611.5531/723
Memorandum by Mr. Jacques J. Reinstein of the Division of Trade Agreements
| Conversation: | Mr. Walravens, Second Secretary of the Belgian Embassy; |
| Messrs. Reinstein, Wadleigh, de Rycke, and Ross of the Division of Trade Agreements; | |
| Mr. Clark, of the Division of European Affairs. |
Mr. Walravens called by appointment this morning to secure a statement of our position with regard to the draft of general provisions for the Belgian trade agreement which was transmitted to the Belgian Embassy in July of this year.
At the outset Mr. Walravens was informed that it would be difficult for us to make any statement on the possibility of our modifying our view with respect to any particular article without having some indication as to the points which were troubling the Belgian Foreign Office. He said that it was not his desire to obtain a statement of this character at the present time, but that he merely wished to learn the reasons which had motivated the changes which we had made in the Belgian draft.
It was emphasized to Mr. Walravens that we do not regard the drafting of general provisions as a subject for bargaining in the sense that we bargain for concessions. A framework for the supplementary agreement already exists in the provisions of the exchange of notes of February 27, 1935, and the preparation of a text of general provisions would seem to involve merely the filling in of this framework with somewhat more detailed provisions. The two Governments are already in agreement on the basic principle of non-discriminatory treatment, which finds expression in the trade agreement and in the liberal commercial policies which they pursue. The problem appears to us, therefore, as one primarily of drafting a text which will conform to the legal requirements and practices of the two countries.
It was pointed out to Mr. Walravens that the text of our standard provisions had been given to the Belgian Government prior to the conclusion of the trade agreement and that the Belgian Government had not indicated that the type of provisions included in our standard draft were unacceptable to it.
We had not felt, in working on the Belgian draft, that the two Governments were in disagreement as to these principles, and it was, [Page 223] therefore, a matter of some surprise to us to learn that the Belgian Government apparently considers such to be the case.
It was pointed out that, while we have introduced a number of changes in the Belgian draft, most of them were necessitated by the form in which we had drawn the agreement or by legal considerations. It was explained that the language used in our standard provisions has been developed over a long period of years, and has acquired a precise meaning in many instances through judicial interpretation. In regard to matters which may be made the subject of litigation, we naturally prefer this language to different phraseology with regard to the probable judicial interpretation of which we could not be certain. Where the subject covered by the provisions is not of such a character, there is more latitude.
It was then explained to Mr. Walravens why we had prepared our draft in the form of a supplementary agreement. Although the exchange of notes called for a supplementary agreement, the agreement might possibly be drawn up in the form of a full agreement with the schedules included, were it not for certain legal problems. We have been informed by our Legal Division that it will be necessary to issue a public notice of intention to negotiate a supplementary agreement and to hold a hearing before the agreement is concluded. If the schedules were to be repeated in the supplementary agreement, it would be necessary to hold hearings on them, and we would be placed under considerable pressure to reopen the entire agreement, and, particularly, to modify or withdraw some of the concessions which we have granted to Belgium. Both Governments presumably would wish to avoid this. In view of this fact, we have been careful to prepare the draft in a form which would not repeat the concessions previously granted, and we plan to restrict the hearings to the subject which we dealt with in our recent draft, that is, to the general provisions. In this connection, Mr. Walravens’ attention was later called to the phraseology which we had used in the opening sentences of Article I and Article II, in which the duty assurances in the present agreement are mentioned by reference rather than restated as a new commitment.
Our draft was gone over with Mr. Walravens article by article. For the most part the comments which were included in the memorandum enclosed with the draft given the Belgian Embassy in July were merely reiterated.
The substance of the statements made to Mr. Walravens on the various articles of the draft is as follows:
[The comments on the various articles are omitted.]