561.35E1A/1424: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:50 p.m.]
393. From Delegate to Sugar Council.2 Embassy’s 6118 [6618], October l.3 Embassy is advised by well informed source that British Government has decided it wishes to see present international sugar agreement terminated and its place taken by an international committee with limited advisory powers. The idea is to proceed along lines recently followed with the Rubber Agreement.4
It is understood that HMG intends to communicate a proposal, or at least views, on these lines to our Government in the near future, but that prior thereto the Australian and South African Governments will be informed of the British attitude and presumably consulted.
Department will note from Embassy’s despatch 12083, November 5,3 that question of prolongation of Sugar Agreement may be raised at any time, possibly at next Council meeting. In such event your delegate will need appropriate instructions. In this connection the Chairman of Council today communicated his personal view that Agreement should be continued in present status, without temporary changes, until participating countries decide its post-war role. Upon his specific inquiry about American attitude on prolongation (it is understood he is also inquiring of certain other delegates) your representative [Page 990] resentative stated our views were still as given at Council meeting September 30.6
Embassy is confidentially informed that decision mentioned in first paragraph above was taken under strong pressure from individual officials and certain Ministries including the Ministry of Supply, whose influence seems to be growing, who are opposed to continuing British participation in international commodity regulation schemes. [Steere.]
- Loyd V. Steere, Agricultural Attaché in London.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See pp. 950 ff.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Extract from Minutes of September 30 meeting: “Mr. Steere said that the United States recognised the value of the Sugar Agreement and felt that it had its place in postwar arrangements, but thought that to extend it for an additional year in its present form at this moment might prejudice desirable adjustments. He thought that the Agreement could be extended at relatively short notice. He suggested therefore that there should be a record in the Minutes that the Council had discussed the question of the prolongation of the Agreement, but had agreed not to take a decision before the end of the year when the question could be raised formally.” (561.35E1A/1420)↩