CHAIRMAN:I would like to call upon the Chairman of the Credentials Committee, Mr Peter Vándor (of Hungary), to give the first report of the Credentials Committee.
P. VANDOR (Chairman, Credentials Committee): Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: I have the honour to inform you that the Credentials Committee held its first meeting on 5 November 1983 at 11,00 hours to examine the credentials of the delegations of Member Nations to the Twenty-second session of the FAO Conference. In accordance with Rule III-2 of the General Rules of the Organization and the criteria established by the previous committees, the Credentials Committee examined the credentials of 108 delegations and found them to be valid. The Member Nations to which these delegations belong are shown in the list attached to document C 83/LIM/8. To date, forty-six Member Nations have not presented credentials. Two Member Nations have advised the Secretariat that they will not attend the Conference. They are Papua New Guinea and Samoa. Any other credentials which will be received as well as the credentials of the representatives of Specialized Agencies of the United Nations and Observers from other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations will be examined by the Committee at subsequent meetings.
The list of Member Nations whose delegations have presented credentials found to be in order are as follows:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Kuwait, Laos, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen Arab Republic, Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe and from the applicant countries, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis and Vanuatu.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that report. I understand that this report will be distributed the number of this document being C '83/LIM/8.
Are there any comments on this report? If there are none, I declare the first Report of the Credentials Committee adopted.
Adopted
Adopté
Aprobado
CHAIRMAN: The Conference will now vote on the admission as members of the Organization of the following four countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Vanuatu. This vote is governed by Article II, paragraph 2, of thé FAO Constitution, which reads: "The Conference may by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, provided that a majority of the Member Nations of the Organization is present, decide to admit as an additional member of the Organization any nation which has submitted an application for membership and a declaration made in a formal instrument that it will accept the obligations of the Constitution as in force at the time of the admission".
I shall now call on the Secretariat to give details of the voting procedures.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Aux fins du scrutin, les délégués recevront quatre bulletins de vote, un pour chacune des demandes d'admission en la qualité de membre. Ces bulletins portent trois cases marquées "oui", "non" et "abstention". Pour voter, les délégués feront une croix dans la case correspondant à leur choix.
Aux termes de l'article XII.4 (c) du Règlement général de l'Organisation, les bulletins blancs seront comptés comme abstentions.
Aux termes de l'alinéa 4 (d) du même article XII, les bulletins de vote ne devront porter aucune indication et aucun signe autres que ceux par lesquels s'exprime le suffrage.
Voilà les règles qui doivent conduire les votes de tout à l'heure.
CHAIRMAN: In accordance with Article 11.2 of the FAO Constitution and under the provisions of Rule XII of the General Rules of the Organization, the quorum required for this election is a majority of the Member Nations of the Organization. This means that at least 77 Member Nations must be represented and present in the hall at this time.
I have requested the officers in charge of the election to carry out a count, and I am told that at this moment there are over 99 delegations of Member Nations present in the hall. We may therefore proceed at once with the vote.
May I remind you that in accordance with paragraph 14 of Rule XII of the General Rules of the Organization, once voting has commenced, no delegate or representative may interrupt the voting, except to raise a point of order in connexion with that vote.
In accordance with paragraph 9 (c) of Rule XII of the General Rules of the Organization, the Chairman of the Conference appoints two tellers from among the delegates or representatives, or their alternates. I would therefore request the delegates of Germany and Lesotho to serve as tellers for this election.
Will these two delegates please proceed to the voting area. You have already been advised of this responsibility.
Vote
Vote
Votación
CHAIRMAN: The voting has now been completed. The tellers, with the assistance of the officers in charge of the election, will now count the ballot papers and the results of the election will be announced at the start of this afternoon's Plenary Session. The new Member Nations admitted to the Organization will then formally take their place in the hall.
CHAIRMAN: We will now have the Thirteenth McDougall Memorial Lecture, which will be delivered by Dr Bruno Kreisky, former Federal Chancellor of Austria.
