South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Brookings, S. D .

Stanford University, Stanford University, Calif. State College of Washington, Pullman. Wash. State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. Syracuse University, Syracuse, Ν. Υ. Temple University* Philadelphia, Pa. Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. Tuf te College, Med ford. Mass. Tulane University, New Orleans, I-a. Union Colh-ce. Schenectady, Ν. Υ. University of Akron, Akron, Ohio University of Alabama. University, Ala. University of Arizona, Tucson. Ariz. University of Arkansas, Favetteville, Ark. University of Buffalo, Buffalo. Ν. Υ. University of California. Brrkeley, Calif. University of California. Los Aneoles, Calif. University of Chicago. Chicago, 111. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati. Ohio University of Colorado, Boulder. Colo. University of Connecticut. Storrs, Conn. University of Delaware. Newark. D«»l. University of Denver, Denver, Colo. University of Detroit, Detroit. Mich. University of Florida, Gainesville. Fla. University of Georgia. Athens. Ga. University of Hawaii. Honolulu. Hawaii University of Idaho. Moscow. Idaho University of Illinois. Urbana, 111. University of Kansas. Lawrence. Kan. University of Kentucky. Lexington. Kv. University of Maine. Orono. Me. University of Maryland. College Park. Md. University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Mass. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Mich. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. Minn. University of Missouri. Columbia. Mo. University of Nebraska. Lincoln, Neb. University of Nevada. Reno, Nev. University of New Hampshire, Durham, Ν. Η. University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. Ν. Μ. University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. N. C. University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame. Ind. University of Oklahoma. Norman. Okla. University of Oregon. Eugene. Ore. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Pa. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Pa. University of Portland, Portland, Ore. University of Rochester, Rochester. Ν. Υ. University of South Dakota. Vermillion, S. D. University of Southern California, Los Angel·-»

Calif. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Tenn. University of Texas, Austin. Tex. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah University of Vermont, Burlington. Vt.

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. University of Wichita, Wichita, Kan. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, Ν . Υ. Villanova College, Villanova, Pa. Virginia Military Institute. Lexington, Va. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. Washington & Lee University. Lexington, Va. Wayne University, Detroit, Mich. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. West "Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. Western Kentucky State College, Bowling Green,

Ky. Western Reserve University. Cleveland, Ohio Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester. Mass. Yale University. New Haven, Conn.

In accord with a vote of the Council at its meeting in Chicago in September 1946, graduates in chemical engineering certified to the Committee on Profes­sional Training by the department chair­man of the following institutions are eligible for membership, senior grade, in the Society following two years of ex­perience in the field of chemistry or chemical engineering or two years of postgraduate study after graduation.

Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, College Station. Tex.

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa. California Institute of Technology. Pasadena,

Calif. (5-year course) Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburch. Pa. Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland. Ohio Clarkson College of Technology. Potsdam, Χ. Υ Columbia University, New York. Ν. Υ. Cooper Union, New York, Ν. Υ. Cornell University, Ithaca, Ν . Υ. (5-year course) Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, Ga. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.

(cooperative course") Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 111. Iowa State Colleges. Ames. Iowa T.ehieh University. Bethlehem. Pa.

Louisiana State University, University, La. Massachusetts Institute 'of Technology, Cam­

bridge, Mass. Michigan College of Mining & Technology,

Houghton. Mich. Montana State College, Bozeman, Mont. New York University, New York, Ν. Υ. Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. Northwestern Technological Institute, Evanston,

™· Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Oregon State College. Corvallis, Ore. Pennsylvania State College, State College. Pa. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn,

Ν. Υ. Princeton University; Princeton, N. J. Purdue University. Lafayette. Ind. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, Ν. Υ. Rice Institute. Houston, Tex. State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Syracuse University, Syracuse, Ν. Υ. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati. Ohio University of Delaware. Newark, Del. University of Detroit, Detroit, Mich. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. University of Illinois. Urbana, 111. University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky. University of Maryland, College Park, Md. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Minnsota, Minneapolis, Minn. University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. University of Oklahoma, Norman. Okla. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. University of Rochester, Rochester, Ν. Υ. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. LTniversity of Texas, Austin, Tex. University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Ya. University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. University of Wisconsin. Madison. Wis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. Washington University. St. Louis, Mo. West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. Yale University, New Haven. Conn. * At a meeting in Rochester, June 17 and 18, 1949, one school was approved and its name is included in the list of chemistry departments.

