611.5131/1019a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Straus)
482. There follows the text of an Aide-Mémoire the Department proposed to hand to the French Ambassador at the earliest possible time:
“This Government is highly desirous of developing the commercial relations between the United States and France and believes that a [Page 185] substantial field for development exists. Hence it entertains a definite wish to respond to the suggestion made by the French Government that a commercial agreement between the two countries be promptly arranged.
“However, the preliminary outline of a basis of possible agreement which the Embassy has put forward does not seem to us a sufficiently satisfactory basis of adjustment of the interest of the two countries to warrant immediate entry into negotiations. If our appraisal of these informal proposals is correct, the agreement suggested would merely perpetuate the position of American commerce under the present undertakings between the two Governments dealing with quotas and tariff rates, correct a few of the many disadvantages which American exports to France now suffer as compared with the exports of many other countries while leaving all other disadvantages uncorrected and grant improved conditions of entry to very few American products—in return for selected concessions on the part of the United States to French goods and a continued benefit of complete most-favored-nation treatment and the enjoyment of all future concessions which the United States may make to any country in the execution of the program of commercial negotiations in which it is now engaged.
“In appraising these proposals or any other proposals which might be placed before us, we would naturally be influenced by the following criteria: (1) whether they would give American trade assurances as to its future treatment, as it might be affected by new tariff or quota changes; (2) whether the general pledge of tariff treatment as well as the degree of protection against future changes in tariffs and in quotas’ would be as favorable as the terms granted by France to other countries, particularly in any recently concluded commercial agreements, and (3) whether the proposals would afford new trade opportunities for American agricultural products.
“This Government wishes in the course of developing the commercial agreement policy which has been inaugurated to assure to all countries like France, in which it carries on a large commerce, an improved place in the American market and a position of protected equality. In return it expects that it may be possible to secure for American trade an equivalent position in the markets of other countries. The outline of possible French action does not appear to make a satisfactory approach to this broad purpose, and we are reluctant to use the opportunity for negotiations between the two countries for any lesser purpose. It is therefore suggested that the French Government consider whether its conditions and policies would not permit it to put forward a less restricted rule and measure of treatment for American trade, such as would justify this Government in proceeding at once with negotiation of a broad agreement on which an extended Franco-American trade might with security rest.”
The Department proposes to add orally to the French Ambassador that if his Government cannot see its way clear to proceed in this fashion, it would be willing to consider a possible modus vivendi until the negotiation of a more comprehensive trade agreement in accord with which France would grant to American commerce substantial most-favored-nation treatment with respect to tariff and quota treatment [Page 186] in return for a promise to France of continued most-favored-nation treatment and a generalization of tariff reductions made by us during the life of the modus vivendi.
The Department proposes further to add orally that it fails to understand why the double taxation treaty has not yet been ratified in accordance with the various promises of the French Government and to observe further that the Department trusts that there is no foundation for the thought that the French Government expects any further concessions in return for the ratification of this treaty and that in order to avoid any such unjustifiable implications it would seem that the French Government should ratify the treaty at once.
Will you kindly let us have at once any observations you may wish to put forward with regard to the above?