800.796/11–2344: Telegram
The British Prime Minister (Churchill) to President Roosevelt
827. Your message No. 654 reached me in the early hours of the morning and we have worked on it all day.
After prolonged discussion the Cabinet wish me to forward to you the following expression of their views which is endorsed by me. I earnestly request that you should send for Lord Swinton if there is anything in this message on which you would like further explanation.
Cabinet message follows:
“We wish to draw your attention to the course of the negotiations at Chicago which have witnessed a great number of concessions by both of us.
“That we might reach a common agreement, we have agreed to throwing open our airfields all over the world to aircraft of other nationalities and to such planes being able to carry not only through traffic but local traffic between two neighbouring countries on the route and your delegation has agreed to a method of regulating the share of the various countries on the different routes and of regulating the fares.
“It had been our hope that the agreement thus reached by our two delegations, which was made a part of the form of the draft of November 17, would be a satisfactory document to submit to the whole body of the conference for approval.
“Especially in respect to the so-called Escalator Clause which enabled the share of operators to be increased if they in fact carry more traffic between terminals than they are allotted under the frequency arrangements, we feel that we have gone to the limit of concession in this draft.
“The present difficulties have arisen as we understand it because of the new proposals brought forward by your delegation on the evening of November 18 after the agreement had been reached. Since these proposals demand a share of the local traffic between two neighbouring [Page 586] countries by aircraft of a third country far beyond that which the granting of the right to take up traffic on through service would warrant, we could not accept them.
“Subject to adequate protection of the local operators by a price differential, to which your delegates agreed in the accepted draft, we were prepared to agree to the so-called fifth freedom.
“We cannot see our way to accept these new suggestions, which would gravely jeopardize our own position, but, of course, we are prepared to stand by what Swinton had already agreed with Berle.
“Therefore, we suggest that if you cannot confirm the agreement reached on November 17, the Conference should finalise the valuable technical agreements which have been arrived at, and that the rest of the matters should be adjourned for a period during which we can consider the matter at greater length and see whether we can arrive at some solution of the problem.
“We partake with you the most sincere wish to reach a fair and satisfactory arrangement by which our two countries can play their full part in the development of world wide civil aviation at the earliest time.
“We hope you will have an opportunity to examine this and we feel sure you will agree that two points of view which originally diverged widely are joined in a wise and workable compromise.”