R. A. BEEBE A. C. COPE W. C. JOHNSON B. RIEGEL E. O. WTIG W. G. YOUNG, Chairman E. M. BILLINGS, Secretary

June i, 1949

An Industry View of the International Trade Organization

HOWARD HUSTON, American Cyanainid Co., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20» Ν. Υ.

Many industr ia l i s t s fee l t h e n e e d f o r def in i te s tandards o f f o r e i g n trade , b u t o p p o s e t h e p r e s e n t a m b i g u o u s d o c u m e n t o f c o m p r o m i s e * Indus tr ia l c h e m i s t s m u s t b e c o m e f a m i l i a r w i t h the ITO's p r o v i s i o n s a n d the ir i n f l u e n c e o n f o r e i g n t rade

τ ERY few people in the chemical in­dustry have read the Charter of the International Trade Organization. I t is a long, complex, detailed, and technical document, difficult to understand and interpret. Most of us have had to rely for information on the statements issued by the State Department and other departments of the Government. We have been told that if we do not ratify the Havana Charter, any imme­diate hopes for an International Trade Organization are blasted. We are being told that this is the brain child of the United States and that failure to ratify

it would show our unwillingness to as­sume the responsibilities of world leader­ship. These and many other reasons are being advanced as to why the charter should have our support.

On the other hand, many business or­ganizations do not believe in the ITO in its present form, and are opposed to its ratification by Congress. Among these are the National Association of Manufacturers, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Foreign Trade Council, the Synthetic Organic Manu­facturing Chemists' Association and the Manufacturing Chemists' Association.

On two basic points," there is general agreement. There is a definite need for an ITO, where the trading nations of the world could meet together, where there could be drawn up appropriate stand­ards for the conduct of international trade. Also, we all recognize that such an agreement is going to affect the whole of American business. Because of the considerable amount of foreign trade conducted in chemicals, it is of par­ticular importance to the chemical in­dustry.

The ITO Charter was negotiated among 57 nations. The representatives of these 57 nations had many differing points of view. Because of this, the language is often ambiguous and the provisions of the document are fre­quently susceptible to several transla-

V O L U M E 2 7, N O . 3 1 » » » A U G U S T 1, 1 9 4 9 2207

lions. One reason for opposition to this» document is that it is perfectly clear in reading it that it has been impossible to secure real agreement among the principal countries of the world for the solution of the complex problems of world commerce. This is understand­able, because in doing this our repre­sentatives have faced an impossible task That this is true is well illustrated by the history and growth of the charter. The original proposals of the State De­partment were, on the whole, not bad. The document that came out of the London Conference was worse. The document that came out of the Geneva Conference was bad. The document that emerged from the Havana Con­ference was impossible. A reading of only a few articles shows that the in­terest?» of the participating nations are so divergent that we have here only a document of compromise.

Praductittn and Distribution

This document places an undue im­portance on the place of foreign trade in our economy. It ignores any of those standards which make for the thing of real importance to the United States and that is the matter of production. We can not distribute what we do not produce; but we can kill production by setting up wrong methods of distribu­tion. This undue importance on the matter of foreign trade means that inevitably "the tail will wag the dog." This document calls for a planned in­ternational economy in which the rules and regulations for the international dis­tribution of products will be set by an administrative board of the ITO. Under the charter and the regulations, nearly everyone will gain except the United States. And unfortunately all the bene­fit which they receive will be at the ex­pense of the United States.

Let us take one instance alone. Then-is in this document an agreement to promote economic development and re­construction in other countries "within the limits of their power" by providing adequate capital, adequate materials." and equipment. I t is easy to understand how a bilateral agreement could be worked out with some other country where the investments that were to be made would he protected, whereby joint capital of the United States and the country to which this capital is going could cooper­ate and where we could lend a great deal in the way of capital, material, equipment and know-how to help push forward "the bold new plan." But this does not appear to be such a system. Instead, it appears that the United States will be called on to finance projects everywhere in the world and that little return can be expected. As planned, the ITO could easily become a world plan­ning body which seeks to direct the

markets of the world under a socialistic plan and not under a plan of free private enterprise.