The Director-General will make the introduction, and as I turn the floor over to the Director-General I just want to express my appreciation for your assistance, Director-General, in the efficient preparation that we have seen here this morning. It is helping to make my job much easier.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
It is a great honour for the Organization that the former Federal Chancellor of Austria, Mr Bruno Kreisky, has consented to deliver the Thirteenth McDougall Memorial Lecture.
When I had the privilege of introducing Prime Minister Indira Ghandi two years ago, I referred extensively to India's achievement in the development of food and agriculture.
Today it is not my intention to discuss the state of food and agriculture, including forestry, in Austria.
It is, however, in the context of Austria's contribution to the advancement of the Third World economies and of the perennial ak668e for world peace, that we pay tribute today to Bruno Kreisky.
His name and the name of his country are associated by all of us with the causes of peace, international cooperation and striving towards the achievement of a more equitable and prosperous world society.
Once Austria was the centre of a great imperial power, deeply involved in internal ethnic and social tensions and in conflicts between the great powers.
Today, Austria is a small but prosperous country enjoying not only a happy and peaceful relationship with its neighbours, but also the respect and attention of the whole international community.
Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen:
There can be doubt that to a large degree Bruno Kreisky has played a major role in this positive transformation.
After following studies of law and political economy and becoming a Doctor of Law, he began his political career 50 years ago.
After suffering imprisonment, threat of execution and exile, he resumed his political career in Austria in 1951.
After holding various important offices of state, he became Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1959, in which capacity he represented Austria in many important political and economic negotiations.
At that time already, his special interest was focused on helping the Third World.
Among other achievements, his personal initiatives resulted in the foundation of the Vienna Institute for Developing Questions of which he is the Chairman.
In 1956, he was elected to the Austrian Chamber of Deputies.
In 1967, he became Federal Chairman of the Social Democratic Party and remained so until he recently proclaimed his wish to lay down this office.
In 1970, he became Chancellor of Austria, and it is in this capacity that we know him best.
He headed three successive administrations with great distinction and renown.
During this period, he not only placed his mark on the history of Austria, but also on world relations.
He carried out wide reforms in his country and worked ceaselessly for peace and development on the international level, maintaining dialogue and creating confidence between the extremes of opinions and interests.
He also was responsible for expression in the most concrete form possible of Austria's belief in multilateral cooperation through the United Nations system.
I refer to the establishment, on one of the prime sites of Vienna, of a vast United Nations centre in the form of bricks and mortar and the most generous privileges under Austrian law for the UN, UNIDO and IAEA.
This took many years of effort but was an encouragement for all who believe in the UN system, and a far-sighted act of statesmanship.
When he laid down his office earlier this year, it was generally felt that an era had come to an end.
Nevertheless, his interest and involvement in the cause of the Third World has not ceased.
Indeed, he has continued to participate in the debate at the highest levels on how to transform the present negative situation into positive moves towards the creation of a new international economic order.
I do not wish to anticipate his address, but I am glad to note that he has in past statements unreservedly committed himself to the view that "hunger is an international problem and in the long run, peace can only be preserved as far as we are able to overcome hunger and poverty on the international level".
Now, therefore, I have great pleasure, in the name of the Organization, in inviting former Chancellor Bruno Kreisky to deliver the McDougall Memorial Lecture.
B. KREISKY (former Federal Chancellor of Austria): Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: When the Director-General of the FAO, Dr Edouard Saouma, invited me, many months ago, to deliver the McDougall Memorial Lecture, I was still in office as Head of the Austrian Government and I pointed out at the time that I was by no means sure I would still be Federal Chancellor by the time of this event. Director-General Saouma replied that the invitation to address you was not necessarily tied to my office, and he renewed this invitation after my resignation. Quite frankly, I am very glad to have this opportunity, because throughout my career I could never help espousing certain trains of thought afresh, even if there was no chance of realising them at the time.
During my long political career I have learned one thing above all, which is that in politics as elsewhere ideas have to be formed and propagated long before the time is ripe for their implementation. Then one day comes the moment when they can be put into practice in one form or another. Much of what was thought and dreamed about the welfare state, for example, in the thirties came true only after the Second World War.
