560.M3/49: Telegram
The Chief of the American Delegation ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 7—2:30 p.m.]
14. Made film speech this morning and general reservations of our rights37 (see my 57, July [June] 5, 3 p.m., from Berne). Serruys in [Page 397] a reply that was characterized by considerable bitterness in manner maintained that national culture was at stake. He claimed that his restrictions were manifestation of a spiritual defensive to protect manners, morals and traditions of his people. To accomplish this object, censorship alone was insufficient and a certain national industry was essential. He agreed that there should be no administrative measures for economic purposes and insisted that his regulations had only cultural ends in view. He accused the United States of using sanitary and pure food regulations to disguise economic purposes. He denied analogy between films which had culture essence and other commodities. He closed by stating that the regulations I referred to do not now exist; that amended regulations are being prepared but repeated some very similar regulations must continue to exist.
German delegate then made a speech pointing out that under decision of Conference our terms of reference were interpreted in such a manner that Conference could not make a decision in this matter. He agreed, however, with many points of Serruys’ culture arguments and reserved Germany’s right to impose measures in the future to protect Germany’s traditions. Austria, Italy and India made similar declarations.
I have the conviction that the sense of the Conference, if a decision had been possible, would have been that nations have a right to maintain some form of protection for their culture and traditions.