611.5231/747: Telegram
The Ambassador in Spain (Laughlin) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:30 p.m.]
85. Pursuant to your number 96, October 21, 1 p.m., Wiley has had protracted private interview with Doussinague and Calderon in which he went over all the points enumerated therein. The conversation revealed a new departure in the Spanish viewpoint: emphasis on cork tariff instead of on Almeria grapes quarantine.
Doussinague declared that without tariff concessions from the United States the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce would not agree to the extension of any further facilities to American trade as the present volume of Spanish exports to the United States did not justify any step which would increase American exports to Spain. If, however, the Federal Tariff Commission acted favorably to have “convincing” case formulated by Spain for reducing the duty on cork it would be possible to meet American “pretensions”. He qualified this with the statement that he was speaking only in the name of his own Ministry not in that of the Spanish Government.
Doussinague further explained that the cork interests were more influential than the grape growers, better organized politically and controlled a strong minority in the Cortes.
Wiley gained the impression that the difference of opinion between the two Ministries to which I have repeatedly referred and which both Doussinague and Calderon emphasized in their remarks is largely a tactical maneuver in order to extract every possible advantage from the United States; that having progressed in respect of the grape question they are now bearing down on that of cork, there would therefore, as things now stand, be no assurance in the event of meeting Spanish wishes in respect of cork duties that some other obstacle such for example as the tariff on olive oil would not immediately arise.
[Page 560]As it seems in fact clear that Spanish policy is to drag out the negotiations interminably in order to win as much ground as possible before eventually approaching the question of giving us de facto most-favored-nation treatment, do you still wish me to press Zulueta for the unequivocal statement called for in your paragraph 5?