- Draft Resolution on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustnent (oontinued)
- Projet de résolution sur le commeroe des produits, le protectionnisme et l'ajustement agri o oie (suite)
- Proyeoto de resolución sobre comeroio de productos b&sioos, proteooioniemo y reajuste agrícola (continuación)
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): You will remember that at the last session on Friday evening we had begun to disouss the Draft Resolution. We began in particular by discussing the draft Resolution on commodity trade protection!an and agricultural adjustnent. The first result we achieved was the adoption of the draft Resolution. Then we came up against certain snags on a number of procedural matters concerning the texms of interpretation of this. But I am very pleased to be able to announce today that as a result of infornai discussions over the weekend and this morning, considering that so far we have been working on the basis of perfeot understanding, we have finally reached agreement between the parties concerned and the parties now will not insist on the points they had made regarding the procedure in the way that they had done on Friday evening. So on the basis of that we have arrived at a consensus on procedural aspects as regards the interpretation of this draft Resolution.
The agreement is as follows:
In the report on Commission I, following this draft Resolution, we shall mention the names of the countries wishing to have included a speoial declaration concerning the interpretation of the Resolution. Secondly there will be a summary of each of these declarations on interpretation of the agreement. This summary will be included in the report. Thirdly, mention will be made of the fact that the integral text of this declaration will be inoluded in the verbatim report. As I explained, we had consensus on this procedure and it now remains for us to see the summary of these declarations, Wè have to make sure that these declarations can be accepted by the delegations or groups of delegations whioh made this specific interpretation on the declaration of the Resolution.
We have agreed, then, that the Drafting Committee will be meeting this afternoon at 2. 30. Our Commission, then, will not be meeting this afternoon. In that way the various groups concerned will have a chance to polish the terms of the summary and agree on the question of the Declaration of Interpretation. If you agree with me, then, and if there are no further remarks on this, I can assume we haveconcluded this item of our business. I see the representative of India has asked for the floor.
RAMADHAR (India): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I must compliment you on the efforts you have made for reaching this consensus. As you will recall on Friday afternoon when we were discussing this matter, and the question came up as to how the interpretative statements were being incorporated in the report, we made a plea that many of the developing countries-we would like our position made clear in the report so as to have an equitable balance. Keeping that in view I am making some submissions on behalf of the Group of 77. I request that on the same pattern they should also go into the report.
I am now reading, "With regard to the Conference Resolution Committee on Commodity Trade, Protection-ism and Agricultural Adjustment the Group of 77 makes the following observations. In principle the Group of 77 deems it necessary to express its deep concern with the fact that after long negotiations, which resulted in a consensus text, some countries have submitted their interpretative statements, thus, in fact, undermining the consensus reached. With regard to the preambular paragraph 7 The Group of 77 reiterates its regret and, indeed, deep concern that GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations have failed to take intoiaccount the interests and concerns of the developing countries, especially Least Developed and MSA amongst them. In this connexion, and taking into account the operative paragraph 3, the Group of 77 wants to reaffirm its position to the effect that the multilateral negotiations could be consi-dered final only when such essential concerns of the developing countries have been fully incorporated in the final outcome of the Negotiations.
In connexion with preambular paragraph 8, while having a certain apprehension for agricultural trade policies of the developed countries with a relatively low level of self-sufficiency, the Group of 77 wishes again to condemn the agriculture trade practices of those developed countries with high protectionism despite high and increasing levels of self-sufficiency.
In relation to the operative paragraph 8 the Group of 77 requests that the countries which have not yet signed the International Sugar Agreement, strictly abide by the provision contained in this paragraph. "
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Sir. As you have recalled last Friday you announced that the Group of 77 would be presenting an interpretative statement through you. And, of course, there will similarly be a summary of this statement in the report, the summary will particularly refer to the specific paragraphs of the Draft Resolution that you mentioned. We shall treat this statement in exactly the same way as other interpretative statements.
P. ROSENEGGER (Austria): (interpretation from German): To begin with I must say that I wholehearted-ly agree with the procedure you have suggested. I would remind you, however, that on Friday evening the Austrian delegation had not received instructions and, for that reason, it is now necessary for me to take the floor.
This Draft Resolution before us, while we agree with it in principle, and we would, therefore, agree with the overall approval given to this document, would like to ask that in this interpretative statement-because we also agree with those countries on paragraphs 4 and ö of the preainbular section who do not feel that this will represent a change in agrarian policy. Nor would suoh mod-ification be a necessary follow-up. In this context, then, we continue to feel that the application of paragraphs 1 to 5, in the last resort, would have to be implemented by international organizations which are responsible for each and every one of these areas.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections to Austria being included among the countries which has issued interpretative statements? I do not think there will be any objection to this. I assume, then, that the debate on the Draft Resolution on Commodity Trade, Protectionism and Agricultural Adjustment be considered as concluded. We now go on to the second Draft Resolution, the one concerning World Food Security. You will remember probably, that this Resolution was under document C 79/LIN/16.
