560.M2/145
The Minister in Switzerland ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 7.]
Sir: With reference to the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions and particularly to the Department’s telegram No. 13 of January 31, 6 p.m.,8 in which I was instructed to submit detailed criticism of action taken by the signatory states since November 8th, I have the honor to transmit herewith one copy of League of Nations document C. I. A. P. 23, issued February 10, 1928, entitled “Exceptions Claimed by Various Governments in Virtue of Article 6”.9 …
… In general terms, the Convention will only accomplish its purpose if it is clear and definite and cannot do so if the nations do not know what to expect from their neighbors during the life of the Convention.
- (10)
- In relation to the letter from France on page 10, we come here to the question which may be of more importance to us than any other raised under the Convention. The Department will recollect that no state requested reservations either under article 6 or elsewhere relative to restrictions and prohibitions concerning the import of films and that this letter, dated January 27th, raises for the first time the film question. I am informed in the Secretariat that neither under this Convention nor in any other has the Economic Committee the power to pass on the meaning of a treaty and that the French letter, if they desire to maintain it, must be debated in the July conference.
- I have not in my possession full data concerning the restrictive measures which the French Government either has made effective or contemplates and I cannot therefore hold views of value concerning the importance of this letter to our trade. I have requested Dr. Lyon, Commercial Attaché, to communicate with the Commercial Attaché attached to the Embassy at Paris and to request him to furnish us with material both as to the restrictive measures now in force and as to those contemplated by the French Government. On receipt of such material I will supplement this despatch.10
- (11)
- In the course of the debates in the sessions of the Diplomatic Conference, the question was raised as to what procedure should be followed in the July conference relative to voting on reservations submitted by states between November 8th and February 1st. No clear cut decision was reached and I have subsequently talked over the matter with interested members of the Secretariat. They themselves are much troubled by the situation, pointing out that as matters now stand, any state which votes against a reservation introduced by another state, if that reservation is accepted, will be free to withdraw from the Convention. This would naturally create great uncertainty and cause many states to delay ratification awaiting action by their neighbors. Since I have discussed this matter with the Secretariat, the Legal Section has been instructed to consider the situation thoroughly and to give advice as to what should be proposed. I shall not fail to communicate further on this point as soon as I hear the result of the deliberations of the Section.
- (12)
- Finally, I venture to call the Department’s attention to the fact that both Austria and Germany in formal communications, and other states in the course of the plenary sessions, declared that they must hold themselves free to request certain exceptions provided such exceptions were requested and obtained by other states. It will be, I believe, essential for our representation to bear’ in mind this very important point, namely, that by granting an exception to one state, even though it looks of very little importance, the door is opened to a demand by other states for the granting of the same exception which might have great economic importance. It would seem advisable, therefore, to fight the number of exceptions as far as possible and to limit them to those clearly of the same nature as those already granted under the Convention previous to the signature of November 8th.
I have [etc.]