Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

840.50/12–744: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State

London, December 7, 1944—8 p.m.
[Received 8:30 p.m.]

10831. ReDepts [ReEmbs] 10497, November 28. Hawkins, Penrose and Steere¹⁷ held an informal conversation today with Liesching, Eady,¹⁸ Ferguson,¹⁹ Robbins and Shackle on commercial policy matters.

1. Liesching expressed regret that a number of circumstances had arisen which had caused delay in going into these matters with us.

2. He referred to recent discussions in the House of Commons and said that they reflected doubts as to the ability of the United Kingdom to fit itself into a multilateral system in the peculiar circumstances in which the country would find itself immediately after the war. The people would not be quick to indulge in acts of faith. Questions were raised also, on which they would like elucidation, regarding the United States adoption of export subsidies (wheat and cotton). If [These?] difficulties and doubts applied particularly to the transition period, and since the talks in October 1943, they had come to the view that not enough attention had been given to transition problems.

3. The public has not been informed of the informal Article VII talks but thinks that pressures might have been exercised in regard to Imperial preferences and feared that preferences might have been singled out of a doctrine basis and given more importance than high tariffs. Parliamentary debates show what might be expected if it appeared that the United Kingdom were going to be “hustled” on Imperial preferences.

As regards agriculture he said that Ministers had taken the view that the assumptions made in the Washington talks were unacceptable and the techniques suggested there would not suffice. They might, therefore, suggest variations in the principles applicable to agriculture. It was necessary to prevent unlimited protection and preserve multilateralism, but at the same time to take care of stability and the political factors bound up with it. They felt also that account should be taken of the position of the European countries in framing recommendations, particularly from the standpoint of agricultural stability.

5. Hawkins gave an oral outline of the proposed clauses on full employment in the preamble of the draft text of the proposed multilateral convention. He said that this and any other verbal summaries that he might give corresponded to a draft text²⁰ that had been under consideration at the official level in ECEFP. The reaction to this statement was wholly favorable. Eady was particularly impressed with it and said that it was not a mere “persuasive statement” but brought out the purpose of such measures as were necessary, clearly affirmed the principle of international responsibility and gave a “sort of right to appeal”. Robbins said there were fears in the House of Commons that full employment had not been taken into account in postwar international economic plans.

6. Liesching raised the question of a minimum preference and indicated that he would want to return to the subject at a later stage. An escape clause along the lines of article XVII of the draft submitted to the Executive Committee seemed to be regarded favorably.

7. It is planned to continue this conversation in a day or two and we expect that more controversial points will be reached. Liesching has agreed to indicate to us the direction of British thinking on the various questions.

Winant

17. Loyd V. Steere. Agricultural Attaché American Embassy at London.
18. Sir Wilfred Eady, Additional Second Secretary, British Treasury.
19. Presumably Sir Donald Fergusson, Permanent Secretary, British Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
20. Not printed.