of the Committee on Inter-American Organizations regarding the inter-American codification agencies, the Council of the Organization of American States, at its meeting on October 4, 1950, declared that certain inter-American agencies had ceased to function and that the functions assigned in the charter of the organization to the Council and its permanent committee included all the “essential attributes formerly invested in” these agencies. This action was taken pursuant to a resolution of the Ninth International Conference of American States and after consultation with the Inter-American Council of Jurists. Agencies declared defunct were: the Inter-American Conference of American Jurists, the Committee of Experts for the Codification of International Law, the Permanent Committee of Rio de Janeiro for the Codification of Public International Law, the Permanent Committee of Montevideo for the Codification of Private International Law, the Permanent Committee of Havana on Comparative Legislation and Uniformity of Legislation, and the Permanent Committee of Jurists for the Unification of the Civil and Commercial Laws of America.

On September 26, 1950, the Austrian cabinet voted to permit the country's cost of living to rise to an approximation of the world level, and to make a compensating increase of ten to fourteen percent in wage levels. Three days later the United States representative (Keyes) charged, with the support of the French and United Kingdom commissioners (Bethouart and Caccia), that the resulting riots in Vienna had been inspired by the Soviet Union which had a) transported rioters in trucks about Vienna, b) refused to permit Viennese police in the Soviet sector to be used to quell the rioting, c) prevented police from removing workers of a Soviet controlled plant from railway yards which they had occupied. These charges were denied by the Soviet commissioner (Tsinev) as slanderous allegations of the western representatives whose countries had been responsible for the riots because of the deterioration of living conditions in Austria as the result of the Marshall Plan.

During October and November, 1950, press reports indicated that the Allied High Commission for Germany was primarily concerned with the implementation of the three-power agreement on Germany reached in New York on September 19, 1950. Although all of the proposals relating to the creation of mobile police formations and the integration of German forces into those of western Europe were stalled pending agreement between the members of the North Atlantic Council as to the nature and size of such German forces, reports indicated that consideration of various proposals to amend the occupation statute were going forward. While no details were revealed, the Chancellor of western Germany (Adenauer) indicated that one suggestion had been that the easing of allied industrial, economic and political controls would be conditioned upon the acceptance by the Bonn government of prewar German debts and a willingness to share strategic war materials. Other reports indicated that the amended occupation statute would terminate controls over German use of funds, food and other supplies, permit the lapsing of powers enforcing decartelization once existing orders had been carried through and adequate legislation enacted, and would abandon the review of all laws or directives while reserving emergency power to annul any believed inconsistent with previous policy.

Proposed Meeting of the Council: Meeting in Prague on October 20 and 21, 1950, the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, eastern Germany and the Soviet Union issued a statement in reply to the communiqué on Germany released on September 19 by the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Charging that the position of the three western governments was merely a screen to conceal the aggressive objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty and that the creation of mobile police formations was nothing less than the reconstitution of a German army, the eight foreign ministers stated that they considered as urgent 1) the publication by the three western powers and the Soviet Union of a statement of their intent to refuse to permit German rearmament and of their unswerving determination to create a united peace-loving German state; 2) the removal of all restrictions hindering the development of the peaceful German economy and the prevention of a resurgence of German war potential; 3) the conclusion of a German treaty and the withdrawal of all occupation forces within one year of its conclusion; and 4) the creation of an all-German constituent council to prepare for a provisional German government. The text of the communiqué was communicated to the United Kingdom, the United States and France under cover of a Soviet note on November 3. Stating that the Prague declaration possessed “the greatest significance for the cause of assuring international peace and security” and touched the “fundamental national interests of the peoples of Europe,” the Soviet government proposed the convening of the Council of Foreign Ministers „for consideration of the question of fulfillment of the Potsdam agreement regarding demilitarization of Germany.”

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.

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,

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,

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,

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.

On October 26 of this year, during his conversation with J. A. Malik, Mr. Dulles presented a memorandum on the question of the peace treaty with Japan, containing a brief general statement of the type of treaty that, in the opinion of the United States Government, would be suitable for ending the state of war with Japan. In this connection the Soviet Government would like to obtain an explanation on several points of this memorandum.