103.9164: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 29—9:57 p.m.]
8157. To Land for Conway from Reed by Chubb.
- 1.
- Referring memorandum on proposed allocation machinery agreed at
Quebec,93 Nicholson has prepared revised draft which
substantially includes all of original draft except paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and 2(d), 3(a) and (b). As to
paragraph 3(a) and (b), it
is feeling of Ministry that these statements of policy are not within
field of Planning Committee which should deal with machinery and that
they might best be brought out at first meeting of Executive Board. With
regard to paragraph 2(a) (ii) of Quebec draft,
the substituted wording proposed by Nicholson is substantially in accord
with numbered paragraph 1 of Embassy’s cable 6734 dated August 19,
1944.94 In lieu of
paragraph 2(d), the following wording is
proposed:
“Should major changes in either military or civilian requirements necessitate the modification of long-term programmes between quarterly meetings, claimants whose requirements have changed shall submit requests for changes in programmes in the same way as long-term statements or requirements. On receipt of such requests or in the case of major changes in the availability of tonnage, the SEPC95 most directly concerned shall formulate a proposal for adjustment [Page 706] and transmit it to the other SEPC. After agreement upon a modification by both SEPC’s, it shall take effect and monthly bids for and allocations of tonnage shall then be made on the basis of the modified programmes.”
- In addition to the foregoing amendments in the Quebec draft, an introductory preliminary paragraph is added. In addition there is included at the end of 1 (a) of the Quebec draft a summary of SEPC’s tasks to include (1) an estimation of the extent to which programmes transmitted to UMEB can be covered by available shipping. (2) The establishment of broad principles for the employment of tonnage to ensure its most economic use. (3) The analysis of any deficiency. There is also proposed a new final paragraph covering the allocation of particular ships against each programme and stating that this will in general be done on a month-to-month basis. It is our feeling that none of these changes conflict with the Quebec draft as agreed by you and, in the absence of contrary instructions from you, we propose to concur in this as an Anglo-American paper to the Planning Committee.
- 2.
- Has any progress been made on tanker allocations machinery?
- 3.
- Referring SD 4047,96 we will explore, bearing in mind your suggestion that we should avoid increase overall cost to WSA. It is not contemplated that this proposal would include vessels under 7(c) of Agreement, but this point might be further explored. [Reed.]