659.116/115
The Minister in Denmark (Owen) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 21.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s telegraphic instruction of February 11, 1935, and the subsequent exchange of correspondence with the Danish Government regarding the action which the Government of the United States might feel itself compelled to take in the event that the Danish Government should fail to give assurance that there will be no discrimination against American commerce in connection with Denmark’s import regulations.
I beg to draw attention to the fact that on February 13, I was granted permission to omit the last ten words of the Department’s telegraphic instruction of February 12 [11], having requested this permission because of the psychology of the local situation. The local psychology might be summed up as follows:
The people of Denmark, and I would include in this generalization the officials of Government, feel that the United States has ill-used their little country. They feel that the tariff walls erected by the United States have had the effect of further shutting out Danish goods when the United States was already importing only one-twentyfifth as much from Denmark as they exported to Denmark.
I requested permission to omit the words “such as Danish commerce now enjoys in the United States” because although there has been no discrimination against Denmark in our law or practice, the uneven trade balance and the existence of tariff barriers have convinced Denmark that its commerce is not enjoying any privileges at all at the present time in the United States.
The following facts should be borne in mind in connection with Denmark’s reply (my telegram No. 4 of March 29, 1935) viz. that there is an undoubted steady pressure from England for concessions in return for the market which England offers to Danish butter and bacon and that the advantages to result from the generalization of concessions to be made in future under the American trade agreements are, from the Danish point of view, nebulous. These generalizations do [Page 178] not seem to the Danes to offer any definite assurance of larger exports to the United States.
On the other hand there is a steady pressure from their principal customer, on whom Denmark has been led to feel her commercial salvation depends, to increase imports from England.
America’s threat to refuse the benefits to result from the above mentioned generalizations is a threat to withhold something which they cannot accurately estimate and therefore do not greatly value.
The assurance that there will be no discrimination against the United States in the matter of import permits might make them unable to yield to England’s demands, thereby losing something which they do not only value but feel essential to their life.
The position taken by the United States is clearly understood by the officials with whom I have discussed it, i. e. Prime Minister Stauning, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Munch, and Minister O. C. Mohr, Chief of the Economic-Political Department of the Foreign Office, and I feel convinced that they would eagerly welcome any constructive suggestion by which existing trade relations with the United States might be improved. They cannot forget that even with their present manipulation of import permits, Denmark is still buying eight times as much from the United States as the United States is buying from Denmark.
Should the treaty of 1826 be denounced and Denmark be denied the benefit of generalizations under our trade agreements, the sense of injury to which I have referred above, would undoubtedly be deepened and it would be impossible to convince either the officials or the public of the equity of such action should it be taken by our government. The objective of improved commercial relations would not be attained.
In the hope that it might be possible to clarify the policy of our government in the minds of the leading editors, I handed to the editors of the five principal Copenhagen newspapers a copy of the Press Release, issued by the Department on April 1, 1935,11 also giving the editor in each case a verbal synopsis. Only one editorial reference to this material was made (see despatch No. 328 of May 16, 1935,12 Review of the Danish Press) and the tone of the reference clearly shows the sense of injury which Denmark feels over the uneven trade balance. It is definitely the consensus of opinion here that America’s first move should be a constructive one in the interest of evening our trade balance with Denmark.
I would therefore respectfully suggest that no action be taken at the present time toward abrogation of the existing commercial treaty and that as soon as possible the difficult problem of America’s commerce with Denmark be given individual and constructive attention.
Respectfully yours,
- Vol. i, p. 536.↩
- Not printed.↩