G.A.T.T. Authorises Retaliation

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27501, 8 November 1954, Page 11

G.A.T.T. Authorises Retaliation

(Rec. 11.30 p.m.) GENEVA, November 6. The General Agreement on Tariff's and Trade organisation lias authorised members affected by United States’ import restrictions on dairy produce to take any retaliatory action thought necessary to offset the harm done to their economy, it was learned today.

G.A.T.T.’s ninth session at a secret meeting yesterday adopted a resolution eSling on the United States to lift these restrictions. It said G.A.T.T. members considered that concessions granted by the United States Government had been impaired, and affirmed the right of those affected

to take certain measures under the agreement while the restrictions remained in force. The resolution asked the United States to consider the harmful Effect on international trade relations generally and on the trade of a number of countries individually if the present restrictions were continued. The. United

States Government was also asked to report what action it would have taken before the opening of the 1955 session. Mr Winthrop G. Brown, the United States delegate, presenting his country’s report on dairy import restrictions. contended that it .was necessary to continue with the restrictions because there were still very substantial stocks in His Government had taken a major step early this year in lowering price supports for the most important dairy products from 90 to 75 per cent., he said. The best approach would be by action to increase consumption not only in the United States but in all parts of the world. Other governments had already been consulted and a beginning made in tacklingttie basic supply and consumption problem.

View of N.Z. Delegate New Zealand’s delegate, Mr J. P. D. Johnson, said his country was disappointed that the United States report’ was not more favourable. Tfk matter was of great «“P°rtanee to New Zealand, not only because of the restrictions serious effect, but be cause of the unfavourable impression created in the minds of people who regarded such restrictions as lim.ung G Aitkough a -ihe' general position had

not changed, the New Zealand Government did not consider the adoption of counter-measures a satisfactory procedure.

An Australian spokesman, Mr G. A. Rattigan, said though the level of United States price supports had been' reduced, that country’s output of dairy products continued to exceed demand, and the Government owned enormous stocks. On the whole it did not seem that any substantial easing of the American import restrictions was in sight, he said. z “Steps in. Right Direction” Mr Gunnar Seidenfadenbn, of Denmark, thought the steps taken by the United States were in the right direction and agreed that one solution to the surplus problem lay in increased consumption. He also thought that United States prices for butter were too high and that this commodity was constantly losing ground to margarine. Unless something were done, coming generations would eat only margarine. The outlook for Danish agricultural exports was darkened by these protectionist policies, he said. Baron Bentinck, of the Netherlands, was not very enthusiastic about the results achieved so far by the United States in solving the problem. The restrictions continued to be applied with the same severity as previously, and it would be over-optimistic to expect any improvement in the near future, he said. He was therefore obliged to request again a renewal of authority for the Netherlands to retaliate by limiting imports of wheat flour from the United States, he said. , ~ Dr. A. E. Richards, of Canada, said his country also viewed with concern the continuation of the United States import restrictions. The rigid price supports, whatever their domestic implications. had produced only international {difficulties.