- Draft Resolution on World Food Security
- Projet de résolution sur la Sécurité alimentaire mondiale
- Proyecto de resolución sobre seguridad alimentaria mundial
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I would remind delegates that the Commission set up an unofficial contact group in an effort to reach understanding on world food security. The contact group met several times and had some rather tricky discussions, yet it succeeded in reaching agreement on this draft resolution. However, I should like to draw attention to paragraph 10, which has to be amended, as we shall explain, The amendment was adopted by the contact group. The Secretary will read the new paragraph 10, as amended.
SECRETARY: The present paragraph 10 should be replaced by the following: "Requests the Director - General to consider, in cooperation with the World Food Council, the World Bank and other multilateral financing institutions, ways of assessing the needs and possibilities for improving food security infrastructure as a basis for a major investment effort in the countries which request such assistance;"
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): The Commission has now heard the amendment to paragraph 10 of the draft resolution which, as I understand it, was agreed to in the contact group.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Ce n'est pas une modification quelconque c'est simplement sur le texte français pour qu'il soit en harmonie avec le texte anglais: s'agissant du paragraphe du considérant, celui qui commence par les mots: "Tenant compte de la déclaration de principes et du programme d'action . ··", il faudrait ajouter "tels qu'adoptés", de même qu'en anglais il y a "as adopted". Dans le texte français on a mis "la Déclaration de principes et du Programme d'action adoptés" il faudrait dire "tels qu'adoptés".
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabie): The delegate of France is perfectly correct and I am sure the Secretariat will bear his remarks in mind.
D. SMITH (United States of America): I am assuming, Mr. Chairman, that we have completed discussion on that particular paragraph? I should like to speak on another paragraph, if that is satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I think that as regards paragraph 5 there were no problems? it was merely a correction of the French text. You are welcome to make remarks on any paragraph of the draft resolution you may wish.
D. SMITH (United States of America): The United States generally supports the draft resolution on World Food Security. We consider that the context group, ably led by its distinguished Chairman, has done it work well. The Chairman's eminently thorough and businesslike approach succeeded in keeping the group moving in a smooth and constructive manner through a number of difficulties.
My Government feels it necessary to reserve its position on that part of operative paragraph 4 which begins with the words, "or to encourage the operation of special regional accounts" and continuing through to the end of the paragraph. The United States considers that there is now a consensus on the approach to world food security which embraces, first, the conclusion as soon as possible of a new International Grains Arrangement and, secondly, in the interim, before the entry into effect of that arrangement, the Five-point Plan which this Conference has endorsed. We believe that the introduction of a new element, namely, that of special regional accounts, is premature and requires further study, and in cur view it should not have a place in the draft resolution under consideration.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): First, I should like to seek clarification on the amendment proposed by the delegate of France. I did not really get what was being proposed and I should like to hear it read out once again.
My second point is, in line with my earlier amendment, I should like to propose an amendment to paragraph 8 (a). I introduced the amendment, "To enlarge substantially bilateral"-to add the words "and multilateral". To be consistent with that, I would propose the following amendment:"(a)-To enlarge substantially bilateral and multilateral assistance to the food security programmes of developing countries where appropriate and to use the World Food Programme in accordance with decisions reached at the Eighth Session of the CFA and Food Security Assistance Scheme. "
My suggestion is merely a reflection of what actually occurred. It is in the first place recognizing the role of the World Food Programme, which under no circumstances can be ignored. Secondly, it puts it into the correct perspective by stating on what basis the World Food Programme is to act, and that is on the basis of the decisions of the Eighth Session of the CFA.
Similarly, in paragraph 10, where we talk about requesting the Director-General to consider in cooperation with the World Food Council, I would add, "the World Food Programme. "
This consultation is already under way. The WFP is already working out various possibilities and therefore this ought to be in line with the current and proper thinking on the subject.
I should be grateful, Sir, if you could let me know what the delegate of France proposed.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): The amendment proposed by the delegate of France related to the fifth preambular paragraph, beginning "Taking into account. " In English the first line reads: "Taking into account the Declaration of Principles and Programme of Action as adopted by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. " In French it just says: "Adopted", and the amendment was to bring the French into line with the English.
I. TAKI (Japan): The Japanese delegation would like to make the following interpretive statement concerning the draft resolution and to ask the Secretariat to put it on record.
