711.5627/69
The Minister in the Netherlands (Swenson) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 28.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 785, of the tenth instant,8 I have the honor to report that Mr. E. Th. de Veer, the Chief of the Air Navigation Service of the Ministry of Public Works, called on the Counselor of the Legation9 today to discuss the Department’s last proposal regarding the air navigation arrangement under negotiation between the United States and Holland.
Mr. de Veer said that he had discussed this matter with officials at the Colonial Ministry and that it was their opinion as well as his own that it would be impossible to amend Clause A of Article 1 of the arrangement in a manner which would make an exception of the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone although Dutch colonial possessions were not to be considered exceptions. He added that the arrangement as it now stands had been passed upon by the Government of the Netherlands Indies and by the Volksraad and that he did not believe that these bodies would sanction an amendment which did not provide for reciprocal treatment as regards the Indies [Page 621] and the Philippines. Moreover, he thought that the Dutch Government was unlikely to ask the administrations of Surinam and Curasao to approve an arrangement by which planes from the Panama Canal Zone could fly over their territories whereas planes from Surinam and Curagao would not have reciprocal rights in the Panama Canal Zone. He continued by pointing out in a friendly but definite manner that the suggested amendment made a one-sided agreement inasmuch as it excepted American overseas possessions from the terms of the arrangement but included Dutch overseas possessions. The only reason given by the United States for the perhaps unusual request was that “aviation arrangements in the course of negotiation with other countries provide for the exclusion of American possessions from their operation”. Thus no adequate reasons could be advanced to the authorities of Dutch overseas possessions for the proposed change. If an exception had been asked, say for Hawaii alone and some definite reason given for the exception of the Canal Zone, and the Philippines had been left in the arrangement, then something possibly might be worked out. He saw no chance for the acceptance of our amendment as it now stands. On the other hand, if we should propose a modification of Article 1 excluding both American and Dutch overseas possessions from the arrangment, Mr. de Veer believed that such a proposal would prove acceptable. Mr. de Veer concluded by stating that he had asked for an informal conference with Mr. Johnson in order that the above point of view could be transmitted to the Department before the Ministry of Public Works made definite recommendations to the Dutch Foreign Office concerning the nature of the reply to be made to the American proposal.
Later the same day Mr. Johnson saw Mr. Snouck Hurgronje, the Secretary General of the Foreign Office, who was aware of Mr. de Veer’s visit. Mr. Snouck Hurgronje merely said that the Foreign Office would probably be guided by the recommendations of the Ministries of Public Works and Colonial Affairs as the proposed arrangement was more a technical than a political matter.
As Mr. Johnson did not consider the remarks of Mr. de Veer or Mr. Snouck Hurgronje to constitute “a definite rejection of the proposed amendment” by the Netherlands Government, he said nothing to either man regarding the confidential portion of the Department’s instruction No. 266, of October third.10 He merely acceded to Mr. de Veer’s suggestion that the Legation should take the matter up further with the State Department.
There would now appear to be two courses to pursue:
- 1.
- To request a reply to the formal Note sent the Foreign Office,10 [Page 622] a copy of which was transmitted to the Department in my abovementioned despatch. This course would probably involve a long delay, as the Dutch Government might feel that it should take the matter up with the Governments of its colonial possessions, and would probably end by the rejection of the amendment proposed by the United States.
- 2.
- At once to suggest a modification of Article 1 along the lines of the confidential portion of the Department’s above-mentioned instruction. This modification would probably be immediately accepted.
The Department’s further instructions in this regard are respectfully requested.
Respectfully yours,