462.00 R 296/669: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in France (Whitehouse)
[Paraphrase]
Washington, November 7,
1924—6 p.m.
376. L–142, for Logan. Your L–240, October 21, 6 p.m.
- (1)
- Position of this Government on Belgian debt referred to in article 232, Treaty of Versailles, remains unchanged. As this question is a matter of debts and is, therefore, within competency of Debt Commission under existing law, it is quite distinct from the Dawes Plan annuities, and Department does not feel that this question should be brought into the forthcoming conference. As this Government is not a party to the Finance Ministers’ Agreement of March 11, 1922, the question remains one between United States and Belgium. Even statement referring to “equities of Belgium’s position” might be construed by Belgian Government as indicating that Government of the United States is preparing to change its position in matter. A further reason, moreover, for not permitting question to be introduced in discussions is that precedent for linking debt question with our claims for just and moderate participation under Dawes Plan might be thought to be established.
- (2)
- The Department possesses information which indicates that Belgium, besides neglecting its obligation to reimburse this Government from reparation receipts, has discriminated against the United States by making large payments to Great Britain on relief indebtedness without making corresponding payments to this Government as is required by existing agreements. You will be given details later. Of course you will not discuss this matter with the Belgians until you are instructed.
- (3)
- As the Government of the United States at the forthcoming finance conference is merely seeking suitable payment of its own just claims, the possible Belgian suggestion you outline in latter part your paragraph 4 does not appear directly to concern this Government. If American claims are suitably met, the Government of the United States will not be disposed to question arrangements made by Allies for apportionment of Dawes Plan annuities to cover appropriately their own claims against Germany and against one another.
- (4)
- Department appreciates, of course, that essential suggestion in your message is importance of seeking Belgium’s support at forthcoming financial conference in every possible way. Department has no reason to feel, however, that Belgium would not be prepared to take position similar to position French Government is prepared to take (refer your L–243, October 30, 6 p.m.), which is most gratifying to Department. We presume that if you deem it advisable and [Page 72] have a suitable opportunity you will discuss in like manner the general position with the Belgian representatives. They may well follow French in the matter.
- (5)
- Your paragraph 6. I see no need to state position this Government on article 232 at the conference unless our views are asked. If anything is to be said besides outlining this Government’s position as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Department will instruct you later in light of Treasury’s views on matter referred to paragraph 2 above. On this latter point, Department will advise you further as soon as possible.
- (6)
- Referring to suggestion at end paragraph 2 your L–243, regarding Italian position, it might be better not to take any action looking toward raising any question with Italians at this time, as it appears possible that they might in some manner seek to associate question of their support with question of intergovernmental debts. The Department is, however, instructing our Ambassador to report promptly to Department and also to you and Ambassador Kellogg any information which reaches him on Italy’s attitude, but not to make any inquiries or to discuss question without specific instructions.66
Cable any comments you may have to make on foregoing.
Hughes
- Telegram no. 130, Nov. 6, to the Embassy in Italy; not printed (file no. 462.00 R 296/686b).↩