I was still a very young man - you will permit my reminiscing - when I had the good fortune" to be able to take part in the 1931 Congress of the Socialist International as a messenger boy, so to speak. It was my job to carry forgotten umbrellas after delegates and see to it that the pencils on their desks were sharpened. Naturally, I did it in order to be able to listen to the speeches delivered by the great men of democratic socialism.
It was in the midst of the severe world economic crisis that the spiritual leader of Austrian social democracy - and I have to add, of the Socialist International, Otto' Bauer - developed the stupendous idea of fighting the crisis in Central Europe by initiating a great system of international loans, to be made available by the richer countries - primarily the United States and France - for the benefit of those Central European countries which had been hardest hit, and by this means not only to overcome the world economic crisis but also - and this was remarkable at the time - to save democracy and peace. Otto Bauer foretold that the destruction of democracy in Germany would mean the end of democracy in Central Europe and would inevitably bring about the Second World War.
At that time a large-scale international credit scheme would not only have assisted the European industrialized states to overcome the crisis but would also have led to a modernization of the economic structure and production facilities in Eastern Europe and accelerated the process of original accumulation - to use an expression by Karl Marx - a development which in most Eastern European countries started at great sacrifice only after World War Two. This idea by the Austrian Otto Bauer had - and therefore I mention it - its magnificent resurrection and expansion in the so-called Marshall Plan - modified, of course, employing techniques unforeseeable in detail in 1931.
There is something else I should like to mention in this context: the fact that an idea will not be translated into reality immediately has the advantage that in the course of time it will attract both support and criticism. Both happened with the ideas I espoused in many speeches before the United Nations and eventually before the Third General Conference of UNIDO on 31st January in New Delhi. These thoughts have been criticised and described as economically unsound, but there have also been eminent men and women who have supported them - or perhaps more importantly, have thought them through afresh and independently.
The extent to which these ideas are gaining ground is evidenced by the fact that the famous economist, Professor Leontief, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1973 and is today Director of the Institute for Economic Analysis at New York University, argues along the lines resembling the ones I have followed for a considerable period of time. He writes:
"To the great surprise of the authors of the report, many less-developed countries took off fast... How did this happen?... Banks untied their purses and lent to the less-developed countries all the money they could use for productive investment.
"... Under a government programme like the Marshall Plan... There is, however, another way... The Western democracies should help the banks and their clients continue the good work... Inauguration of a long-delayed, worldwide Marshall Plan. It could combine a guarantee of old bank loans and new ones - on condition that interest rates be appropriately reduced-withsubstantial direct assistance to particularly poor areas."
Let me go even further. The "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", a newspaper close to the Swiss industrial and banking world, wrote on 28th September of this year that even the Trilateral Commission had in any case shown a certain open-mindedness and understand the connections between the First and the Third Worlds. Let me just say here that I can well imagine all these ideas being brought to a synthesis, if we could only resolve to. find out where the pertinent decision-making processes should take place.
In this connection I should also like to state that I am well aware that the communist states have no desire to take part in these activities, a fact brought home at the Cancún summit. The question facing us is how to put all these ideas into practice. The only way I see is that some like-minded countries should work out and implement a model based on the example of one specific big project.
Permit me to recapitulate the ideas I have propounded now for more than two decades. I believe, and have always believed, that development aid as it has been practised for many years does not permit an organic and steady development of the economic resources in the countries concerned. Long before the oil shock, for example, I held the view that the developing countries would have to arrive at aontinental railway system like the one we have in Europe, and that such gigantic projects could be realised only by way of multilateral planning.
As we know from the past - I mean from the European past - such a development would have provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Those to whom it would have meant jobs would have viewed the problem of hunger with different eyes from those of the millions of jobless. Similar ideas would have had to be implemented to supply the developing countries with water and energy as well as with modern telecommunication systems. To put it in a nutshell: the countries of the Third World are incapable on their own of creating the infrastructures they need in order to play their part in the international division of labour in accordance with their potential.
