500.A15/1125: Telegram

The Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson) to the Secretary of State

29. Your No. 7, November 18, 6 p.m. Under the circumstances I think it would be better for the time being to withhold any circulation by us of an escape clause. In all probability in view of the several divergent views now existing regarding derogations, there will be a prolonged debate on this subject. At some period in this debate [Page 194] it might be well for us to advance the escape clause as contained in our 23, November 15, noon [8 p.m.], and modified by your paragraph under (1) in No. 6, November 17, noon [5 p.m.], but omitting the sentence contained in your paragraph (2) of that telegram.

Regarding the escape clause without the final sentence, unless you see reasons to the contrary, we think it may be advantageous to sponsor the proposal as we believe it will be of great value in working out a solution.

We are inclined to believe that any discussion on an escape clause will invariably induce some form of suggestion as to consultation on the situation thereby created. In the event that the suggestion is made by another delegation we believe that acquiescence on our part would avoid in a large measure the undue comment which initiative of the American delegation on this subject would incite. Such procedure might cover the thought that is conveyed in the question contained in your last sentence of telegram 7, November 18, 1 [6] p.m.

We fear that the words used in article 21 of the London Treaty “through diplomatic channels” would be impractical in a treaty which may have forty or more signatories, particularly as the time element will probably be a factor in any case of derogation. Probably we could restrict the phraseology to the phrase “thereupon the high contracting parties shall promptly advise with each other in every situation thus presented.” Would much appreciate your comment on these matters.

Gibson