812.24/3634b
Memorandum of Conversation, From the Office of Exports, Foreign Economic Administration
Subject: Proposed Roll Back of Decentralization Plan A9 in Mexico.
A meeting was held today attended by the following:
- Dr. C. H. Cunningham, Representative, Office of Exports, Mexico.
- Mr. Rene A. May, Deputy Chief, Country Program Branch.
- Mr. R. I. Dodson, Chief, Latin American Exports Div., Country Program Br.
- Mr. C. L. Merriam, Chief, Mexico Section, Country Program Branch.
- Miss D. C. Oesting, Ass’t. Chief, Mexico Section, Country Program Branch.
- Mr. Derek Brooks, Deputy Chief, Operations Branch.
- Mrs. Joan Raushenbush, Deputy Chief, Requirements Branch.
When the Decentralization Plan was adopted for presentation to the other American Republics it was predicated on the following problems existing at that time:
- 1.
- Short supply of materials,
- 2.
- Exceedingly tight shipping situation, and,
- 3.
- Minimum essential requirements of the other Republics.
When this Plan was presented to Mexico that country rightly appreciated that shipping was not a serious problem for her and as a consequence never accepted full decentralization. After a considerable lapse of time and discussion Mexico accepted Decentralization Plan A for only those materials for which certificates of necessity were formerly required, i.e., those under allocation. In view of the Controlled Materials Plan10 certain class B products were included on the list of materials requiring the export recommendation procedure under Decentralization as accepted by Mexico.
Mexico, as will be noted from the above, was never particularly interested in Decentralization nor has that country apparently made any serious effort to adequately administer the issuance of export recommendations [Page 257] as will be noted from the following up-to-date statement of the situation as presented to the meeting by Dr. Cunningham.
- 1.
- The Comité Coordinador de las Importaciones has been entirely unable to handle the flow of applications for export recommendations being received. They are practically one-quarter behind in their work.
- 2.
- The status as of October 14th of export recommendations received by the United States Embassy from the Comité Coordinador was briefly as follows: on iron and steel, first quarter, 1944, due in Washington, September 1st, some export recommendations received by the Embassy in Mexico City as late as October 14th. Some have not yet been received. It ordinarily requires from two to three weeks for these to be received in the Embassy and pass through the State Department to the Licensing Officer in FEA.11
- 3.
- The situation regarding third quarter export recommendations is as follows. On class B products only seven lists out of fifty-two have been received. In many cases the actual export recommendations do not accompany the lists.
- On farm machinery only a small part was received. On consumer durable goods, general industrial equipment, plumbing and heating, power, radio, none have been received.
- In the case of most drugs, paper, wood pulp, wool tops, belting and rayon and some textiles, no action has been taken by the Mexicans.
- 4.
- The Mission has consistently called the attention of the Comité Coordinador to the fact that the work is falling behind and this has had no effect. It is apparently not alone a question of personnel; it has been impossible to sufficiently impress the top administrative officials with the seriousness of the situation.
- 5.
- Due to the failure of Mexico to adequately comply with its functions under Decentralization, it has been impossible for the FEA to render adequate supply assistance, particularly with respect to class B products and class A products that have to be manufactured in sufficient time to secure the materials in the quarter in which they belong. Again, in many lines such as automotive parts, radio tubes, etc., the export recommendations have not arrived from Mexico in sufficient time to permit licenses to be issued within the quarter of allocation, and Mexico is losing the materials to which she is entitled because of the non-arrival in Washington of export recommendations on anything like schedule time.
- 6.
- There is an increasing amount of complaint by exporters which reached a peak during the National Foreign Trade Convention, October 25th, 26th, and 27th in New York at which time the exporters specifically protested this situation to the FEA officials in attendance; there is despair among importers because of this situation. Most importers in Mexico understand where the responsibility for this situation lies. Exporters are holding the Office of Exports responsible and lay the blame on the Decentralization Plan. Some remedy for this situation is imperative in the interest of the American export trade.
Therefore, in order to remedy the situation and giving due consideration to American exporters and the requirements of the Mexican public a roll back in Decentralization Plan A for Mexico was proposed and agreed to by the meeting as follows:
- A.
- Estimates of supply to be furnished Mexico and export recommendations issued by the Comité Coordinador de las Importaciones only on the items included on the attached list.
- B.
- All other items not under general license will be subject to individual license.
- C.
- This would necessitate a reversion to the former practice of utilizing World Trade Intelligence reports. As a result, the Embassy will be asked to check not only on the consignees but the end use of those shipments to go forward under individual license but not covered by export recommendations.
- D.
- It is the desire of this Committee to put the foregoing into effect as of January 1, 1944.