611.2131/320½
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State ( Welles ) to the Assistant Secretary of State ( Sayre )
The Colombian Minister came in to see me yesterday afternoon. He had just returned from his trip to Bogotá and was very much satisfied with the result of his visit. He told me that he had explained fully all the points at issue between the Colombian Government and ourselves with regard to the pending trade agreement, and that he felt he had been successful in persuading his Government as to the correctness of our attitude on some of the moot points. In summary, the chief points he gave me are as follows:
The Colombian Government agrees to our position on the antidumping question.
With regard to the question of provincial and municipal taxes, his Government is entirely in accord with the theory which we sustain; that, for political reasons, they believe the matter should be dealt with by an amendment to their Constitution. The Colombian Government believes further that in the trade agreement we should accept the substitute suggestion presented by the Minister in April.12
With regard to the provision relative to the reservation made to take care of our “revenue and police laws”, the Colombian Government believes that our phraseology is too general and that there is too much latitude in the provision now drafted in our version.13 Any rephrasing of this provision serving to make it clear that the primary purpose is to prevent smuggling would be satisfactory to the Colombian Government.
[Page 441]The Colombian Government desires to omit paragraph 2 of our Article IV in its entirety. The formula covering this ground as contained in our trade agreement with Brazil would be satisfactory.
With regard to the reservation covering our right to impose embargoes on the exportation of war material, the Colombian Government urges the acceptance of the counter-project presented by the Colombian Minister on April 20.
The Minister told me that he had discussed the trade agreement fully with his brother, the President, and with Dr. Olaya, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that they both were exceedingly anxious to sign the trade agreement immediately so that it could be presented to the Colombian Congress in the early weeks of the session which is now beginning. They fear that if the signing of the trade agreement is delayed for any material time, the Colombian Congress will get into all sorts of controversies with regard to internal legislation, which might impede the ratification of the trade agreement or, in any event, delay it for a considerable period. The Minister seems to feel that there should be no material difficulty in reaching an agreement on the trade agreement in short order. I consequently suggested that he be in Washington next Monday, July 22, and I told him that, if that were possible for him, I was sure the Treaty Division would be prepared to continue discussions with him. May I suggest, therefore, that unless there is some impediment, of which I am not aware, the Treaty Division consider the information given to me by the Minister and have available, when discussions start with the Minister, such counter-projects or redrafts as may be considered possible.
The program of the Colombian Government for the approaching session of the Colombian Congress is to take up for ratification first the Leticia protocol, which the Minister believes will be ratified almost immediately. It then desires to take up without delay the trade agreement, if it can be concluded in time. This means, of course, that an agreement would have to be reached here within the course of the next ten days.
In this connection, Mr. McGurk14 gave me today the attached memorandum15 and file. I am very much afraid that if we insist upon the suggested provisions regarding exchange control, we are going to delay for an indefinite period the conclusion of our trade agreement negotiations. I also sincerely share the views expressed by Dr. Feis16 in his attached memorandum.17 We commenced trade agreements negotiations with Colombia, I believe, in the autumn of 1933. During [Page 442] the past winter we have been making various requests for new provisions in the trade agreement and these new requests, as you know, have been misunderstood in Colombia, since the Colombian Congress is sure that there must be some “nigger in the woodpile” every time we ask for a new provision. I cannot understand why we did not put in everything we wanted in the first trade agreement negotiated. Furthermore, so much controversy has been provoked in Bogotá and so much misunderstanding has resulted on account of our new requests that I don’t think any trade agreement negotiations could have been concluded if the Colombian Minister had not himself gone to Bogotá to explain the situation. If now, after his return, we again make a new proposal, I am fairly confident that very serious difficulties will ensue.
I have, of course, no objection, should you desire to do so, to having this new exchange proposal discussed through the Colombian Minister, but I should hate to see the matter made a sine qua non should the Minister state that he did not think his Government would agree to such an undertaking.
[For text of the reciprocal trade agreement between the United States and Colombia signed September 13, 1935, see Executive Agreement Series No. 89, or 49 Stat. 3875.]