The Palestine question has been before the United Nations since April 1947. In the four years which have since elapsed, the General Assembly and the Security Council have created no fewer than ten subsidiary organs to deal with various aspects of the question. Three of the bodies are still actively in existence. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, set up by the General Assembly in December 1948, was directed to assist the parties “to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them.” The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, established under a General Assembly resolution of December 1949, was intended to shift the emphasis of United Nations-sponsored activities on behalf of the refugees of the Palestine war from relief to rehabilitation. Finally, there is the Security Council's Truce Supervision Organization.

On June 14, 1946, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission met in New York to negotiate a treaty for the international control of atomic energy. The General Assembly of the United Nations, with the affirmative vote of the Soviet Union and the Soviet satellites, had given the Commission instructions to “make specific proposals:

(a) for extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;

(b) for control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;

(c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction;

(d) for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.”

The surrender of Japan led to the problem of determining the kind of administration which should be set up for the occupied country. This problem led in turn to a conflict of view and of policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was willing, and intended, to consult the other Allied states in regard to the policies to be adopted during the occupation, but wished to have the controlling voice in the determination of these policies, and wished the implementation of these policies and the control of Japan to remain solely with General MacArthur who, as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, had already been authorized by the Allied Powers to take such steps as he deemed proper to effectuate the terms of surrender. The Soviet Union, while willing to recognize the leadership of the United States in the occupation of Japan, claimed the right of responsible participation in the control of Japan and in both formulating and implementing the policies for the occupation. During four months the United States and the Soviet Union carried on negotiations in regard to the administration to be established for occupied Japan. Both governments made substantial concessions. They finally reached an agreement, acceptable also to the United Kingdom and China, the two other major Powers chiefly concerned, which was expressed in the Terms of Reference of the Far Eastern Commission and of the Allied Council for Japan.

The United Nations action against aggression in Korea was aided by a series of fortuitous circumstances which included the absence of the Soviet delegate from the Security Council in June 1950, the existence of a United Nations commission in Korea which was able to provide a timely and unimpeachable report of the facts, and the availability to United Nations forces of a base in Japan from which military operations could be, conveniently undertaken. For the purpose of assuring so far as possible that united resistance to further acts of aggression would not have to depend so largely on coincidence, the General Assembly, on November 3, 1950, gave its overwhelming approval to the “Uniting for Peace” resolution.

Korea: On June 23, 1951, the Soviet representative, Jacob A. Malik, in a broadcast over the United Nations radio, declared that it was possible to “defend the cause of peace” and that “the most acute problem of the present day — the problem of the armed conflict in Korea could also be settled. This would require the readiness of the parties to enter on the path of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The Soviet peoples believe that as a first step discussions should be started between the belligerents for a cease-fire and an armistice providing for the mutual withdrawal of forces from the Thirty-eighth Parallel.” Mr. Malik believed that such a step could be taken “provided there is a sincere desire to put an end to the bloody fighting on Korea.”

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 541st meeting on April 17, 1951 to its 548th meeting on May 29th. The President during April was the representative of the Netherlands (Balluseck) and during May the representative of Turkey (Sarper). During discussion of the Israeli-Syrian dispute representatives of those countries as well as Major-General William R. Riley, Chief of Staff, Truce Supervision Organization, were invited to the Council table. During discussion of the India-Pakistan question the representative of Pakistan participated in the discussion.

The twelfth session of the Economic and Social Council met in Santiago, Chile from February 20 to March 21, 1951. Hernan Santa Cruz (Chile) was re-elected President of the Council and Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar (India) was elected first vice-president following an unsuccessful attempt by the Soviet delegate (Chernyshev) to unseat the nationalist Chinese delegate.

This issue covers only the work of the Trusteeship Council and its subsidiary organs which had been completed before the opening of the ninth session on June 5, 1951.

During March and April, Secretary-General Lie visited France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel. The trip was made in accordance with his custom of visiting Member countries upon their invitation. His journey had no special political significance “except to advance the cause of the United Nations as the best hope for the peaceful settlement of the many conflicts that now divide the world so dangerously.”

