of equality rises above considerations of size of population, of extent of territory, of degrees of material resources. It is concerned with respect for the state as a member of the international community; it implies recognition of certain fundamental rights associated with the very personality of the state; it asserts that the same rules of law apply to one state as to another, the same rights and the same duties. That granted, the American States have had no difficulty in recognizing different degrees of interest within their group in the solution of political, economic, and social problems, where states with larger resources may be expected to assume a responsibility commensurate with their ability to contribute to the desired objective.

No principle has been more insistently proclaimed by the American States of recent years than the good faith of treaties. Mutual trust in the pledged word is an essential condition of the peaceful cooperation of states, as it is an essential condition of peaceful cooperation between individuals. To break faith between nations, as to break faith between individuals, is to destroy confidence and to invite open anarchy in international relations. But the maintenance of this principle is possible only if account is taken of the fact that many treaties have been entered into in the past under circumstances of direct or indirect compulsion; and it is natural that a state, acting under compulsion, should be reluctant to regard its good faith as pledged to the observance of the treaty. In other cases a fundamental change of circumstances may have taken place since the treaty was first entered into. How are these situations to be met? Obviously not by permitting the unilateral repudiation. of treaties. But the alternative can only be the recognition on the part of the international community as a body of its responsibility for the removal of the condi

tions that make the continuance of the treaty unduly burdensome. Here again the principle of cooperation can be brought into play as the alternative to a narrowly nationalistic attitude. A constructive rule applicable to all similar situations within the international community may take the edge from the controversy between two states each seeking its own particular advantage in the matter under dispute.

In making provision for the formulation. of a Declaration of the International Rights and Duties of Man, the Conference on Problems of War and Peace anticipated the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations looking to the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. A generation ago this matter was left to the separate control of the individual states. It was a domestic problem with which other states were not concerned. But it has now come to be seen that there is a very close connection between respect for human rights and the maintenance of peace between the nations. Unless there can be mutual understanding between states there can be no confidence between them, no real trust, no reliance upon the faith of treaties. The channels of communication must be kept open at all times. The sources of information must be accessible to all. The people must at all times be able to form just judgments of the foreign policy of other nations, as well as of their own. Any attempt of a government to stifle the expression of public opinion or to guide it into false channels must inevitably have the effect of destroying the confidence of other countries and of creating an attitude of suspicion hostile to international peace.

The problems before us are numerous and in some cases intricate; but the solution of them is not beyond our grasp. Our more immediate task is to endeavor to

create so large a body of common interests between the nations as to make the conflicts of interest between individual states seem relatively unimportant. This task has already been begun, and there is evidence of progress year by year. In due time nations will come to realize that their stake in the maintenance of law and order in the whole international community is so great that no immediate interest of their own could warrant them in thwarting the general welfare. On the other hand, while these measures of cooperation are going forward, nations must reaffirm their determination to respect

the personality of other states and to refrain from the use of force in their relations with one another. Upon the good faith of these reciprocal pledges rests the possibility of that mutual confidence without which no progress can be made in the critical task of disarmament; and it would appear that no better assurance could be given by a state of the sincerity of its individual pledge not to encroach upon the liberties of other states than the fact that within its own borders it observes scrupulously the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its own people.

THE war has profoundly affected the currents of world commerce. Not only were the normal trade routes temporarily disrupted by the necessities of military action, but the pattern of international exchanges has been altered for an indefinite period by the physical destruction and social upheaval in some areas, and the stimulus given to new production facilities in other regions.

Among the more significant changes has been the increase in the productive capacity and the trade potential of the Western Hemisphere.

During the war years the foreign trade of the United States rose to unprecedented levels. Exports in 1944 soared to a total of $14,257 millions (excluding United States shipments to its armed forces overseas), of which all but about $3,000 million represented lend-lease shipments. Imports were also very large, reaching the wartime peak of $4,136 million in 1945. The volume of importations was held down by the physical shortage of goods and ships, and the shutting off of some important customary sources of supply.

Since the end of the war lend-lease deliveries have tapered off rapidly, but "cash" exports have risen. It is expected that the value of United States foreign trade during 1946 will amount to slightly under $10,000 million of exports, and slightly under $5,000 million of imports. If these expectations are realized, this will constitute the largest peacetime foreign trade in the history of the United States. During the decade of the 1920's, the United States annual exports averaged

$4,757 million and imports $3,960 million. During the 3-year period, 1936-38, United States annual exports averaged $2,967 million and imports $2,489 million.