First, concerning the fourth preambular paragraph, I would like to make clear that the position of the Japanese Government does not change on General Assembly Resolutions 3201 and 3202.
Secondly, with regard to a new Food Aid Convention, referred to in operative paragraph 9, the Japasese Government is of the view that the achievement of the 10 million tons target should be a joint responsibility of the international community and not of traditional member countries alone. Ihe Japanese Government also thinks that a certain linkage should be maintained between a new Food Aid Convention and the Wheat Trade Convention.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): C'est également pour mettre en harmonie le texte français avec le texte anglais au paragraphe 11. Au paragraphe 11, le texte français dit: "invite le Fonds monétaire international, dans le cadre de ses facilités d'investissement" alors qu'en anglais le texte dit: "Financing Facilities", donc il faut dire: "les facilités de financement" en français.
CHAIEMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): I believe that your comment oan be taken into consideration. since it concerns the French text.
D. SMITH (United States of Amerion): I would like olarifioation on the first suggestion made by the Delegate of Pakistan. I understood theoneconcerning the Morid Food Programme, bat the previous suggestion was not clear.
CHATRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): We will come to this. I would first like us to take the amendment e whioh have been proposed by the Delegate of Pakistant and I suggest that we take these amendments one after the other.
SBCRBTAHT: The Delegate of Pakistan has proposed that in Operative Paragraph 8 (a), some addition should be made in the second line of the foglish text. I shall read paragraph 8(a) and indicate where the insertion needs to be mades
"to enlarge substantially bilateral and multilateral assi stano e to the food security programmes of developing countries where appropriate and to use the"-and here the addition commences -"and to use the World Food Programme in accordance with the decisions reached at the 8th Session of CFA and the FAO Food Security Assistance Scheme. . . ". The rest of the paragraph remains the same.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): If there are no comments regarding this amendment, we will take it that the Commission adopts this amendment to paragraph 8(a), and I again give the floor to the Secretariat.
SECRETARY: The second amendment proposed by the Delegate of Pakistanconcerns Operative Parcgraph 10. Again, I shall read the paragraph and indicate where the amendment is to be inserted: "requests the Director-General to consider in coopération with the World Food Council", -and here we are to add: "the World Food Programme, the World Bank. . . ". and the rest of the paragraph remains the same.
D. SMITH (United States of America) : I am seeking olarifioation of the decision made by the Committee on Food Aid with reference to the suggestion made by the Delegate of Pakistan. Whioh document are we referring to, in that respect? I need to be olear on language there.
P. MASUD(Pakistan): This intervention is provoked by something whioh my colleague from the United States said in the drafting room. He had a list of three points whioh he said had been decided in the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes, and it was with those in mind that I proposed this amendment. If I may o on suit with him, and tell him exactly to what I am referring, perhaps that would resolve the problem.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I shall give you a few moments for consultation with the delegate of the United States.
D. SMITH (United States of Amerioa) : With respect to the suggestion of the delegate of Pakistan on paragraph 8 (a), we are in accord with that amendment but would simply request the insertion of the word "as" after "decision"; "decision as reached at the Eighth Session of the CPA".
P. MASUD (Pakistan): The first one is acceptable. I should like to hear what he has to say about the second one.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I think that we have now adopted this paragraph with the final amendment. We are still awaiting the point of view of the United States on paragraph 10.
D. SMITH (United States of Amerioa): The United States hae no objection to the insertion of the words "World Food Programme" into paragraph 10, as suggested by the delegate of Pakistan.
CHAIRMAN: I now give the floor to the delegate of Bangladesh because I believe that he will wish to speak on paragraph 11.
S. M. CHOUIHUKr (Bangladesh): My delegation refers to operative paragraph 11 and proposes the insertion of the words "under acceptable lending criteria" at the end of the paragraph after the words "import prices".
Mile Μ·MUSSO (France): An sujet de l'amendement déposé. par le Pakistan, nous aimerions que la résolution fût modifiée le moins possible. H a été très diffioile d'arriver à un accord sur oe texte et nous sommes tris heureux que l'on y soit parvenu. Nous souhaiterions qu'il ne soit pas fondamentalement modifié en Commission I·aussi, pensons-nous qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'ajouter oette phrase dans le paragraphe 11·Nous avons demandé au Fonds monétaire international d'étudier oe problème dans le cadre de ses facilités de financement. A mon avis, il appartient dono au Fonds monétaire international de déoider lui-même dans quel domaine et selon quels critères il voudrait aider à accrottre la sécurité alimentaire. Je pense donc que la phrase proposée par la Délégation du Bangladesh n'est pas utile dans oe paragraphe et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de l'y insérer
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): I support the delegate of France. My Government also feels that it is not neoessary to add any words at the end of this paragraph, especially since we know that the International Monetary Fund is going to deal with this matter in December. We should leave it to the decision of the IMF to see which way this request can be accepted,
SJUCHXJIHUHr (Bangladesh): I feel that it is important to keep in mind the oriteria while making the request to the IMF, especially in view of the fact that we have qualified the paragraph saying in case of domestic food shortage and rising import prices, and the question of oriteria beoomes very important. With this thought in mind, we do ask for the insertion of this additional part of the Paragraph.
