811.34544/491: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in the United Kingdom (Johnson)
303. For President’s Base Lease Commission. Your 294, January 25, and 330, January 28. We do not feel in a position to comment on all of the various items proposed for discussion by the British. We are somewhat surprised at their mention of certain items and can only suppose that they have listed some of these for discussion because of the insistence of colonial authorities; and that they will therefore not be disposed to press a number of these matters. Should our estimate of the situation prove to be incorrect, we shall have as you doubtless know very strong views to communicate to you on a considerable number of these points.
The following comments are made either in response to your request for instructions or in a few cases where we feel that we can assist you by giving you our views at this time.
The suggestions regarding the form of the leases set forth in Section 2 of your telegram no. 294 appear to us to be satisfactory.
As regards item 3 mentioned in your two telegrams (boundaries of sites), exact surveys will not be available in all areas for 30 to 60 days. Where exact limits of areas are not available, leases should be signed without awaiting them, subject to the proviso that the exact limits, when agreed upon, will be attached to and made a part of the lease.
[Page 68]With reference to item no. 4, Sections (a) and (b), we believe that questions of command and policy as to defense and reciprocal use in peace and war should be settled by separate agreement when such questions arise on the basis of conditions then existing and in all events should not be included in the lease. Attention is invited to the paragraph of all leases providing that the United States “shall be under no obligation or responsibility under the terms of this lease for the civil administration or defense of (name of area) or any part thereof or for the maintenance of military or naval forces within or without the leased areas”.
As regards item 8 (e) we are investigating this situation and will telegraph you as soon as a final decision is reached; it seems unlikely on the basis of our present information that the bases would be considered American ports within the meaning of the United States coastwise shipping laws.
With respect to items 13 and 14, the United States has agreed to use local labor and local material to the maximum extent practicable in the construction of the bases. In view of this we see no necessity for including any provision respecting these matters in the leases.
As regards item 18 we have been discussing the question of expropriation with the British Embassy for some time and the Embassy has telegraphed a tentative formula to London for approval; presumably this would not be included in the leases.
We do not understand the purpose of item (b) in your 330 which you have proposed for discussion since any matter involving action by an American official in his official capacity would be a matter between the two Governments and not one for the local tribunals.
As regards your proposed (e), the British Government has agreed to the immediate possession without awaiting the signature of formal leases. In this connection your attention is invited to the British Embassy’s note of November 22, last,82 of which you have a copy.
- Not printed.↩