Assembly 183.

In further discussion on relief measures in Committee 2, Canada
announced preference for an international organization under the
auspices of the United Nations with emphasis on universal
contributions and promised support. [1] Yugoslavia made apologies
for any suggestion that there had not been due recognition of what
UNRRA had done and made an appeal that an unfortunate frontier
incident [2] should not be used to deprive the people of food.

This conciliatory speech was followed by a brief and equally
conciliatory speech from Russia which recognized the contribution
that UNRRA had made to relief and rehabilitation and argued that
relief should be continued to meet pressing needs. Russia
supported wholeheartedly the La Guardia proposal. [3] France
argued that relief ought to be organized and suggested a
compromise between the proposal by La Guardia and the bilateral
plan suggested by the United States. [4] France proposed a United
Nations Committee agreed by donor countries to collect information
on needs and possibilities of supply and to give direction to
allocations.

2. After minor contributions to the debate, Australia was asked to
speak, though we had preferred to wait until Monday. We drew
attention to the large contribution that Australia had made as the
fourth largest contributing nation and the low costing of
Australia's supplies so that our contribution was greater in
proportion to resources than most. We also mentioned continuance
of rationing and of other controls to divert resources into urgent
needs not only for ourselves but for other countries.

3. We suggested that any relief given voluntarily in place of
UNRRA should be associated in some way with United Nations, and
suggested that the role of any United Nations machinery might be
restricted to one of screening claims and estimating needs and
arranging consultation among countries likely to contribute
voluntarily as to what could be supplied and to whom each country
should supply it. This is radically different from the La Guardia
machinery for mobilizing compulsory contributions up to an amount
agreed in advance to which United States objected and which we
will continue to oppose in the light of your UNY.363. [5]
Restricted United Nations machinery of the kind outlined would
appear to have advantages against private arrangements under
United States leadership. We said that Australia would consider
any plan on a limited scale that had international flavour
privately. Canada has advised us that any bilateral arrangement
completely outside United Nations would be embarrassing to her,
and we feel that the same might be true of Australia. The
existence of an agency would afford some protection against
extravagant relief requests upon us in that we would be able to
make our position known internationally. It is understood that any
plan would be on a voluntary basis. We made some observations to
the Committee on difficulties that some countries would experience
in making any commitment if they had a difficult balance of
payments problem and had been starved of imports during the war.

This was done by way of illustrating to the recipient nations that
there were differing circumstances as between former contributors
and not all were in an easy situation to continue help.

4. We supported the French proposal to examine the issues in
subcommittee with the object of possibly finding compromise
between the approach of United States and La Guardia.

5. In further discussion this morning, Poland, Byelo-Russia and
Ukraine broadly supported the La Guardia plan. The United Kingdom
came down strongly in favour of the United States of America
proposal arguing that it would provide sufficient relief where it
was needed and when it was needed, and that there was no question
of political ties to any contribution. No details were given as to
how United States of America plan would be operated except to
refer to consultation among contributors, and use of United
Nations Secretariat as clearing house. It is probable that United
Kingdom will actively support United States of America proposal
with only nominal reference to the United Nations. United Kingdom
then supported reference of problem to a sub-committee. On the
Chairman's proposal a sub-committee was appointed consisting of
already appointed cereals sub-committee plus Australia,
Czechoslovakia and Netherlands. [6]