841.24/1080
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State (Acheson)
| Participants: | The British Ambassador, Lord Halifax, |
| First Secretary of the British Embassy, Mr. Redvers Opie, | |
| The Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, | |
| Adviser on International Economic Affairs, Dr. Herbert Feis. |
Dr. Feis and I called on the British Ambassador at our request. Mr. Opie was present with the Ambassador.
We handed to the Ambassador copies of the redraft of the Temporary Lease-Lend Agreement with the British51 recently approved by the President, the Secretary, the Economic Defense Board and the Lend-Lease Administration. We explained to the Ambassador that we might wish to insert in Article II, in the 6th line, after the word [Page 44] “services”, the phrase “the use of facilities,” in order to make it clear that the reciprocal obligations of the British would include, if desired by us, such things as the repairs of ships, the use of anchorages, landing fields, etc., in the same manner as similar facilities are being made available to the British in this country. It was pointed out to him that the word “facilities” was used in Article VI and that its use in Article II would make the two articles coextensive. The Ambassador appeared to have no question about this.
We then went over with him Article VII, pointing out in detail the changes which the redraft made both as compared with our original draft and with the British proposal. We explained the reason for eliminating the reference for “joint action” and addition of the phrase “open to participation to all other countries of like mind”. The Ambassador said that speaking for himself he regarded our change in this respect as an improvement. We then explained the remainder of the article, pointing out that it was an attempt to reassure the British that many of the fears expressed by Mr. Keynes were unfounded. The article as redrafted, we pointed out, made it clear that the broad policy to be followed in the final settlement was not restricted to matters of commercial or tariff policy but expressly recognized that these matters had to be approached against a background of expanding economic activity in production, employment and the exchange and consumption of goods. This should make it plain that we were not asking the British to agree to move with us in the direction of liberal economic relations without recognizing that common action in other directions was required to enable them to do so.
We then stated that the article was expressed in general terms so as to avoid specific reference to preferential or other arrangements to refer to which might cause political embarrassment to the British Government at this time. We added, however, that all of these matters were included within the scope of the general provisions and that if in the event of the publication of the Agreement, we were asked to explain what did fall within its terms, we proposed to say that it was all inclusive and that nothing was excluded from consideration.
The Ambassador then remarked that among the objectives stated was the “elimination” of discriminatory treatment whereas the reference to tariffs and other trade barriers was made by the term “reduction”. He said that he feared critics might seize upon this difference and he wondered whether language could be devised upon for making the objectives similar in each case. To this we pointed out that the two matters were different in kind and that it was the purpose to eliminate discriminations but to reduce tariffs. We added further that the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment did not leave open the loop-hole of using tariffs for purposes of discrimination since the objective was all inclusive. We pointed out, [Page 45] secondly, that the Agreement was a Lease-Lend Agreement and that we hoped the Ambassador would stress to the British Government the necessity of obtaining an Agreement which would definitely further American interests and American policy without imposing burdens upon the British which they could not afford. We dealt at some length upon this aspect of the Agreement which the Ambassador said he would make clear in transmitting it to London.
The Ambassador then asked whether it would be possible to state as an objective “the progressive elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment”, which would indicate that no sudden, drastic or upsetting action was contemplated. We repeated that the second paragraph of Article VII made it clear that the objectives stated in the first paragraph were to be approached “in the light of governing economic conditions” and that the best means of attaining them were to be sought. These provisions we felt recognized amply the latitude which practical necessities required in framing provisions to achieve the broader purpose stated in the first paragraph.
Finally, we impressed upon the Ambassador that in all likelihood it would be necessary for the President sometime in January to ask Congress for a further Lease-Lend appropriation and that by that time it was most essential that an Agreement be entered into between the two governments. The Ambassador said that he fully appreciated this and would urge most expeditious possible consideration in London.
- Not printed, but see telegram No. 5637, infra.↩