I. TAICI (Japan): The Japanese Government shares the opinion of the delegates of France and Germany.
A. I. MENHHEZ (Méxioo): To quisiera, si fuera posible, escuchar algún argumento adicional por el distinguido delegado de Bangladesh, cuya propuesta en principio vemos con simpatía.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Before giving the floor to the delegate of Bangladesh, I would like to repeat that this draft resolution is the result of considerable efforts, of a very long debate and of intensive consultations. Perhaps it would be better to stick to this consensus. At any rate I will give the floor again to the delegate of Bangladesh.
S. M. CHOUIHURT (Bangladesh): Since you are not prepared to enter into a debate on this issue in the draft resolution at the moment, Mr. Chairman, my delegation will withdraw its original proposal.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I believe that this brings us to a consensus on this draft resolution which could thus be adopted.
P. MASUD (Pakistan):This is regarding operative paragraph 9·If I am not mistaken, the delegate of Japan made an interpretative statement. These interpretative statements are proving both contagious and infectious; the disease is spreading very rapidly. If there is going to be an interpretative statement for paragraph 9 which is so obvious; it urges that every effort should be made both to enlist new contributors, and this is part of the implication of the interpretative statement proposed by the delegate of Japan, and I did not quite get the remaining portion of what he was intending to have. I think he was trying to say that there should be a link between a Food Aid Convention and the Wheat Trade Convention. If this is so, I would ask my friend, the delegate of Bangladesh, to add his point to the resolution. I would like to hear from the delegate of Bangladesh, to add his point to the resolution. I would like to hear from the delegate of Bangladesh as to the exact nature of his interpretation.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to Japan, I would like to mention one thing, that these views expressed by the delegate of Japan and those expressed by the delegate of Bangladesh, are really there in the report. They were expressed in the same wording, so this makes the appeal of Pakistan even stronger, and I add my support to it, that if we can do without these interpretative statements we should do so where it is reflected truly and strongly in the report.
I. TAKI (Japan): I appreciate your appeal. I would like to keep the interpretative statement of my Government in the report.
Ms. V. F. WIGHTMAN (Canada): You may recall that on Friday you suggested that interpretative statements should be made after the Resolution was adopted and therefore I have abstained from speaking, but if you wish I can speak now on our concerns. Which would you prefer? unfortunately we received fresh instructions from Ottawa a few moments ago with several suggested amendments. I am not presenting them on the floor this morning. I think this would be quite impossible. However, I feel that I have to cover our position with a brief statement about a number of our concerns. With regard to the preamble we still have difficulty with this rather gloomy view of the adequacy of world food reserves, and particularly the second paragraph of the preamble. More importantly, with regard to the operative paragraphs, Ottawa still has difficulty with certain implications in the text which either implicitly or explicitly call for additional commitments, or for increased expenditures by FAD in this field.
I would refer particularly to operative paragraphs 4, 8 a and o, 10, 11 and 13. Having said this I would only reiterate Canada' s long-standing support for and positive contribution to world food security.
D. SMITH (United States of America): I also was operating under the assumption that statements about the Resolution would come after its adoption, but I would simply make brief statements concerning the following paragraphs of the Resolutions
In paragraph 3 with regard to the words "to resolve the outstanding questions" the United States simply wishes to point out that there are some new questions which have arisen since the adjournment of the grain negotiations which also require resolution. My Government looks forward to a discussion of all these questions in depth in the meeting of the International Wheat Council which is taking place this week.
Secondly, in sub-paragraph 8°, with regard to the words "take all possible steps" we would note that even though governments take all possible steps, they may not in fact be able to meet the full food aid requirements of the developing countries despite every intention to do so.
