800.85/12–1344: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 13—3:25 p.m.]
11050. For Shipping Division, Department, and Land, WSA, for Morse. With reference to the Department’s 9505 of November 1132 concerning accession of other Governments to the Shipping Agreement, the Foreign Office has now stated that points 1, 2 and 3 are entirely acceptable. However with regard to point 4 the Foreign Office is not certain whether a formal signature by each acceding government is really necessary and it states “We should have thought that if it could be arranged that the US and UK sent identical but separate replies to the communication received under point 1 from the government desiring to accede to the Shipping Agreement and those two communications should bear the same date this should suffice as a sufficient accession by the government in question as from the date of the communication from the US and UK Governments.” Foreign Office points out that there is of course no objection to a formal signature wherever this is convenient. It merely wishes to simplify the formal procedure as much as possible.
In this connection it should be pointed out that UMEB paper 1/133 regarding accession of other governments states in point 3 “The accession of any Government will be recorded in a Protocol of Accession in appropriate terms.” The question arises as to whether the procedure suggested by the British may be interpreted as constituting a protocol of accession. Brown of MEA feels that if the exchange of notes can be duly communicated to all contracting governments and filed with the central records of UMEB that this procedure would [Page 736] be satisfactory. Allison agrees with him as do the Foreign Office and Ministry of War Transport. The views of the Department and WSA are urgently requested.