Of course, the large values of recent years are in part accounted for by price increases. The unit value of exports (other than lend-lease) in 1945 showed an advance of 45 percent over the 1936-38 level, and the unit value of imports in 1945 showed an advance of 55 percent over the 1936-38 level.

The wartime trade of the United States with the other American republics showed a relatively greater increase of imports. than of exports. Purchases included not only larger amounts of strategic and critical materials usually procured from Latin America, but also included substantial quantities of essential goods which had previously come largely from the Far East. There were also important purchases of such articles as alcoholic beverages, candy, jewelry, leather goods, and textiles. On the other hand, United States exports were held in check by the Gargantuan appetite of the military services, although the United States allocated to the other American republics supplies of manufactured goods and raw materials on the "share-and-share-alike" principle.

While the exigencies of the war resulted in temporary inconveniences and hardships to all participants, there is reason to believe that the steps taken during the war to promote Latin American exports to the United States may have the effect of opening up permanently larger markets in the United States for the products of the other

American republics, not only in the raw materials field, but also in numerous lines of manufactured and semimanufactured goods.

Since the end of the war, as most types of goods have become more plentiful, United States exports to Latin America have increased steadily. During the first 8 months of 1946 United States exports to Latin America were at the monthly rate of $160 million, four times the monthly rate in 1936-38. During the same period of 1946, United States imports from Latin America (not including gold and silver) were at the monthly rate of $144 million, or slightly more than three times the pre

war rate.

The important position that Latin America has come to occupy as a supplier of the United States is indicated by the fact that whereas in 1936-38 imports from

the Latin American republics represented only 23 percent of total United States imports, in 1945 imports from Latin America were 39 percent of the total. Latin America is also taking a larger proportion of United States total exports. In 1936-38 exports to Latin America were 16 percent of total United States exports; in 1945 Latin America took 29 percent of United States exports.

These trends, revealed by the foregoing analysis of United States trade returns, are also confirmed by the foreign-trade statistics of the other American republics. The aggregate value of the exports of the 20 Latin American republics has increased steadily since 1940, and in 1945 amounted to $3,251 million, the largest total for any year in history except 1920, when the total was slightly larger. (See table I.) Latin American imports were

nearly stationary from 1938 through 1943, but rose substantially in 1944 and still more in 1945. In the last mentioned year, the total value of imports was $2,272 million, a total surpassed only in the year 1920 and the 5 years 1925 through 1929.

The destination of Latin American exports shows some striking shifts. In the late 1930's, around 33 percent of aggregate Latin American exports were going to the United States, 1.5 percent to Canada, 5.5 percent to other American republics, 8 percent to the Netherlands West Indies, 2.3 percent to Asia, Africa and Oceania, 16.7 percent to the United Kingdom, and the balance of 33 percent to continental Europe. In 1945 the distribution was roughly as follows: United States, 49.5 percent; other American republics. 16.7 percent; United Kingdom, 11.9 percent; and all other countries, 21.9 percent.

As regards the source of imports the changes have also been striking. In the late 1930's the source of Latin American imports was roughly as follows: United States, 34 percent; Canada, 1 percent; other American republics, 9 percent; Asia, Africa, Oceania, 6 percent; United Kingdom, 13 percent; and continental Europe, 37 percent. In 1945 the source of imports was approximately as follows: United States, 58.5 percent; other American republics, 25.5 percent; United Kingdom, 3.7 percent; and all other countries 12.3 percent.

During the war years Latin American trade with continental Europe dwindled to a very low point. The revival since the war has been principally in exports of foodstuffs, textile fabrics, and certain raw materials to Europe. Some large shipments were made on behalf of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Several of the Latin American Republics have also extended credits to European countries as the basis for reviv

ing trade with that area. Imports from Europe are also gradually picking up, but at a considerably slower rate. Among the major items involved in this trade have been such things as wood pulp, hardware, and machines from Sweden, and textile machinery and chemicals from Switzerland. A relatively small volume of imports, consisting principally of newsprint, has been received from U. S. S. R.

Before the war Germany occupied a larger position than any other continental European country in the trade with Latin America. In 1938 Germany took 10 per

TABLE I.-Foreign Trade of the Latin
American Republics, 1910-1945 2
[Values in millions of dollars)