There is a philosophy in this charter that any tariff, whatever its objective, for whatever it is used, is a mistake—a philosophy that all tariffs must be sub­stantially reduced—that there is in fact no proper level for any tariff or for the encouragement of domestic production.

What does that mean? Here in the LTnited States we have the greatest markets of the world. These markets require international trade. But are we going to tie our hands with international commitments in such a way as to even­tually throw them completely open to any country in the world, no matter what their labor wages, their costs of raw materials or, in many cases, the help which their government may give them in exporting their products? The pro­ponents of this document say that the charter will be amended once it is set up. But with only one vote, how can we hope to make such changes? We have only one vote in the United Nations; but that carries with it the power of a veto. In the International Monetary Fund and in the World Bank the votes given us are proportionate to our contributions. In an economic or­ganization this is a particularly impor­tant matter. If, in the ITO, we can not secure a good contract now, what is there to lead us to believe that we can do so after such a contract is signed?

Cartels Not Eliminated

The ITO Charter as drawn does not eliminate dumping, does not eliminate cartels, and does not eliminate empire preferences. There is in this charter an assumption that somehow or other government cartels are less prejudicial to world prosperity than private cartels. This is in keeping with the whole gen­eral bias of this document and is en­tirely unacceptable.

There is no great urgency for the acceptance of this charter. True, we have some chaos in international trade. Rut we have no guarantee that there will be any less chaos should the present charter be approved. In addition, we have in operation the reciprocal trade treaties and we have in operation the Marshall Plan. These two movements of themselves eliminate any need for the immediate adoption of this charter. Incidentally, under the trade agreement programs, the United States Chamber of Commerce has stated that tariffs were reduced from 46.7% ad valorem on dutiable products to 19.5% by the middle of 1947 and that since that t ime there has been a further reduction of 153%.

Some of the escape clauses are of such a nature that they will apply to almost everyone else except the United

States. Particularly unsatisfactory are those relating to countries in balance of payment difficulties and those relating to under-developed countries. These escape clauses are of such a nature that neither import quotas nor exchange con­trol can be applied in a nondiscrimina­tory manner. They may easily lead to bilateral deals between governments. They will allow certain countries to use controls which American free enterprise would like to see eliminated. Many of these controls can be used as economic and political weapons. They would have behind them a certain legal sanction in the ITO Charter and would be in direct conflict with the principles of free multilateral trade.

Article III of the charter is particularly objectionable. This article covers the obligation of the members to maintain full employment within their national boundaries. Under this provision many socialistic controls and planned economic measures are sanctioned by the chartei, —and could be used to defeat the in­terests of the United States in extending the free enterprise system throughout the world. It is also dangerous because it means that America is encouraging and endorsing national planning—eco­nomic nationalism to the detriment of free international trade and peace.

Discrimination Against If, 5 .

The United States and Switzerland are probably the only countries in the world that can not claim balance of payment difficulty—of being an under-developed country or of having suffered war dam­age. Thus all the principles of the charter apply definitely only to these two countries. And all the rest have the right to more or less complete free­dom of action by virtue of one or another of the exceptions under the charter.

This article barely touches on the details of the ITO Charter. However, it would seem that if we accept this document, we are going into the arena of world trade somewhat as a prize fighter would go into an arena with one arm tied behind him. In other words, as has been said before, we do the following:

Allow discrimination against the United States.

Promote socialism. Increase difficulties for balance of pay­

ments. Risk national security. Surrender to others a part of control

of our tariff policies. Create world bureaucracy and abandon

some of our federal laws to do this. Offer our exhaustible natural resources

to others under terms which may be very unattractive to us.

Provide no definite protection of American foreign investments except in the pathetically few countries with which the United States has treaties of com­merce dealing explicity with such mat­ters.

2208 C H E M I C A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G N E W S