Only when they are in possession of more or less satisfactory infrastructures will they be able to do so, and these must of course include systems of modern vocational training geared to the prevailing conditions. It will be their only chance to make the best possible use of the credit facilities available to them. In a meeting such as this I don't need to cite specific examples to explain the significance of such measures.
In implementing such far-reaching international infrastructural measures it would naturally be impossible to apply the standards currently prevailing in the field of international credit. When anyone mentions the problems of financing - and we in the industrial states are not strong enough to envisage such a development - I have only to point out that according to the Peace Reak668e Institute in Stockholm between 700 and 750 billion dollars were spent on armaments during 1982. Only one seventh of that amount would be sufficient to implement such a plan on the most grandiose scale.
Let me mention another example - and I have to tell you that I am an old Social Democrat, an old Socialist - the direct costs of one person out of work in Austria - and we are a country which has one of the lowest unemployment in Europe - one person costs approximately AS7 000 per month which is equal to US$ 400. Austria is positioned somewhere in the middle of the income pyramid of the Western countries, also with respect to special supplements. We may consequently depart from the fact that the 35 million jobless cause direct monthly expenditures of 14 billion dollars. This means about 170 billion dollars a year. It goes without saying that in addition to this sum substantial social costs accrue from the loss of the production factor 'labour', adding up at least to once more the same amount, so that the total loss is to be estimated at about double the above-mentioned amount.
There is another observation I should like to add in this context. The criticism which has been expressed against all these ideas is not new. It strongly reminds me of the critical voices which were raised when Keynes propounded his ideas for combatting the world crisis. They came both from the Right, the political Right and the political Left, but I shall refrain from enlarging on them and merely single out a few points.
The very notion of calling this idea a new Marshall Plan suffices to raise the opposition of the Left. They say that the Marshall Plan was not prompted by humanitarian considerations, which is true enough, and the very reason to be frank why it was so effective in terms of practical politics. I chose the term at the time I did in order to awaken certain memories.
Another objection is that such a policy will cost money, and would have to be pursued à_fonds perdus. This again is true enough, but what can it possibly signify when balanced against the huge expenditure on armaments? Considering the fact that there are, as I have mentioned already, 35 million unemployed in the modern industrialized states, I wonder whether we can still afford a long-term economic policy which finally and inevitably would lead not only to deserted factories but also to deserted offices and bureaus.
This gigantic unemployment imposes huge financial burdens on the modern industrial countries, and I have mentioned the figures.
What critics overlook is the salient need to fight the phenomena of this present crisis in the industrialized states in many different ways. Their argument against these ideas totally neglects the dynamic impact, what it would mean to have to build up an infrastructure in the developing countries, because to build up an infrastructure would also be a contribution to significant economic growth.
When objecting to ideas my critics are saying that they will conserve, preserve, obsolete structures in our economy in the industrial state for a certain amount of time. They fail to consider that it is undoubtedly much easier to plan structural reforms in our countries when we can preserve the structures for some time. It is much better to make that in this way than in the situation of capacity rundown. One of my best economic aides has formulated it so: "Even a short-term policy of this character will cause dynamic spillover effects".
My left-wing critics take a very negative view of the role played by foreign capital in the overall economic and social development of Third World countries. But it is for the very reason that I am just as sceptical as they are that I have taken up the idea for such a global plan. We know from practical experience that infrastructural development has very favourable general effects, and that it is the prerequisite for conditions favouring economic growth.
So let me briefly remark on the current world economic situation, and specifically voice a politico-psychological observation:
I think - this is my personal view - I observe a certain tendency to declare that there is really no crisis at all, and that one should not dramatize matters. I feel that this is due to the inability to get rid of unemployment also in a period of a new prosperity. It usually starts with a discussion of economists on how to define a crisis.
