561.35E1A/1444: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Wintmt) to the Secretary of State
[Received 2:25 p.m.]
4714. For Hawkins from Steere. Embassy’s [Department’s] 4595, June 9. Department’s 2331 of March 25, midnight, was understood [Page 995] as indicating that Department considered weight of arguments pro and con as definitely on the side of renewal of Sugar Agreement in present form and that we favored such renewal, but that if it should be terminated we would desire a substitute arrangement giving assurances on post-war arrangements and non-preferential producers, as stated in second paragraph of telegram. All its points were presented discursively with the aim of securing agreement with our views, with results as communicated in Embassy’s 3159 of April 18 and 3961, May 16. The Department’s stipulations in regard to post-war arrangements and non-preferential producers were not understood as a counter-proposal to be discussed as such with the British. The word “proposal” in the final sentence of telegram, in fact, was understood to refer to the “proposed sugar advisory committee” (at beginning of same paragraph) which it was then understood the British had it in mind to advocate. Kindly see Embassy’s 4713, June 13, 9 a.m.11 regarding fuller reply to cable. [Steere.]
- Not printed; it was from the Ambassador in the United Kingdom, who reported his reasons for authorizing Steere to depart for Washington for consultations regarding tea, sugar, canned meat, and other agricultural questions then current (840.50 UNRRA/639).↩