P. MASUD ( Pakistan): At the very outset I apologize for having delayed matters. Had we concluded before 11:00 o'clock perhaps the distinguished Delegate from Canada would not have received the instructions that she has received now. I apologize for that. Taking into consideration all that has been said this is making a mockery of this Resolution. You have got interpretative statements on almost every paragraph. I would put it to you for consideration. Would it be worthwhile to adopt this Resolution, if you have adopted it already, because it takes-on the one hand you grant something, on the other hand you detract from it. If you are saying that you are keen for the resumption of talks on the United Nations International Grains arrangement, I think we should go along with that statement by the distinguished Delegate of the U. S. AIt is helpful in the sense that it covers new or outstanding issues. Of course everything has to be resolved. We could simply say resolve all issues instead of raising outstanding issues. But I do have some very serious problems with the other suggestions. For instanoe the second one-"take all possible steps"-this is the least that we can do and you are not being pinned down. All you are being asked to do is take all possible steps. There is a possibility-you can examine that possibility-and take the steps.
As regards the position of the distinguished Delegate of Japan, I am still not quit. ? clear as to what the position is. And I honestly ask you to have a close look at these interpretative statements. They do tend to make this Resolution almost worthless and it is of extreme importóras to developing countries. I repeat that it is of extreme importance to developing countries.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I intended to raise certain points. I have heard your views on the situation of this Resolution. Now we have heard various statements which have underlined the Resolution somewhat, after we thought a consensus had been reached. As regards the Japanese interpretative statement, after having told him that the report covered a large part of his interpretative statement, the Delegate of Japan, I felt, seemed ready to go along with the fact that his statement would only refer to paragraph 4 of the preamble of the draft Resolution. I believe that he also pointed out that his Government's attitude had not changed as regards Resolutions 3201 and 3202 of the United Nations General Assembly. I wonder if the situation is clear enough to the Delegate of Pakistan, or would you like to hear the entire text of the Japanese interpretative statement?
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I would like to hear the complete interpretative statement as well as where it is to be placed. That is extremely important for us.
I. TAXI (Japan): I made the interpretative statement concerning paragraph 4 of the preamble which makes clear that the position of the Japanese Government does not change General Assembly Resolutions 3201 and 3202·
My Government has some reservations on these Resolutions so my Delegation felt the necessity to make a statement on this particular part. Also, with regard to operative paragraph 9, the Japanese Government is of the view that the achievement of a 10 million ton target should be a joint responsibility of the international community and not of traditional member countries alone.
Also the Japanese Government thinks that a certain linkage should be maintened between a new food aid convention and the Wheat Trade Convention.
CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, probably I misunderstood the whole thing. When the distinguished Delegate of Japan made his interpretative statement we pointed out that probably your concern concerning the point number 2 you mentioned, concerning paragraph 9, and the third part of your statement, may be these concerns were covered in the general report. We contacted you through the meeting and you seemed to approve that. Then your interpretative statement would only concern your unchanging position towards the two General Assembly Resolutions. Is that not correct?
So my understanding was correct, that the interpretative statement will be only in connection with paragraph 4, and as regards the other parts the Japanese Delegation is happy with their reflection as it stands now in the draft report.
About your concern on paragraph 4, don't you think that the way it is stated-because it says in the second line "as adopted in the Resolution" and your position concerning this Resolution is recorded either with reservations or whatever it was-I see no great need for this interpretative statement because paragraph 4 says "the Resolution as adopted". So unless you feel strongly that you still want to retain your interpretative statement. . .
Ι· TAKT (Japan): If it is clear we do not wish to stick to this point.
CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. That means there is no interpretative statement from Japan. This is a good example. Distinguished delegate of Pakistan I think you made a proposal on paragraph 3 You proposed an amendment which would satisfy the concern of the United States. Perhaps you would kindly repeat your suggestion here.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): The delegate of the United States made the point that while some old, outstanding issues had gone some new ones had arisen.
It was also my point of view that all issues have to be resolved, Sir, and, therefore, I propose that we could say in paragraph 3, "Urges the participating countries in the United Nations Negotiating Conference on a new international grains arrangement to resolve all questions impeding. . . . ". Simply delete the word "outstanding", so that it reads, "all questions impeding". This would be a fair rendering of the situation because you have to resolve all questions otherwise you would not get any progress.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. Would the delegate of the United States like to take the floor at this stage?
D. SMITH (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, the text I am working from does not show the word "of". We would certainly be agreeable to the deletion of the word "outstanding" from the text we have in front of us.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. Would you accept this minor amendment to paragraph 3 then? Mr. Dutia will, perhaps, kindly read the amendment again so that everyone has a clear idea of what is happening.
SECRETARY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The amended paragraph 3 will now read as follows "Urges the participating countries in the United Nations Negotiating Conference on a new international grains arrangement to resolve questions impeding the resumption of negotiations and to conclude a new international grains arrangement as quickly as possible. "
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. If no one has any objection to raise to this amendment I assume it has been adopted by our Commission.