I can only repeat what experience has taught me, namely that a crisis like the present one - and I have already lived through an extremely severe one - cannot be overcome only by economic means and measures, but also - and this seems to be very important - some political measures. It was - and I remember this, I was a witness at this time - it was the gigantic rearmament which Hitler set in motion, and which was gradually emulated in the democratic countries, that led out of the crisis. I am sorry to say it was the war which definitely ended the crisis. Theorists may explain it differently, but this is my explanation and my experience. We know the political end of the crisis, a crisis which turned out to be a nightmare.
The crisis of today need not end in a nightmare, for every crisis can be brought to an end. What are the alternatives to armaments? Today it is evident that armaments will not put an end to the crisis. At the stage of economic development which we have reached now, armaments production often runs parallel to economic production, leaving the general business cycle merely untouched.
We live in a society characterized by the ability to produce an immense amount of goods, and if this capacity is not used, if we are unable to say how it could be used, we have to direct our thoughts beyond new technologies and smart products to questions of global redistribution. This will be one of the ways to reintegrate the 35 million unemployed in the Western industrialized countries and get them back into working life. The problem will be even more complicated. In its recently published "Employment Outlook", the OECD stated that demographic developments alone would make it necessary to create 18 to 20 million new jobs in the Western industrial countries between 1984 and 1989. The creation of these new jobs would not achieve anything beyond maintaining the current high level of unemployment. Let me draw a more graphic picture: even if 20 000 new jobs were to be created daily in the industrial countries, millions of people would still remain jobless. That illustrates the magnitude of the task we face today in the industrial countries.
In recent years the Western industrial countries have pumped vast amounts of capital into the developing countries through the usual channels of credit supply via the capital markets. According to generally accepted estimates the developing countries' debts now run to the amount of US$ 700 billion. The interest payments alone are estimated far in excess of US$ 70 billion. The banking system is now resorting to rescheduling the debts, which means that the existing debts are augmented by additional interest, with interest rates being raised because of the added risk. This is clearly no solution to the problem. Let us be quite frank about it: the industrial countries will have to write off a good deal of that money. If the sum involved is not more than one-third of the total debt, then it will amount to US$ 233 billion at present values
But it will do us no good to let those countries get deeper into debt and economic misery. The former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was among those who pointed out that those countries will be able to pay their debts only if more capital flows into them than out of them. He went on to emphasise that all industrial countries would have to contribute their share in order to prevent conditions fostering anti-Western sentiments among broad sections of the populations.
I have already mentioned the proposals of the Nobel Prize winner Vassily Leontief underlined in a recent article entitled "For a Marshall Plan II" that concerted action by the Western democracies would be the only answer to the crisis of indebtedness. The point at issue is the implementation of a large-scale plan involving a high degree of political cooperation. Through such a project the democratic industrial countries could deploy their political strength and develop a type of cooperation which many countries in the Third World would be reluctant to give up.
At this point I should like to remind you of a factor which has made a not insignificant impact on the economy of the industrialised countries over the past — I repeat: over the past — few years, namely East-West trade. At the height of the Cold War nobody believed there would again come a day when economic cooperation between the Communist states and the Western industrialised countries would become important for world trade as a whole.
The period from 1950 to 1980, however, saw an increase in exports from the OECD area to theCOMECON countries from US$ 770 million to US$ 4204 billion. During the same period imports from the Eastern bloc to the Western states rose from US$ 1.1 billion to nearly US$ 43 billion. In real terms, of course, this increase is much lower than these figures would seem to indicate. Nevertheless, they show that the 1960s and early 1970s were characterised by impressive expansion of mutual trade between West and East in Europe, and it was a new area of economic cooperation.
During the first part of the 1970s, imports by the COMECON group rose by more than 30 percent annually, and exports 22.5 percento For well-known reasons which I need not discuss here, this exchange of goods has recently begun to stagnate. I merely want to draw your attention to the considerable potential for economic development through an intensified exchange of goods which exists once the right political climate has been established.
