800.6176/19: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 24—2:25 p.m.]
442. I arranged that Atherton and Butterworth4 should meet with Sir John Campbell5 and a representative of the Foreign Office today in connection with your 339, September 16, 6 p.m.6 Application was made for an earlier date in an attempt to avoid what did occur, namely, Campbell interviewing Townsend before the latter called at the Embassy.
It seems clear from the conversation that Campbell, and probably the Committee, will not favor a further quota release at the September 29 meeting. Campbell personally resents, and he intimated that the Committee resented, the recent reports appearing in the press indicating that American consuming interests are pressing for such an increase. He frankly stated that both he and the Committee also resented Townsend’s efforts in this direction, particularly his telegraphic request to Campbell for a special meeting in mid-August, which Campbell on his own authority turned down, his action afterwards being fully approved by the other members of the Committee. Campbell’s view of the Committee is that it is the international body charged with the control and that it should deal with its work without benefit of outside influence.
Campbell stressed the difficulty of arriving at a figure for normal stocks since the rubber industry had never enjoyed a period of normality, but it came out in the discussion that his personal view, which he afterwards requested should be treated as confidential, was that world stocks should be 4½-months’ supply. He maintains that world stocks now constitute 6-months’ supply. Incidentally he mentioned that Krafft in a recent conversation with him had been willing to accept 4 months as a satisfactory figure. Campbell made much of this throughout the conversation, that the large American consumers were not really represented by Townsend.
It also seems clear that Campbell and probably the Committee do not regard the present price of rubber as a maximum figure. Campbell in fact complained that the recent reports of American consumer dissatisfaction had hurt the rubber market and forced a decline in price. Although under questioning he admitted that it was slight [Page 510] and from the highest level it was quite apparent that a further gradual price increase is desired. However, Campbell is probably very anxious to avoid any violent price movements.
The conference lasted more than an hour, a substantial portion of which was taken up by Campbell’s praise of the “fair and decent” attitude of his Committee. At one point he accused us of a suspicious attitude. The Embassy stated in reply that the American Government was frankly concerned about the situation, an attitude which should be understandable in view of our past experience with rubber restriction, and it was for that reason that it was deemed advisable to come and put our viewpoint quite frankly before the Chairman of the International Committee. Campbell’s attitude was briefly that the line of discussion lay in the realm of opinion; that if the American Government would make a formal factual case and present it through the usual channels, it would be answered in like manner but he saw fit to give his personal opinion that any such action would cause irritation in the Committee.
Copy to The Hague.