I have just learned that the delegate of Canada does not ask for the text of her interpretative statement or summary thereof to be mentioned in the Draft Resolution. She merely wishes us to indicate that Casada has presented an interpretative statement on this Resoltution. I think, then, that following this lengthy debate we now only have to say that this has brought us to the adoption of the Draft Resolution-Bangladesh has asked for the floor.
S. M. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Since we understand that there will not he any interpretative statement of this Draft Resolution my delegation would not like to make an interpretative statement but we would like our views to be reflected in the report.
R. S. MAROUF (Iraq): (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am taking the floor in connexion with the Arabic text, specifically paragraph 5.
There seems to be a typing error regarding the word "flow". This would not affect other languages.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you, the Secretary has taken note of that and I am sure the necessary correction will be made to the Arabic version.
I think we can now consider that we have come to the conclusion of our discussion on this Resolution and we have now adopted it with the United States’ statement and the interpretative statement by Canada. We have also accepted a number of amendments which will be embodied in the text. Also there is an amendment to the French version only of paragraph 4-the preambular text-and to the Arabic text. That brings us to the conclusion of our discussion.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Thank you, Sir. I would just like clarification on paragraph 8. The United States delegate expressed the point of view on (c) "- to take all possible steps". I thought that had been suitably answered. I do not know whether it was answered to their satisfaction or not or whether they still hold that point of view. Now Sir, I realize that there are reservations on paragraph 4 but I would like to know what is their view about paragraph 8 (c).
D. SMITH (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, you may recall that I did not even really characterize my statement on the paragraph as interpretative.
We would simply be satisfied with the fact that it will appear in the verbatim record of the Conference.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Mr. Chairman, I am not fully clear what your intention was on how to deal with the kind of statement realized just now in the case of the United States-that it was not a kind of interpretative statement, but Canada, Japan and some others would like to learn from you, Sir how you want to deal with this issue and then I will, perhaps, express my views.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you distinguished delegate of Yugoslavia. You will remember, perhaps, that I said that the delegate of Japan-following the discussion that we had on their statement-kindly agreed not to insist on this interpretative statement being included. They were satisfied with their intentions being covered in the report so there would be no interpretative statement from Japan. As regards the Canadian position, all that Canada asked is that the report should mention the fact that Canada submitted this interpretative statement, but they do not ask the report to include the details of the statement, because this statement will be included in the verbatim record. Is the picture a little clearer now, distinguished delegate of Yugoslavia?
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Thank you very much. If that is now the case I would go along with it.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you very much indeed. The Draft Resolution is then adopted, and it is my intention to go to the next Draft Resolution as we have very little time. Japan is asking for the floor, I hope this will be on something new.
I. TAKE (Japan): I would ask you for some clarification on the treatment of the interpretative statement of the delegate of Canada because I do not think I could understand that question clearly.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I had said with regard to the interpretative statement by the delegate of Canada that in the report we would say: M an interpretative statement on the draft resolution is contained in the records of the Conference·" That is all.
I. TAKI (Japan): I hope that the interpretative statement of my Government will be dealt with in the same manner in the report.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Although we have adopted a different attitude, which was accepted "by the delegate of Japan, if he insists I shall leave the Commission free to decide.
P. MASUT (Pakistan): I think we are trying to build castles on shifting sands and it is a little difficult to do that. We thought we had. set this matter at rest and finally you, Sir, had summed up, and a little reluctantly we went along; but if these interpretative statements are going to be mentioned in every line I am afraid it will be very difficult for us to accept the situation. We realize the position of the delegate of Japan, but I had thought that it was more than covered by what you, Mr. Chairman, had said. In fact, what you say is also a oart of the official record, so it can always be referred to. Ï would have thought that in those circumstances there was no need, except for what the delegate of Canada said, and she said she had reason to do so and it was acceptable and we went along with that sugsection… It is a little difficult for us to accept any more interpretative statements.
S. M. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): Past experience shows that interpretative statements, some of which run almost as long as the draft resolution itself, definitely tend to be contradictory to the draft resolution and, therefore, dilute whatever is dealt with in the draft resolution. In keeping with the principle cf not including interpretative statements, my delegation withdrew its point of view which was very strong and of great importance to us. I do not understand why more delegates still insist on interpretative statements, which definitely dilute the draft resolution. As far as Canada is concerned, it was accepted in the very special circumetanoee; they got their instructions late, and it was not harm-ful. I therefore propose that we reduce the interpretativeetat emente as much as possible and that we do not make any changes which do not appear in the draft resolution itself.