Following the judgments of the International Court of Justice on November 20, 1950 and November 27, 1950 (the request for an interpretation of the judgment), the government of Colombia filed a new claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare the manner in which effect should be given to the judgment of November 20, and in particular whether Colombia was bound to deliver to the government of Peru Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. As an alternative claim Colombia requested that the Court declare whether in accordance with the law in force between the parties and particularly American international law Colombia was or was not bound to deliver the refugee to the government of Peru. In a letter the Colombian agent informed the Court that his government relied on the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana on February 29, 1928; under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, the government of Cuba as a signatory to that convention submitted a declaration of intervention which contained Cuba's views on the construction of the Convention of Havana of 1928 as well as its general attitude on asylum. A public hearing was held by the Court on May 15 to determine the admissibility of the Cuban intervention to which the government of Peru had objected on the ground that the Court had given a judgment on the construction of the Havana Convention of 1928, and that it was an attempt by a third state to appeal against the judgment of November 20.

Released on April 30, 1951 the financial statements of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development showed the net income for the nine months ending March 31, 1951 to be $11,483,230. This amount was placed in the General Reserve against losses on loans and guarantees, thus increasing this reserve to $38,481,500. Gross income for the period amounted to $20,567,359 after deducting loan commissions of $4,723,859 which were allocated to the special reserve.

On April 14, 1951 the headquarters agreement between the government of Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization was signed in Montreal. The agreement provided for the recognition of ICAO, on the part of the Canadian government, as an international organization composed of sovereign states members and as a specialized agency in relationship with the United Nations. The organization, its assets, and its property enjoyed the same immunity from suit and judicial process as enjoyed by foreign governments although ICAO could waive the immunity in certain circumstances. The headquarters premises, its archives and documents were inviolable, its property was exempt from any search or other interference except with the consent of the Secretary-General. Certain exemptions from taxes and customs duties were granted as well as privileges in regard to exports, imports and exchange. The Canadian government was to permit and facilitate the entry of representatives of information agencies accredited to ICAO after consultation with Canada. Special entry facilities were granted to representatives of the United Nations or specialized agencies on official business.

The primary emphasis of the report of the Director-General of the International Labor Organization to the thirty-fourth session of the Conference was the issue of wage policy in conditions of full employment. The Conference debate on this question, stimulated by the report Mr. Morse hoped, would help ILO member countries to arrive at wage-price policies “designed to promote the best interests both of workers and of the community as a whole, in conditions of full employment and scarcity of labor.” The problem of wage determination had been receiving renewed public attention, mainly owing to the desire to include restraint of wage increases in a program designed to minimize the possible inflationary effects of full employment, economic development and rearmament. There existed also a belief that adjustments in the wage structures of most countries were needed to provide increased incentives for workers to acquire skill, to work harder and to man the essential industries where labor was particularly scarce.

In accordance with the request of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the International Monetary Fund submitted to the Council's thirteenth session, a study on the capacity of underdeveloped countries to service investments of foreign capital. With compensatory financing eliminated from its consideration, the remainder of the country's international receipts appeared to furnish a reasonable total with which to compare its foreign debt service. Such a total would include the goods and services the country was able to sell abroad, the foreign capital that it was able to attract by its investment opportunities and the donations that it received for particular purposes other than compensatory financing. This total would be subject to wide fluctuations. Markets for the raw materials exported by underdeveloped countries were notoriously subject to sudden shifts in demand which could drastically affect both volume and price. Again the capital flow to underdeveloped countries could be suddenly interrupted if the markets for their raw material exports turned weak or if they pursued unstable or confiscatory policies at home. The dangers to an underdeveloped country's balance of payments position arose from the wide fluctuations in the value of raw material exports and inflow of capital that might occur almost overnight. It was these that raised questions of how quickly and how far imports of goods and services could be contracted in order to permit the service of the foreign debt to continue to be paid in full.

