550.S1/812: Telegram
The Chairman, of the American Delegation to the Disarmament Conference (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 24—3:45 p.m.]
186. Your 106, May 22, 7 p.m. At the meeting of the Organizing Committee on April 29th in carrying out instructions in your 83, April 28, 6 p.m., I announced the intention of the American delegation to propose a tariff truce at the opening of the Conference which would provide “that all governments should refrain during the period of this truce from creating or making any material upward modification in tariff rates, imposing any new restrictions or enhancing any existing restrictions against the importation of goods which would give domestic producers an additional advantage as compared with foreign producers”. The foregoing appears in the procès-verbal of April 29th.
The instructions on which the above was based related to the tariff truce which we proposed to introduce at the opening of the Conference. The resolution covering the interim period which I was instructed to introduce for immediate adoption did not contain any such reservation. When this interim resolution was changed in form and as to the period covered I specifically inquired in submitting the revised draft to Washington whether any changes were required under the pending farm legislation. In Department’s 101, May 9, 7 p.m., the Department accepted the revised draft and made no reference to any reservation or alteration which should be made in view of pending legislation. I therefore naturally assumed that you were satisfied that the form of the resolution particularly as amended by the British reference to the experts’ report did not conflict with projects which you proposed to put into effect during the period of the truce.
[Page 615]In my London conversations I of course stressed the fact that the truce related to “new initiatives” and did not prevent carrying out existing arrangements and that in particular the agricultural problems might require special treatment. Further, Simon in explaining the British reference to the experts’ report at the May 12th meeting of the Organizing Committee remarked in substance that this reference related chiefly to the help which might be extended to agriculture and that he understood that the amendment was agreeable to the United States in view of our plans with respect to agricultural aid. I concurred in this statement. This statement and my reply do not however appear in the procès-verbal as they were made in the course of the private meeting which preceded the formal meeting of the Committee.
We might defend the action indicated in your cable either under the reference to the experts’ report or on the basis that it did not constitute a new initiative. At the same time since we are the sponsors of the resolution and were instrumental in bringing about its adoption we should be particularly scrupulous in its interpretation if we are not to furnish others an excuse for disregarding it.
In my opinion it would not help to make a statement of our position to Simon or Runciman at this time. Simon as President of the Organizing Committee might feel embarrassed to receive such information unless he could communicate it not only to all the members of the Organizing Committee but to those invited to adhere to the tariff truce. This would obviously be undesirable on the eve of the Economic Conference.
In view of all my conversations with the British and their understanding of what we were proposing to do under the pending farm legislation I do not feel that they would have any moral right or justification for complaining of our action. Of course it is difficult to predict how their attitude might be changed in this regard if their exporters began to bring serious pressure on them to invoke the tariff truce.
I cannot judge from here whether it is imperative that the compensating duties be imposed before you could deal with the tariff truce at London. If so I feel that without any communication or explanations which would only put us on the defensive we should take the position that the action is not a new initiative under the tariff truce interpreted in the light of the reference to the experts’ report. If on the other hand the tariff increases could be held up a few days I believe that you would find it possible to work out the situation in London. In any event I repeat that in my opinion explanation could not be made without giving the impression that we were doubtful as to our right to take the action contemplated.