Affaires étrangères et Commerce international Canada
international.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Documents relatifs aux relations extérieures du Canada
|
| |||
|
Volume #18 - 339. | |||
|
CHAPITRE III NATIONS UNIES | |||
|
9E PARTIE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE DES PAYS SOUS DÉVELOPPÉS | |||
|
339. |
DEA/11423-40 | ||
|
Extrait du rapport de la Direction des Nations unies de la réunion des directions pour déterminer la politique à suivre | |||
|
CONFIDENTIAL |
[Ottawa],
le 29 mars 1952 | ||
|
MEETING — ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CANADIAN POLICY TOWARDS UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE | |||
|
. . .
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND On January 12, 1952, the General Assembly adopted a resolution jointly sponsored by Chile, Cuba, Burma, Egypt and Yugoslavia which requests the Economic and Social Council to devise and submit to the next session of the General Assembly a plan for establishing, as soon as circumstances permit, a special fund for grants-in-aid and low-interest, long-term loans to underdeveloped countries in order to accelerate their economic development. 2. The resolution was approved by a vote of 30 in favour, 16 against, and 11 abstentions including the Soviet bloc. It received the support of almost all Latin American, Middle Eastern and South and South-east Asian countries. It was opposed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and several other Commonwealth countries, and most of the Western European countries. 3. While expressing full agreement with the ultimate purpose - the economic improvement of under-developed countries - the Canadian delegation opposed the resolution mainly on the stated grounds that the defence obligations assumed by the Government of Canada made it impossible for it to contemplate at present opening up a broad new field of assistance to under-developed countries. Furthermore, Canada had serious doubts as to whether the new proposal would in practice be the best means of promoting economic development in present circumstances. In the absence of any support for the resolution from other prospective contributing countries, we believed that there would be a very serious danger that the adoption of the plan in such unpropitious circumstances would raise false hopes and cause misunderstandings among the peoples of advanced and under-developed countries alike.139
| |||
|
| |||
