561.35E1A/1443b: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
Washington, June 9,
1944—midnight.
4595. For Steere from Hawkins. British Embassy has requested an expression of Department’s views regarding extension of the sugar agreement. Specific questions were:
- (1)
- Whether this Government favors renewal. Answer was yes, subject to informal clearance with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. Department expects to inform Senator Connally soon of our intention to renew the agreement for 1 year with reservations suggested by the British. Since a bill is now before Congress to extend the Sugar Act of 1937 for 2 years,9 and since the British reservations would, in any case, render the agreement inoperative, there should be no possibility of conflict between the agreement and domestic legislation, and therefore no reason to anticipate Congressional opposition to renewal. However, for your confidential information, if Senator Connally should advise that the protocol of renewal be submitted for Senate ratification, the Department may decide to permit the agreement to lapse. Submission for formal ratification is considered inadvisable, since attention would undoubtedly be directed to the fact that the 1942 protocol10 was not submitted for [Page 994] ratification and the Department might be placed in an embarrassing position.
- It was because of the questionable legal status of the agreement that the Department was willing to see it lapse (see Department’s 2331 of March 25) provided it were replaced by some new arrangement assuring non-preferential sugar producers treatment as favorable as that which they receive under the present agreement. Apparently the intent of the Department’s telegram was not entirely clear on this point. Your reply, telegram 3159 of April 19 [18], was interpreted here to mean that the British actively favored continuance of the agreement and that our counter-proposal had not been discussed with them. The British Embassy’s precise information regarding the nature of our proposal suggests that our 2331 may have been used as a basis for urging the British to change their position and declare for renewal. Please advise.
- (2)
- Whether we would agree to the reservations suggested by the British and reported in our 4133 of May 24. Reply was yes.
- (3)
- Whether the statement you conveyed to the British regarding the desirability of assurances that non-preferential areas not be asked to bear an undue share of the burden of readjustment after the war might be interpreted to mean that the agreement would be used to stabilize the status quo at the end of the war. Reply was that, on the contrary, our intent was merely to assure the expanded areas treatment as favorable as that which they received before the war.
- (4)
- Question was also raised as to whether our decision to favor renewal had been taken in the setting of the general analysis of your conversations with the British in London. We replied that the decision to renew was taken by the Department independently, but that, so far as we are aware, there is no divergence of viewpoint between the Department and our Embassy regarding renewal.
In order further to clarify this latter point, Department suggests that you report somewhat more fully the nature of your conversations with the British.
Department will advise you promptly of the outcome of conversations with Senator Connally. [Hawkins.]
Stettinius