681.003/90
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Straus)
Sir: You are requested to confer with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and state that this Government views with serious concern the threat to economic equality in Morocco as a result of certain administrative measures relating to customs already made effective by the Protectorate authorities and through the proposed establishment of a new customs regime which, as reported by the American Diplomatic Agent at Tangier, following a conference at Rabat with M. Ponsot, would involve a system of quotas as well as complete modification of clauses of the Act of Algeciras regarding assessment of dutiable values.
In regard to the administrative measures already in effect you may state that this Government has been apprised by its representatives in Morocco of an apparent persistent policy of the Protectorate Government, pursued during a considerable period, to break down through discriminatory dahirs and other measures international economic and commercial liberty in Morocco in favor of French trade, in violation of the Act of Algeciras and of the treaties. A long list of complaints based on treatment derogatory to American interests, many of which have been filed with the Protectorate authorities, could be cited. At the important port of Casablanca, for instance, it may be pointed out, a customs régime has been in force for some time under which arbitrary assessments of the duties on imports have been placed on value far in excess of the real value of the merchandise, increases running as high as 200 to 300 per cent.
With respect to the new proposals as enunciated by M. Ponsot, you may say to the French that this Government believes that quota systems are inherently discriminatory and that the establishment of such a system in Morocco would not only strike at the heart of the principle of commercial equality as guaranteed in the treaties and conventions regarding Morocco, but it would constitute the establishment of new trade barriers against nations at the very moment when the nations are seeking to formulate policies which are calculated to remove excessive [Page 877] restrictions with the view of encouraging the fullest volume of mutually profitable trade.
You may in your discretion state further that, as we interpret the situation, if a modification of the customs régime should become necessary in the interest of Morocco, a possible solution would be a reasonable increase in customs duties, uniform, void of discrimination in their application and agreed to by all the powers signatory to the Act of Algeciras, which for twenty-eight years has been generally regarded as the basis of an economic regime, the cornerstone of which has been economic equality for all nations. Furthermore, you should call to the attention of the French that in the declarations, treaties and conventions relating to the establishment and administration of the French Protectorate, the principle of “commercial equality” is asserted and reiterated over and over again by the French Government. For example, in the Franco-British accord of 1904, it is asserted in Article 4 that the two governments being equally attached to the principle of commercial liberty declare they will not countenance any inequality either in imposition of customs duties or other taxes, and in the secret articles of the same date which, among other things, recognized the Spanish sphere of influence, it was stipulated that Article 4, cited above, regarding commercial liberty, should remain intact, even though force of circumstances compel France and Great Britain to modify their policy in respect to Morocco and Egypt. At the International Conference of Algeciras, which was called in 1906 for the purpose of defining the position of the powers in Morocco, the plenipotentiaries of twelve nations, including the United States, placed in the preamble to the Act of Algeciras the assertion of “economic liberty without any inequality”.
In the Franco-German convention of 1911,43 which actually paved the way for the establishment of the French Protectorate in Morocco, Germany receiving concessions in the Congo, France declared she was firmly attached to the principle of commercial liberty, and would not countenance inequality either in the establishment of customs duties, imports and other taxes, and would use its good offices with the Moroccan Government in order to prevent differential treatment between the citizens of the different powers, and would especially oppose any step which might reduce the merchandise of a power to a state of inferiority. In the treaty between France and Spain of 1912,44 which formally recognized on the part of France the Spanish zone of influence in Morocco, Article I provides that the proposed reforms shall be in conformity with the Franco-British accord of 1904, and with the Franco-German agreement of 1911, both of which, as indicated heretofore, [Page 878] recognized and asserted the principle of commercial liberty in the Shereefian Empire.
You should state that this Government finds it difficult to follow the argument advanced by M. Ponsot to the effect that the expiration of the Franco-British accord of 1904 would mark the extinction of commercial liberty for the nations in Morocco. The various declarations of France, enumerated in part above, asserting the principle of commercial liberty, refute this theory. (Furthermore, if M. Ponsot’s thesis is deemed to be correct, then it might be argued that France’s present preferred position in Morocco is extinguished, for it was through the Franco-British accord that French influence was established in that country.)
In this connection, for background purposes, you are advised that on October 5, 1934, M. Ponsot addressed a note to Ambassador Laboulaye, a copy of which, in translation, is enclosed,45 in which the French proposals regarding Morocco were outlined in brief as follows:
- (1)
- It is proposed to establish a new regime on January 1, 1935, the date of the expiration of the Franco-British accord of 1904.
- (2)
- Negotiations have been conducted with the British, contemplating tariff reciprocity through the establishment of quotas.
- (3)
- Under the new regime France would exchange commercial guarantees with the United States for the surrender of capitulatory rights by this country, and a system designed to bring about a balance of trade between the United States and Morocco would be provided.
- (4)
- France would guarantee to the United States (a) a regime of most favored nation; (b) a consideration of requests for minimum rather than maximum duties; (c) a quota based on certain years on automobiles and tires imported from the United States.
For your further information, both the Netherland and Italian Governments have indicated to this Government informally their opposition to the French proposals. The British position is not clear, although it would appear that they have reached a tentative agreement with France with respect to the establishment of a quota regime.
In conclusion, I feel that in order to make the position of this Government clear and a matter of official record, you should advise the French that this Government is firmly attached to the principle of the “open door” in Morocco and elsewhere, and that it cannot believe that the French Government seriously contemplates giving official sanction to measures already instituted by the Protectorate authorities [Page 879] which are discriminatory and not in harmony with the treaties, or that it contemplates establishing in Morocco an economic régime of the character proposed.
Please cable brief summary of the reaction of the competent French officials as revealed in your conversations and send complete report by early pouch.
Very truly yours,
- British and Foreign State Papers, vol. civ, p. 956.↩
- Ibid., vol. cvi, p. 1025.↩
- Not attached to file copy of this instruction. The date October 5, 1934, is an error. The note referred to is an instruction from the French Government to the French Ambassador in Washington, a copy of which was transmitted by M. Henri Ponsot to Mr. Blake with a letter dated Paris, August 6, 1934, and was forwarded to the Department with despatch No. 975, October 5, 1934. This correspondence is not printed.↩