It could be argued that the expansion of trade constituted the basis for a policy of détente between East and West, and that the atmosphere of détente in turn contributed significantly to closer economic relations between East and West. Without drawing any direct parallel I believe that the industrialised countries must recognize the opportunities which are available to them through development of the economic potential of the Third World countries, what trading possibilities can open to them, what chances of using capacities which are currently unde‐utilized at this time of crisis.
What fundamental steps must be taken in order to create the preconditions for these objectives? Measures will be needed in the following areas: transport, energy, agriculture, irrigation, telecommunications — it is easier to disseminate information by television than to teach people to read so that they will be able to acquire the same information from books — and finally illiteracy, sister to hunger and need. I cannot fail, especially in this forum, to stress the paramount importance of agricultural development as a foundation for all other progress and equity for the rural poor. Not all countries can be self-sufficient in food, but growing dependence on food imports, especially on exotic grains, can only be economically afforded or politically risked by a very few, For this reason I am glad to take the opportunity to congratulate the FAO for its efforts especially in the last few years, under the strong and dynamic leadership of Dr Saouma who has done so much, particularly to produce a better understanding of the nature of world food security and to focus development efforts on the needs of the rural poor.
One of the arguments used in this context is that the conditions under which the first Marshall Plan had been implemented in the industrialized countries were much more favourable because a relatively small injection of capital was enough to set the economy in motion again. Obviously, fewer resources had to be transferred in order to rebuild the destroyed capacity of the traditional industrialised countries but we should bear in mind that at that time the infrastructure and the industry of those countries had to be rebuilt, and that the United States was the only — this is very important — the only possible donor.
My proposals are aimed exclusively at developing the infrastructures and the agricultural sectors of the Third World countries. In agriculture in particular, a relatively low capital input will be necessary, in contrast to the capital-intensive area of the infrastructure. Of course it will take a long time, longer than in the case of the European Reconstruction Programme, for these countries to achieve self-sustaining growth; but that cannot be an argument against immediate action on our part.
Some also argue that the solutions to our short-term cyclical problems cannot be reconciled with the needs of the developing countries. In part this argument is certainly justified, but only in part. The existing over-capacities in the iron and steel industries are so great that even if, for example, we were strongly to encourage the construction of railway networks in the developing countries, it would not suffice to utilize them to the full. On the other hand, nobody will seriously deny that such a construction programme would help alleviate our problems and at the same time create positive effects in the Third World. And, since we must in any event restructure our economies, and the new high-technology industries will come nowhere near providing a sufficient number of jobs for people in industrialised countries, why should we not strive for adjustments oriented towards the needs of these new Third World markets?
It is further argued that counterpart funds — as we heard in the Marshall Aid Programme — are not suitable instruments for implementing infrastructure projects. I have many times pointed out that we must be prepared for an extended development period and that we consequently need longer-term loans. But it cannot be denied that these projects will have positive effects, both directly and indirectly In my opinion these would be more significant projects than could be realised hitherto under normal commercial financing arrangements.
The role played by foreign capital in these countries, and the concept of economic development on which my ideas are based, have also been heavily criticised in certain quarters. It may be true that our industrial development model cannot simply be transferred to the Third World without modifications. But an expansion of the infrastructures and the building up of agriculture are an absolute must, even for economies which follow a different pattern of growth. And even in cases where industrialization projects have been launched in recent years, those which failed did not do so because it was not possible to ensure industrial production, but simply because they were not adequately integrated into the economies of the countries concerned, or because the necessary infrastructure did not exist.
It is not my objective to export to the Third World a certain model of society and economy, but to prepare the ground for satisfying the basic needs of the people living in these countries.
The problems of indebtedness by developing countries are often viewed in a purely financial perspective, with attention being drawn to the resulting threats to the international financial system and our banks in particular. Meanwhile, the inability of these countries to pay back their debts has given rise to very serious consequences. Lionel Olmer, the US Deputy Secretary of Commerce, recently stated that US exports to the eight Latin American states with the highest debts declined from 14.4 billion dollars reported for the first six months of 1982 to 9.1 billion dollars in the first half of 1983. He concluded that nearly a quarter of a million American workers have meanwhile lost their jobs as a result of the repayment difficulties of those countries and of the terms and conditions imposed on them by the International Monetary Fund.
