855A.24/93
The Ambassador to the Belgian Government in Exile (Biddle) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 23.]
Sir: Referring to this Mission’s telegram No. 11, of June 17, 12 midnight and the Department’s telegram No. 5 of June 22, 6 p.m.15 regarding negotiation of a United States–United Kingdom–Belgian Congo Agreement, I have the honor to enclose a preliminary draft of the general provisions of such an Agreement. The enclosed draft seeks to provide a framework into which the schedules of Congo exports to the United States and the United Kingdom and Congo imports from the United States and the United Kingdom may later be fitted.
An informal meeting to discuss this draft was held today. Present at the meeting were Mr. Roger Makins and Mr. Geoffrey Harrison [Page 13] of the British Foreign Office, Viscount de Lantsheere, Counselor of the Belgian Embassy and Mr. Jennen, Economic Adviser at the Belgian Ministry of Colonies, and Mr. R. E. Schoenfeld, Counselor of this Mission and Mr. A. N. Steyne, Second Secretary of the London Embassy.
With regard to Art. 1 providing that the Agreement should run until December 31, 1943, Viscount de Lantsheere suggested that the Belgian authorities might desire a clause permitting revision of the Agreement at an earlier date if Belgian territory should meanwhile be liberated, for in that case the Belgian Government might wish to be free to send Congo products to meet Belgian needs.
Referring to Art. 3, the Belgian representatives sought more light on the procedure for fixing prices and the question of including prices in the Agreement. The resulting discussion revealed that the Article as phrased was designed not to disturb those price arrangements which were already regulated by special agreements; that the task of fixing detailed prices might well extend beyond the time limit for the conclusion of the Agreement; and that in the circumstances it seemed desirable to exclude actual prices from the Agreement itself and to permit of the future fixing of prices by subsidiary arrangements.
With regard to Art. 4 dealing with payment, Mr. Jennen brought up the question of receiving dollar exchange for all Belgian exports to the United States. He made the point that the Belgian Government was in short supply for dollars and needed increasing amounts of dollar exchange to meet its purchases in the United States. Mr. Makins drew attention to the fact that by Art. 4 of the United Kingdom–Belgian Finance and Purchase Agreement of January 21, 1941 (enclosure to London’s despatch No. 116 of March 19, 194116), the British Treasury undertook to make available to the Belgian Government foreign exchange for necessary Belgian imports and financial services.
Mr. Makins referred to the fact that there was no Article in the Agreement that specifically dealt with shipping, but pointed out that this factor was thought to be adequately covered by the three categories of supplies for the Congo listed in Schedule 217 and referred to in Art. 6.
Mr. Jennen suggested that the Belgian Government might wish to have an Article in the Agreement specifically assuring it of the necessary shipping. He remarked that the Anglo–Belgian Shipping Agreement provided that Belgian ships in the shipping pool should be made available for the transport of supplies from the Congo to the United States but that in practice those ships had not been made available despite Belgian requests for them. Mr. Makins suggested that the [Page 14] problem of securing the execution of a provision of the Shipping Agreement should be pursued with the British Ministry of War Transport as the competent authority. Mr. Jennen indicated that the Belgians were inclined to push the matter wherever they could and suggested that since the Agreement under negotiation would be three-cornered, i. e. with the United States as well as with the British, the inclusion of a reinforcing shipping Article might help. Mr. Makins said that since all shipping was pooled, including that of the United States, there would seem to be no reason to transfer the question from the authorities which should deal with it. Mr. Steyne suggested that if Mr. Jennen so desired, it could be arranged for the Belgian authorities to discuss the problem with Mr. A. C. Kerr, the American Shipping representative of the Harriman Mission.
The question also arose as to an overlapping period in the execution of the current United Kingdom–Belgian Agreement and the entry into effect of the new United States–United Kingdom–Belgian Agreement. The suggestion was advanced that the new Agreement should start with a clean slate and that any uncompleted transactions in the old Agreement should lapse and be assimilated to the provisions of the new Agreement.
In advancing the foregoing views, all concerned stressed that these observations were informal. They are therefore submitted merely to show the lines along which problems may develop.
Respectfully yours,