662.6331/73: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:21 p.m.]
19. Your 13, March 26, 6 p.m. I have found nothing on either point. For pertinent references to the subject you may want to consult League of Nations document C 138–M53–1929 II, June 18, 1929, page 11, especially paragraphs 1, 7–9 (exceptions to the clause). This account asserts that the true customs union, of which the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union of 1921 was one, is not subject to the most-favored-nation procedure. Van Langenhove, Secretary General of the Belgian Foreign Office, furnished me with the aforementioned information. He viewed the position of the Austrian and German Governments as an embarrassing one, to wit:
As a true customs union the proposal might not be open to the most-favored-nation clause yet be in violation of the Geneva Protocol. Contrarywise, should the customs union not be regarded as a true one and valid by the terms of the Protocol, the most-favored-nation clause might be applied to it.
[Page 576]If I interpret the Secretary General’s observation correctly, his Government had no objections to an Austro-German customs union but found fault with the timing of the announcement. Consequently, there was unwholesome speculation as to the true purport of the proposed treaty. This kind of situation would deter Governments such as the Belgian from expressing themselves in favor of the project.