824.24/852: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Bolivia (Boal)

1127. Reference Embassy’s 1460, August 31, 3 p.m., and 1471, September 2, 10 a.m., regarding simplification of export control procedure. The reasons advanced against any change in decentralization plan are well founded and the Embassy and country agency are to be congratulated on the cooperation achieved and the success of the plan. The Department and OEW have no desire to urge the acceptance of a substitute procedure that would create confusion or prejudice the benefits of decentralization and the Embassy is requested to give the country agency assurance on this point.

It is nonetheless desirable to take all practical steps to reestablish importer-exporter relationships with a minimum of Government intervention. It is believed here that existing documentation tends to stifle trade and encourage importers in the other American republics to seek other actual or potential sources of supply and exporters in this country to abandon their efforts to preserve their foreign markets and allow the materials which otherwise might be exported to be diverted to consumption in this country.

The Department understands that import and/or exchange controls are in effect in Bolivia and as a consequence importers are required in any event to obtain a permit from the appropriate Government [Page 141] agency before placing an order for materials abroad. This would appear to afford adequate control over imports and render unnecessary the further additional controls inherent in decentralization.

One of the missions suggested what appears to be a very practical solution to the desire for simplification here and the desire for control in the country of destination. This solution would apply only in those countries that have import or exchange controls already in effect. It was suggested that the simple import recommendation form provided for under Alternative I or any other suitable form be required abroad thereby enabling the Embassy and country agency to preserve the necessary controls over imports, shipping space and consignees. The import recommendation would not, however, be forwarded to the United States and the procedures of Alternative III would be operative in this country. In effect, therefore, this suggestion provides for the preservation of controls in the field and permits the exporters in this country to offer their wares abroad to the same extent as they could prewar within the restrictions of exchange availability or the willingness of the appropriate Government agency to grant an import permit.

Would this suggestion be acceptable to the country agency and the Embassy? It appears to meet the various objections mentioned in the Embassy’s telegrams and at the same time it eliminates the requirement that the supplier in this, country shall have received an import recommendation before proceeding with his sale.

It is desired to effect the simplification of procedure October 1, 1943 for those countries that have accepted Alternative III and the Embassy is requested to telegraph outcome.

Hull