I refer to the intervention of the delegate of France. When I proposed my amendment he said there was no remon to change the draft resolution. If we include interpretative statements we dilute and weaken the draft resolution. I strongly eupport reducing interpretative statements as much as possible.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): May I now ask the delegate of Japan kindly to reconsider his po-sition, especially since before I summed up the debate he had accepted, quite clearly, the idea that he would not insist on an interpretative statement on behalf of Japan. After having taken note of the at-titude of all the delegations, I do appeal to the delegate of Japan to reconsider his position.
I. TAKI (Japan): I just hope that the statement of the Japanese Government will be dealt with in the same manner as the Canadian statement. That is all.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): There are two basic differences between the statement of Japan and the statement of Canada-two basic, fundamental differences. First of all, the delegate of Japan had accepted, very generously, that he would not add an interpretative statement. The second fundamen-tal difference is that the content of his statement is very clearly covered by the report which was read out to him, and he was convinced that his concern was covered by thé report, especially with regard to the second and third points of this statement.
As far as the first part of his interpretative statement is concerned, I said that all that would be said would be that the resolutions of the General Assembly would be mentioned here as adopted, and again he agreed not to object to that interpretation and very kindly withdrew his interpretative statement.
Those are the two basic differences between the positions of Japan and Canada.
I. ΤAKI (Japan): The statement concerning the 10 million ton target, the report in fact does not refer to the point we want to make in our statement, so I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will kindly deal with our statement in the same manner as the statement of Canada.
CHAIRMAN: But I think you still have a chance when you see the report for adoption later; you will see that your point is covered in the report to your satisfaction and with the agreement of the Commission, without going into interpretative statements, which are getting a little bit too much as it is now. Is that acceptable to you?
I·TAKI (Japan): I reluctantly accept it.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): We can now go on to the third draft resolution.
Α·Ι·MENENDEZ (México): Nosotros estamos seguros que nueetra sugerencia no tendrá mayor motivo de de-bate. Mi delegación ha hecho más de una docena de consultas a países que han simpatizado con la idea que vamos a proponer a esta Comisión.
Nosotros consideramos que en el cuarto párrafo preambular cabría ser insertado el siguiente párrafo:
"Recordando las resoluciones 3101 y 3102 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, referente al establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional, y la Declaración de Principios y Programa de Acción como fueron adoptados por la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural. "
Y seguiría el siguiente párrafo.
A. ACUÑA (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá apoya la propuesta de México en el sentido de incorporar en el texto de la resolución que establece el Día Mundial de la Alimentación lo referente al Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional y a la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural.
L. COMANESCU (Romania): We support the Mexican proposal, and we would be very glad to join the co-sponsors of the draft resolution.
Mlle M. MUSSO (France): Nous n'avons aucune observation à faire à l'encontre de la proposition mexicaine bien que j'avoue ne pas très bien comprendrece que cette mention ajoute à ce paragraphe étant donné que les références aux résolutions précitées sont déjà nombreuses dans les autres résolutions.
Que l'on essaie de créer une journée pour sensibiliser les populations au problème de la faimest une position indépendante des résolutions approuvées à telle ou telle session des Nations Unies. Je répète que je ne m'y oppose pas tout en n'en voyant pas l'intérêt, mais je souhaiterais que les mentions adoptées fussent bien précisées après les références aux résolutions 3102 de la programmation de la Conférence sur la réforme agraire.
P. MASUD(Pakistan): I was not quite clear about the proposal of the French delegation. Is it being proposed that they would like to amend the amendment proposed by the Delegate of Mexico, and did they also say that they saw no reason for it but that they would go along for the sake of peace and quiet ?
Mlle M. MUSSO (France): Ma pensée nTa pas été bien comprise. J'ai dit que je ne m'opposais pas du tout aux résolutions ni à l'adjonction présentée par le Mexique mais je pensais qu'elles n'étaient pas particulièrement nécessaires dans ce paragraphe en raison des références faites aux résolutions des Nations Unies et à la Conférence sur la réforme agraire, comme dans d'autres résolutions. A mon avis, une journée mondiale de l'alimentation avait une valeur propre sans qu'il soit utile de se référer à telle ou telle résolution des Nations Unies étant donné que la nécessité d'attirer l'attention des populations de quelque pays que ce soit sur les problèmes de la faim était quelque chose de suffisamment important sans qu'il y ait lieu de se référer à une résolution quelconque pour appuyer ce point de vue. Mis à part cela, je ne m'opposais nullement à cette adjonction tout en pensant qu'elle n'était pas très utile. Je voulais simplement, si elle était émise, qu'il soit bien précisé que les termes de "résolutions" figurent comme d'habitude avec la mention "telles qu'adoptées" ainsi que l'a exprimé le repré-sentant du Mexique, en ce qui concerne la deuxième partie relative à la Conférence sur la réforme agraire. Il a simplement omis de le dire pour la première partie des résolutions de l'Assemblée générale. C'est une simple précision linguistique.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabie): I think that is now perfectly clear.
