800.796/11–2844: Telegram
The British Prime Minister (Churchill) to President Roosevelt
836. 1. Winant has brought me your message about the air in reply to my number 827, and naturally it has caused me much anxiety. I agree with you that this is a grave matter in which not only governments but parliaments and peoples may become deeply agitated, with consequences which cannot fail to be disastrous both to the prosecution of the war and to the prevention of future wars. I feel it my duty, therefore, to place before you in simple terms the issue as it presents itself to me after hearing all the advice of the special committee under Beaverbrook, of which Stafford Cripps is an important member, as well as the unanimous views of the War Cabinet.
2. The foundations of our position at this Conference, which is being held at the time and place which you proposed, are:
- (a)
- The British Empire is asked to put invaluable and irreplaceable bases for air transport all over the world at the disposal of such nations as are capable of using them. This means of course primarily and in bulk placing them at the disposal of the United States.
- (b)
- It was agreed between us as a war measure that you should make the transport aircraft and specialize upon them on account of the character of the war, the need to supply China over the Hump, the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean, etc., and that we should concentrate our efforts upon fighting types. In consequence the United States are in an incomparably better position than we are to fill any needs of air transport that may arise after the war is over, and to build up their civil aircraft industry. We would venture most earnestly to suggest that these two points are not receiving adequate consideration.
3. However, in partial recognition of the above two points, Lord Swinton believed that he had reached an agreement with Mr. Berle at Chicago on November 17th about the amount of aircraft capacity that should be put into service by our respective countries (frequencies) on a basis of “embarked traffic”. Agreement was also reached about fares to prevent undercutting, unfair subventions, etc.
4. All the above was satisfactory to us and, I think, to the world. On November 18, however, your side of the table put forward an entirely new set of ideas and arguments which, in our judgment, took away with one hand what had been given with the other in consideration of our fundamental position set forth above in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b)
5. For instance, the escalator clause was sought, not only for traffic to and from your country but also for traffic between any two foreign countries. This meant that the number of services on any route could [Page 591] be increased when an airline achieved a load equal to 65% of its full capacity. We had already agreed, reluctantly, that this escalator clause should apply to traffic to and from an aircraft’s own country. We had also agreed to a so-called fifth freedom which would grant to an aircraft on through services the right to pick up and set down traffic between foreign countries at intermediate stops. It is true that provision was made for a differentiation of fares to safeguard the local traffic. That seemed to me a valuable line to explore.
6. Mr. Berle then asked for a combination of the escalator clause and the fifth freedom which would enable American aircraft to carry most of the traffic between the United Kingdom and the Dominions of India and all foreign countries, as well as between all nations of the Commonwealth. It would, in fact, give to United States airlines the right to everything save cabotage.
7. We must accept the fact that the arrangements about frequencies will very soon be completely different from those agreed upon before the escalator clause was proposed. There is very little doubt that our position relatively to yours is markedly injured thereby. This applies not only to Great Britain but to many other durable powers who are now in a weak condition to design and build suitable transport aircraft and to embark traffic.
8. On top of this escalator clause, which we have conceded for traffic to and from your country, Mr. Berle now demands the right of duplication over any section of any through route and also provision for increasing frequencies so that any airline could carry all the intermediate traffic it could get. This might well mean that aircraft embarking traffic in the United States would not only excel, as they are welcome to do on merits, but dominate and virtually monopolise traffic not only between our country and yours, but between all other foreign countries and British Dominions besides.
9. I have the opinion that both this point of linking the escalator clause and the fifth freedom together, and the claim for duplication on foreign air routes, require further patient study with a view to reaching agreement between our two countries. Thus, we could make sure that Great Britain and the Dominions and many other countries as well are not in fact run out of the air altogether as a result of your flying start with no regard to the fact that we are willing to throw all our bases all over the world into the common pool. I am sure I could not obtain the agreement of the Cabinet or of either House of Parliament to anything which wore that aspect. Nor would I try.
10. It may be that you will say I have not rightly posed the issues. If this be so, I should be most grateful if you would state them in your own words. It is [Is it?] suggested, for instance, that we are going to challenge the right of all nations of innocent passage in Freedom I, [Page 592] or the consequential right of refuelling and repair in Freedom II, except in so far as these are mixed up in the much more refined issues arising out of your doctrines of escalator and duplication? There may well be other simplifications which could be made.
11. Should it not be possible for us to reach an agreement at this stage on Freedoms III, IV and V, when great battles in which our troops are fighting side by side are at their height and when we are preparing for immense new further efforts against Japan, I cannot see that a temporary adjournment to allow of the aforesaid patient discussions would do any serious harm. On the contrary, I believe that it would be as readily understood as was the postponement of final decision at Dumbarton Oaks. There is always the great body of technical matter upon which agreement has been secured. Therefore, unless complete agreement is reached, I plead that there shall be an adjournment. Such adjournment for a short time, if asked for by an intimately-allied power like us, ought not to be denied, nor ought we to be confronted with such very serious contingencies as are set out in your message received on Saturday. As [An?] open dispute carried out by Parliament and Congress, both of which would have to be informed and in our voluble free press on both sides, would do far more harm to the war effort and to our hopes of the future than an adjournment of a few weeks or even months, while both parties persevered behind the scenes for a settlement.
12. It is my earnest hope that you will not bring on this air discussion the prospect of our suffering less generous treatment on Lend-Lease than we had expected from the Quebec discussions. But even if I thought that we were to be so penalized, I would not feel myself able to agree to a decision contrary to the merits, as we see them, on this matter.
13. I should be ready, of course, to accept impartial arbitration on the points outstanding at the Chicago conference, provided that they were discussed in relation to the general framework. We have not yet got our World Court again, but there are friendly states and neutral states from whom competent judges might be found.
14. Let me say also, that I have never advocated competitive “bigness” in any sphere between our two countries in their present state of development. You will have the greatest navy in the world. You will have, I hope, the greatest air force. You will have the greatest trade. You have all the gold. But these things do not oppress my mind with fear because I am sure the American people under your re-acclaimed leadership will not give themselves over to vainglorious ambitions, and that justice and fair-play will be the lights that guide them.