Conflict

At Havana, the 63-nation conference on freer world trade dug deeper into one of its major dilemmas: every economically backward nation in the world has hopes of industrializing itself; none wants to be merely a source of cheap bananas, coffee or jute. Last week some of them were clinging to the right to use every trick in the book of economic nationalism, if necessary, to make their dreams come true.

Indian Delegate C. H. Bhabha wanted a further amendment in the draft charter of the I.T.O.--International Trade Organization--which the Havana conference hopes to complete. That charter already permits (while deploring in principle) the use of preferential tariffs. It even allows a nation to lay down flat quotas on the amount of goods that may enter that country, provided I.T.O. approves. India's Bhabha said that this was not good enough. India wanted the power to set its own quotas, with or without I.T.O. permission.

Mexico's Ramon Beteta said that the effort to lower tariffs for highly developed and undeveloped countries "is treating unequals with equality." He explained that great industrialized creditor nations should cut their tariffs and yet allow developing nations to impose protective restrictions.

But the U.S. delegation felt that rather too many escape clauses and loopholes had been written into the I.T.O. charter already. U.S. Chief Delegate Will Clayton said: ". . . The charter permits a greater measure of restrictionism than we believe wise, but we are willing to accept it if general agreement may thereby be attained."

Clayton and others at Havana were fighting the good fight for a freer trade world to which virtually all delegates subscribed--in principle. In practice, this fight was a lot easier for the U.S. delegation than for those countries whose industries, state and private, saw no security or progress unless they could somehow be protected from competition.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.