711.58/11
The Minister in Norway ( Philip ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to a joint report submitted to the Department by its chief diplomatic representatives at Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsingfors and Oslo, dated March 21, 1934,3a and which embodied certain joint recommendations for the improvement of trade and other relations between the United States and Scandinavia.
[Page 643]I regret to have been unable to confer personally with my colleagues at the time of their meeting in Stockholm but I have been very glad of the opportunity to associate myself with them in the general recommendations which were the outcome of their discussions, a draft of which was kindly forwarded to me in advance by our Minister to Sweden.
In returning the signed report to Mr. Steinhardt I signified my desire to submit a few comments regarding certain features of it which I thought might be of possible interest as reflecting an impression derived from a purely Norwegian experience of some three and a half years.
The informal comments which have presented themselves to me as relevant to certain of the paragraphs of the joint report are as follows:
Paragraph (1).
I have not found the press reports in Norway as studiedly anti-American as seems to have been the case in the other countries of Scandinavia.
I quite agree with my colleagues in attributing the frequently unfavorable tone of such news to the fact that the press here draws the bulk of its American news from the European capitals. In the case of Norway the chief source is London.
At the same time, it is to be supposed that the chief disadvantage of this lies in the fact that these foreign press releases are not made at random but that they are very cleverly and systematically controlled with a view to their propagandist values. If this supposition be granted an arrangement by which an indiscriminate flow of direct press news from the United States could be made available to the press of Scandinavia would not in all probability alter the existing situation to any great extent. It would seem to me, therefore, that a careful supervision of press releases in the United States, with special attention to their usefulness abroad, as well as their interest, would be a necessary adjunct to any arrangement such as is recommended in the joint report.
Paragraph (3).
With regard to the subject of general American trade opportunities in Scandinavia, I am inclined to believe that the failure of American exporters to show greater advances is due more to the exigencies of European governments in the matter of trade balances than to the shortcomings of American sales methods.
A Scandinavian nation (I am speaking especially of Norway) must sell its products or starve. Other and nearer markets than that of the United States afford regular and more or less secure outlets for these products. The governments of the foreign consumers make it [Page 644] a point, by treaty or otherwise, to insist upon a reciprocal exchange of commodities. Great pressure is at times brought to bear in this connection, under threat of tariff retaliations, etc.
This, in my opinion, constitutes the chief obstacle at present to increased sales in Scandinavia of American products, many of which are well and very favorably known here. I think these conditions are likely to remain unchanged until the completion of new commercial agreements.
At the same time, I realize that there is much room for improvement in the sales methods of our exporters—to include special knowledge of the regulations governing the activities of American salesmen, import restrictions, quotas, etc., in Scandinavia, which is necessary to enable them to best supply the requirements of the consumers here. But, generally speaking, the problem of increased sales is as closely linked to that of increased purchases in Scandinavia as in any region in the world today.
Paragraph (6).
The history of Northern Europe is that of Scandinavia. Viewed in this light, it is not strange that the prestige of certain nations which have for centuries dominated historical events there is more objective and constant than is that of the United States. Moreover, the trend of European opinion regarding our country has been more critical than tolerant of recent years. This has had its effect here.
In Scandinavia there has, I think, taken place quite a revulsion of sentiment toward the United States, both subsequent to the enactment of our stringent immigration laws and, particularly since the era of economic depression through which we have been passing. Accustomed to regard the United States as the land of plenty which offered unparalleled opportunities to their surplus population, the Scandinavian states were first shocked by the closing of the door which led to the promised land. Ultimately, in a manner, they have been incensed by the astonishing inability on the part of the United States to afford conditions for uninterrupted prosperity to their nationals already established there!
Strange as this may seem, it is my belief that this superficial lack of understanding of and sympathy with our processes of readjustment, our enormous problems and our immediate aims, enhanced, of course, by the above-mentioned propagandist activities of other nations, has contributed most largely to a temporarily diminished American prestige in Scandinavia. I qualify the latter statement by the use of the word “temporarily,” for I am under the impression that throughout Scandinavia there exists a very real and deep undercurrent of admiration, respect and friendliness for our country and the fundamental ideals which inspire our people.
[Page 645]The situation which must now be coped with has arisen as an aftermath of the World War. It is the result of the “sauve qui pent” spirit among the nations—a period of warped judgments, of impending economic chaos, of trade bartering under menace of tariff barriers.
These conditions have transcended the sphere of the mere propagandist. National prestige, in the generally accepted sense, seems to me to have become divested of its finest attributes for the time being. It has been lost sight of in a wave of nationalism and in the momentary struggle for existence. That this will change I have no doubt, nor that a return to normalcy will bring to the surface again the valuable sentiment of confidence in and admiration for the United States which exists in Scandinavia.
As far as Norway is concerned, the conservative business elements look to England as the arbiter of their economic welfare. They maintain a loyalty for the pound sterling which they are unlikely to abandon. But the importance of the United States is well comprehended here and the enormous efforts which are now being made in our country, although imperfectly understood, are followed with a very keen interest.
I emphatically agree with my colleagues in recommending measures which will enhance collectively the position of the signatories of the Oslo Convention4 as a field for the development of our export trade policies.
All consideration possible should be accorded to this important bloc of nations with the definite purpose of demonstrating our desire to encourage commercial and cultural relations with them.
The occasional courtesy visit to Scandinavia of one of our most modern naval units would be of valuable assistance in this direction. However, I am of the opinion that such visits need not be of regular occurrence or of the most formal character.
In Norway there exists a very live interest in our modern literature, and any arrangements which might eventually provide for addresses here during the winter and spring months by popular American authors would be highly appreciated and of great benefit in promoting cultural relations between the two countries.
In conclusion, I beg to add, confidentially, a word in regard to our future trade relations with these smaller nations. I feel that, irrespective of future trade agreements to be concluded, it would be of real value if our Government were in a position to accord occasional and special trade advantages. Such gestures would be of use both in [Page 646] the creation, of good will and, if granted subject to withdrawal, as safeguards against possible discriminations affecting our own trade with those countries.
Copies of these remarks have been submitted to my colleagues at Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsingfors.
Respectfully yours,