711.322/2a
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Brazil (Morgan)
Sir: Reference is made to the Department’s telegram No. 172, December 16, 1922, 6 p.m.,1 and to subsequent correspondence dealing with the policy adopted by the United States pursuant to Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 19222 and involving the decision of the United States no longer to seek from Brazil special tariff preferences but instead to ask for unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in respect of its commerce.
On May 23, 1923, the Brazilian Ambassador handed to Mr. Hughes a memorandum3 in which the following statement was made: “Brazil is ready to accept in its commercial relations with the United States the new policy of reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment proposed by this country.” The Ambassador also referred to the suggestion by the United States that the two countries enter into “a modus vivendi, preparatory to a Treaty on this subject” (See Department’s telegram No. 45, June 8, 1923, 3 p.m.4).
On October 18, 1923, accordingly, an arrangement was entered into through an exchange of notes5 by means of which the United States, promising reciprocally with Brazil to accord unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs and other commercial matters, for the first time put into effect an international instrument based upon its new policy. This Government now desires to conclude with Brazil a treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights such as those which it is entering into with other countries. The central principle in respect of commerce is, of course, an unconditional most-favored-nation clause governing customs and related matters. The object sought is assurance of equality of treatment for the commerce of the United States in all countries. The treaties [Page 570] referred to include also provisions relating to rights of nationals of each party in the other country, to protection of property and to rights and immunities of consuls.
The first treaty to become operative expressing the present policy of this Government was the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Eights with Germany, signed December 8, 1923,6 ratifications of which were exchanged October 14, 1925. Similar treaties have been signed by the United States with Hungary,7 Esthonia8 and Salvador,9 of which the one with Esthonia has been brought into force by exchange of ratifications.
Treaties containing the unconditional most-favored-nation clause were signed with Turkey on August 6, 1923,10 and with Panama on July 28, 1926.11 Several others are in process of negotiation. Modi vivendi, similar to the exchange of notes with Brazil, likewise based upon the principal of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment, are in force with Czechoslovakia,12 Dominican Republic,13 Finland,14 Greece,15 Guatemala,16 Latvia,17 Lithuania,18 Nicaragua,19 Poland (including Danzig),20 Rumania21 and Turkey.22 A similar agreement entered into with Haiti on July 8, 1926,23 becomes by its terms operative October 1, 1926.
Two copies of the treaty of December 8, 1923, with Germany are enclosed. You are requested, unless you perceive objection, to [Page 571] inquire whether it would be agreeable to the Government of Brazil to proceed to the negotiation of a similar treaty with the United States. A special draft will, of course, be prepared for presentation to Brazil if this proposal is acceptable to the Brazilian Government. It is probable that certain departures from the text of the German treaty should be made either in the special text to be submitted to the Government of Brazil or, on behalf of either party, during the course of negotiations.
It may be useful for you to bear in mind that in adopting the unconditional in place of the conditional most-favored-nation clause the United States has brought its commercial policy into accord with that prevailing among commercial countries. It would be gratifying if, among its early treaties as well as modi vivendi embodying this principle, the United States could celebrate a general commercial treaty with Brazil. The lack of a general commercial treaty with Brazil since the articles relating to commerce and navigation of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation concluded December 12, 1828,24 were terminated on December 12, 1841, is a matter of regret to this Government, which hopes that a comprehensive modern agreement may now be entered into.
Though the Department, in proposing a treaty with Brazil, is influenced chiefly by its policy of concluding with other countries generally treaties containing the unconditional most-favored-nation clause, you are nevertheless desired to use especial diligence in seeking a favorable response from the Brazilian Government in order to forestall any efforts that other countries may be planning to make for the purpose of interposing in South America arrangements based upon special privilege—a policy wholly antagonistic to the policy of equality of treatment which the United States is undertaking to promote.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Department either has transmitted or expects at an early date to transmit instructions, similar to the present instruction, to the American missions in the other South American capitals except Panama, with which as stated a treaty has been signed, and Ecuador, the political régime now functioning in which is not recognized by the United States.
I am [etc.]
- Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 453.↩
- 42 Stat. 858, 944.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 456.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 461.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 29.↩
- Signed June 24, 1925, ibid., 1925, vol. ii, p. 341.↩
- Signed Dec. 23, 1925, ibid., p. 70.↩
- Signed Feb. 22, 1926, ibid., 1926, vol. ii, p. 912.↩
- Ibid., 1923, vol. ii, p. 1153.↩
- Marginal notation by the economic adviser: “Error: the treaty signed with Panama is not one to be classified as commercial and does not contain a most-favored-nation clause governing general commercial exchanges. W[allace] M[c]C[lure].” See vol. ii, p. 828.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Oct. 29, 1923, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, pp. 873–874.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Sept. 25, 1924, ibid., 1924, vol. i, pp. 666–670.↩
- By an exchange of notes, May 2, 1925, ibid., 1925, vol. ii, pp. 94–98.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Dec. 9, 1924, ibid., 1924, vol. ii, pp. 273–282.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Aug. 14, 1924, ibid., pp. 290–292.↩
- By a provisional commercial agreement, Feb. 1, 1926, ibid., 1926, vol. ii, p. 488.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Dec. 23, 1925, ibid., 1925, vol. ii, pp. 500–503.↩
- By an exchange of notes, June 11 and July 11, 1924, ibid., 1924, vol. ii, pp. 510–518.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Feb. 10, 1925, ibid., 1925, vol. ii, pp. 692–696.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Feb. 26, 1926, ibid., 1926, vol. ii, pp. 898–901.↩
- By an exchange of notes, Feb. 18 and July 20, 1926, ibid., pp. 992–1000.↩
- By an exchange of notes, July 8, 1926, ibid., pp. 401–406.↩
- Miller, Treaties, vol. 3, p. 451.↩