The third annual report of the International Refugee Organization was submitted to the thirteenth session of the Economic and Social Council. In the report the organization announced that in 1950 it “came within sight of its goal, the solving of the refugee problem resulting from World War II and its immediate aftermath.” By the end of the year, 1,525,643 refugees had been given assistance of one kind or another, 71,695 had been repatriated to their countries of origin, 879,403 had been resettled in new countries, and others had been settled in countries of asylum. The number actually resettled during 1950 was 191,119 – 150,844 less than in 1949, but it included a much higher proportion of cases requiring special welfare assistance, “uneconomic” family groups and other difficult cases. “Of the 489,000 persons eligible for resettlement assistance at the beginning of 1950, only 181,000 were considered to be resettleable on the basis of established criteria for immigration schemes likely to be open to them. The number of openings actually found and filled, however, exceeded this number by 10,119 indicating general response to the Organization's appeals for more liberal standards and its concerted campaign on behalf of the so-called ‘Institutional Hard Core’”.

Six additional governments — Austria, German Federal Republic, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea and Turkey became eligible to accede to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. By June 20,1951 each of the six governments had received the required two-thirds majority under the terms of the agreement. To complete requirements for accession, each was obliged to sign the Torquay Protocol by October 21, 1951.

The sixth General Conference of UNESCO was held in Paris from June 18 to July 11, 1951 to discuss an agenda which included the following subjects: 1) criteria adopted by the Economic and Social Council for the establishment of priorities in the programs of the United Nations and specialized agencies; 2) draft program for 1952; 3) education; 4) natural science; 5) social science; 6) exchange of persons; 7) mass communication; 8) relief assistance services; 9) activities in Germany and Japan; 10) establishment of a world network of regional fundamental education centers; 11) consideration of special reports; and 12) the paper shortage.

The joint International Air Transport Association/Universal Postal Union conference which met in Cairo in January 1951 to discuss air mail problems drew up a revised schedule of tariffs for the transport of mail by air. These new rates were to be recommended to the members of IATA for adoption. Other recommendations were made concerning the remuneration of air companies, the use of collector bags, practice regarding bills of lading and delivery, charges for insured mails, measures for the acceleration of air mail and the payment of transport charges when the mail was destroyed. In regard to its future program the conference suggested that the Congress of Brussels in 1952 should adopt provisions to abolish the present categories of air lines and that it should establish a new system of remuneration for commercial aviation companies. The conference further suggested the establishment of a Liaison Committee between IATA and UPU.

The Fourth World Health Assembly completed an unusually heavy agenda during its meetings in Geneva, from May 8 to May 25, 1951. The meetings were attended by delegates from 70 countries and observers from 20 international organizations. Japan, Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany were admitted to membership, bringing the roster to 78 countries.

The first Congress of the World Meteorological Organization, which convened in Paris from March 19 to April 28, 1951, elected Dr. G. Swoboda (Switzerland) Secretary-General. Dr. Swoboda, former chief of the IMO secretariat, was to be director of the permanent secretariat with headquarters in Geneva. WMO officers, who automatically became the officers of the Congress and the Executive Committee, were elected as follows: Dr. F. W. Reichelderfer (United States) President, A. Viaut (France) First Vice President, and N. P. Sellick (Southern Rhodesia) Second Vice President. Six regional associations were set up (Africa, Asia, South America, North and Central America, Europe and the South West Pacific). The Congress approved, with minor modifications, the text of the draft agreement between the United Nations and WMO, which provided for 1) recognition of WMO as a specialized agency; 2) reciprocal representation of the two organizations; 3) coordination with respect to agenda items, United Nations recommendations, and the exchange of information and documents; 4) advisory aid from the International Court of Justice; 5) cooperation with regard to location of WMO headquarters and regional offices, personnel arrangements, statistical and other services, budgetary and financial relationships, inter-agency agreements and liaison arrangements; and 6) implementation of the agreement and possible revision.