800.796/11–2044
The Chairman of the American Delegation to the
International Civil Aviation Conference (Berle) to President
Roosevelt
[Chicago,] 29 November, 1944.
You have Churchill’s wire of November 28th declining to modify the British
proposal and asking that we adjourn the Air Conference.
British proposal is reasonable for the United States across the Atlantic but
would substantially exclude our or anyone’s aviation Eastward from the
gateway cities such as Stockholm, Amsterdam, London, Paris and Rome.
Prominent limitation is placed by British plan on number of planes which
could go between these points and points East, the top limit being the plane
capacity efficient to carry through traffic direct from the United States
but not including intermediate traffic. There is not much through traffic
from the United States to Prague or Cairo or Baghdad. Expert opinion here
holds that no American line could pay expenses beyond the populous cities of
western Europe.
Yesterday British argued their proposal in closed committee claiming their
plan was needed to protect small states. Fifteen small states promptly got
up and supported American position pleading that British proposal would
prevent them from ever having self-supporting aviation. The line-up: France
supported Britain luke-warm; all others supported United States including
all Latin America, all Scandinavia, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, New Zealand.
Australia, India, South Africa, stayed on the fence. The position of the
smaller countries supporting us is that they want to carry traffic between
intermediate points just as we do. In the jargon of the conference they want
an unlimited Fifth Freedom.
British now want a quiet adjournment. La Guardia19
and I think this might be misunderstood by American public and prefer to
present the American plan in simple English; get a record vote, and then
leave the problem to an interim council. Otherwise we think the British
would seek to pose as martyrs trying to protect small nations against us.
They raised this issue and we think they should face it rather than we.
Stettinius and I believe you should pass on this question and we would much
appreciate your judgment.
[Page 594]
President Roosevelt
to the British Prime Minister (Churchill)20
Washington, 30
November 1944—1:20 a.m.
Number 661. I have given careful thought to your 83620a and to the problems which you cite. You
know that I have no desire for any arrangement by which our people would
profit from the sacrifices which yours have made in this war. Your
confidence in the justice and fair play of the American people is, I am
sure, justified. I have equal confidence that your people have the same
qualities in the same measure. I know that they want equal opportunity
in the air and unquestionably they should have it. I can not believe
that they would want aviation, in which you as well as we have a great
future, stifled and suffocated because they were for a moment in a less
favorable competitive position.
You say that the British Empire is being asked to put bases all over the
world at the disposal of other nations. Of course it is. Would you like
to see a world in which all ports were closed to all ships but their own
or open to one foreign ship, perhaps two if they carried only passengers
and cargo bound all the way from Liverpool to Shanghai? Where would
England be if shipping were subjected to such limitations? Where will it
be if aviation is? I am unable to believe that you do not want an
agreement at this time.
I can not agree that the answer is to hold everyone back. It must be
rather to go forward together. I know the handicaps under which your
aviation industry has laboured during the war. We have found ways to
help you before and I am confident that we can find ways to help you in
overcoming this. We are prepared to make transport aircraft freely
available to you on the same terms as our own people can get them. Our
only stipulation is that aviation must be permitted to develop, subject
only to reasonable safeguards, as far and as fast as human ingenuity and
enterprise can take it.
We have no desire to monopolize air traffic anywhere. I do not see how
increased frequencies on long routes would dominate traffic on short
ones, when all lines would have the same right to increase their
frequencies on the same basis. Nor do I see how in the long term such an
arrangement would favor us over others, despite our head start.
You asked that I give further consideration to the fundamentals of your
position and that I state the issues as I see them. I have done both and
I am more convinced than ever that the answer is not to hold back but to
go forward together.
[Page 595]
I feel that the Conference can still reach an agreement vastly helpful
both in the air and in wider fields. Swinton and Berle on November 27
publicly stated our respective positions. The smaller States have spoken
and, if I may say so, our position seemed to have by far the greater
support. If it is not possible to reach complete agreement when our
delegations have so closely approached it, the reasons, despite our best
will, would be all too clear.
You speak of impartial arbitration within the general framework. The
Canadians undoubtedly see both points of view, have laboured tirelessly
to bring us together and on November 27 brought out a new formula which
might provide a reasonable line of compromise if the small nations would
indeed accept so limited a formula. I will give Berle latitude for one
more try on the lines of that formula if you will give Swinton the
same.
Given, on both sides, that spirit of justice and fair play of which you
speak, I know that an agreement can be reached which will be equally
beneficial to both our interests and to the world.
