840.70/12–944: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
10401. For EITO Delegation, reEmbs 10870, December 8,29 and 10927, December 9. Is it proposed to include in agreement a definition of “inland vessels” in order to avoid future questions of interpretation? Would inland vessels cover all types which might be adapted for inland waterways, for example, smaller military landing craft such as LCT’s, LCP’s or other such smaller military types?
Department suggests new section 6, Article VIII (reEmbs 10870) be strengthened by directly tying it in with Article VII, sections 6 and 7 as set forth in November 11 draft agreement,30 in the same manner as old section 5 of Article VIII and suggests optional annex (reEmbs 10927) be prefaced with some statement which would clearly indicate that annex is designed to implement pertinent sections of Articles VII and VIII.
Department does not believe this Government should sign annex, because (a) military interests appear adequately protected by main agreement if above amendments accepted, and (b) U.S. does not contemplate operation of a commercial inland waterway fleet. It is assumed that adherence at a later date would be permitted if circumstances warranted. Do military agree?
Department assumes that in November 11 draft agreement the new section following section 11 of Article VII applies to all types of “international transport”, including rail, highway and inland waterways. Therefore, to avoid future misunderstandings it would be preferable to insert new section after section 13 of Article VII if this can be done as a drafting change without raising it as an issue.