This is so despite the vast domestic markets which make the United States practically independent of foreign demando How much greater is the repercussion on the Western European countries, which are forced to earn up to 50 percent of their gross domestic product from exports.
In the face of the present crisis, and the insanity of the arms race which has seized us, I can think of no better alternative. People are talking about the problem that we create more friction in the world but what would we have done had the Americans said that they were not prepared to reconstruct steel works or automobile factories in Europe, because Europeans would one day emerge as their keenest competitors - which has in fact happened. They did not say that and this was one of the reasons why the Marshall Plan was such a success.
What sort of a free economy do we have if we are afraid of such developments? In this spirit, I should like to make one final remark: we cannot overlook the human factors. It is not only the export of goods and resources which matters; we must combine this with a transfer of knowledge. I am saying this with some hesitation. We must be willing and able to integrate hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans (just think of our surplus of teachers, for example) into this economic process in a sensible manner. The "ugly European" need not become a reality, provided that Europeans are able to heighten their awareness of the tremendous tasks, the need for solidarity and the challenge facing them.
Once Europe sent forth its soldiers. Today we must send forth development aid volunteers and teachers. These are the great tasks awaiting us. Even an old man must be credited with having vision. In the dark days of our recent past we had the strength of such vision, and this kept us going, such visions as far as our national life was concerned, let me remember, one of these visions was during a long period in Europe, the restoration of democracy; another one was the creation of the welfare state; the third one was the idea of a European economic integration and all this kept us going since the darkest years. It is my vision today that the idea of international solidarity must be given a new dimension.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: A brilliant lecture, Dr Kreisky. I would like on behalf of the Conference and on my own behalf to express my deep thanks to His Excellency Dr Bruno Kreisky for the most eloquent address that he has just delivered, very fine.
I understand that the purpose of this traditional address is to recall the spirit which animated the founding fathers of this Organization and certainly Dr Kreisky has surely achieved that here today. In addition he has inspired us, not only by the contents of his message, but by the living message with his life's work and commitment to the cause of international cooperation. His address brings us to a historical perspective which few, if any, in this room can match; a critical assessment and a new perception of old problems and new solutions.
Dr Kreisky indicates opportunities for action by all countries, developing and developed and as a statesman of great stature he does not merely lay down a prescription but motivates our political will. I wish to pay tribute to Dr Kreisky and assure him his message will serve to shed light and provide direction for our deliberations.
G. MACKEY (Australia) : Mr Chairman, it is a great honour for the Australian delegation to speak in support of the remarks you have just made in acknowledging His Excellency Dr Kreisky for the broad ranging speech, a most thought-provoking address, he has delivered to us.
Your Excellency, you have spoken to us of a number of very imaginative peoposals to stimulate growth in developing countries in the critical years ahead. They match in breadth of vision the concepts advanced by my compatriate Frank McDougall forty years ago as he worked for the establis-inent of the FAO. His sense of vision and his sense of urgency rose out of his own experiences. He was an energetic individual with a great concern to see that the hungry of this world were properly fed. All Australians will support me in confirming our intention to keep up the tradition given to us by that very humane and caring man.
You, Dr Kreisky are another man of great vision, energy and of great experience. You have been actively working to improve the position of the less fortunate of this world for more than five decades and you have today given us the great privilege of sharing with us some of the ideas you have developed during that long and most distinguished career. You undoubtedly are correct in identifying the building up of infrastructures as being absolutely essential in the process of economic development. You have also given us a timely reminder that investments in transport, energy, communications and education will be vital to the achievement of the lasting food security for the developing, and indeed for all the nations of this earth.
Sir, I thank you for your most thought-provoking address. In its delivery and its content you have paid signal honour to the memory of Frank McDougall.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: This concludes our business for this morning.
The meeting rose at 12.00 hours
Laséance est levée à 12 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.00 horas