M. KRIESBURG (United States of America): I would like to acknowledge the statement made by the Delegate of Romania, in cosponsoring this resolution. We would also like to indicate that we agree with our colleague from France as to the usual references to other Resolutions as adopted-so we are all in agreement, as they are.
I would make one minor observation. I notice that in the covering page the names are spelt out of all the countries except the United States, and I assume that when this is done other countries which are consponsoring this would also have their full names spelt out.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Regarding your last comment, I am sure that the Secretariat will not fail to spell out all the names.
I. OZORAI (Hungary):I have only two brief comments to make. The first is that my delegation would go along with the suggestion of the Delegate of Mexico, supported by the Delegate of Panama, together with all the amendments which have been submitted to the Committee afterwards.
Secondly, since the Delegate of Rumania has said that Romania would like to be a co-sponsor of this recommendation as well (a statement which we gratefully acknowledge), I would like to draw attention to the fact that at the 9th meeting of this Commission, on the morning of 21st November, in compliance with the Rules of the Organization, I mentioned the names of the delegates who wished to be cosponsors. For the sake of those few delegations who do not have access to the verbatim record, the delegations wishing to cosponsor, in addition to the original ones in C 79/LIM/37, are:Czechoslovakia, Colombia, Ghana, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Viet Nam and Zambia.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): As one of the original sponsors of this Resolution, I must mention that there is an omission in our preparation of this Draft Resolution, and I was requested by a few delegations, as one of the cosponsors. to agree and propose a small amendment in Operative Paragraph 1(f): to insert after "to encourage", "Economic and", so that the sentence will read: "to encourage Economic and Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries . . . ". This does not create any controversy or problems - it is a purely logical amendment because of an omission during the preparation of the drafting.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): With regard to thelist of countries sponsoring the Draft Resolution, we will give you the final list before the end of this meeting. You have heard the Delegate of Yugoslavia propose an amendment to the last subparagraph, (f), of paragraph 1 of this Draft Resolution:the addition of the words "Economic and". Are there any comments on this proposed amendment? I do not see any comments: therefore, the amendment proposed by Yugoslavia is adopted by the Commission.
As you have seen in the Report of the Resolutions Committee, there are still some suggestions and proposals made by this Committee, and I think that we have to look at these proposals one by one before we can complete this Draft Resolution.
The first proposal has already been adopted-we have already adopted the amendment proposed by Mexico, and we said that "as adopted" should be added to any reference to a Resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations and the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
We are now going to take the proposals of the Resolutions Committee. The first refers to a change in the presentation of the sentence which will read as follows: (in English) " . . . a requisite of human survival and well-being, and a fundamental human right;" that is to say, the Resolutions Committee would like to put the "fundamental human right" at the end of the sentence and not at the beginning. It is a readjustment within the sentence.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): This Resolution has been in circulation for some time, and I am sure that all of us have had time to look at it. All the amendments appear reasonable, and we would support all of them. I do not think it is necessary to take them one by one.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): As the Delegate of Pakistan has just pointed out, this Resolution has been in circulation for some time. I do not think there will by any discussion, since delegations have had an opportunity of looking at these amendments. If there are no objections, I take it that our Commission adopts the proposals and the amendments proposed by the Resolutions Committee. That would mean that we have adopted the Draft Resolution with the amendment accompanying it.
We now have to finalize the list of sponsors of this Resolution. The Secretariat will now read the list of sponsors: please correct it if there are any errors.
SECRETARY: The names of the sponsors of this resolution are as follows: Czechoslovakia, Colombia, Denmark, France, Ghana, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Tunisia, United States of America, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zambia.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): You have just heard the list of countries sponsoring this resolution. Is that list complete? I myself believe it is.
I have to annouce that the Holy See has handed in a statement for insertion in the verbatim record under this item.
L. BERNARDI (Le Saint-Siège): La delegation du Saint-Siège désire exprimer son approbation concernant le projet de résolution sur la "Journée mondiale de l'alimentation" (présenté par les délégations des huit Etats Membres) qui devrait être observée chaque année, le 16 octobre, anniversaire de la fondation de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture; notre délégation vous assure de sa collaboration pour cette éventuelle réalisation et désire que sa proposition soit incluse dans le rapport de la Conférence 1/.
The meeting rose at 12. 15 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 12. 15 horas
1/Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal.
