103.9169/12–1644: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
10495. From Department and FEA, reurtel 11088, December 14, repeated to Stockholm as 837. We agree with your suggestion, reference point (d).
Suggested change in point (c) also acceptable (reference telegram and your 11117, December 15,36 repeated to Stockholm as 841). A separate letter to cover this point would be acceptable if Swedes object to putting it in agreement. London’s understanding as stated in 11117 is correct.
Point (e). We suggest following clause: “To continue in force measures already instituted to implement Bretton Woods Resolution number VI and to institute such other measures as are necessary for this purpose.” We believe “consider favorably” does not necessarily imply acceptance of principle of Resolution VI, or any obligation to undertake measures even though they may be admittedly necessary to carry out its purpose. In reference to suggestions made in Stockholm’s 1652, December 13 to London (to Washington as 510536) we believe that general statement of this nature would be satisfactory for the present, leaving way open for detailed discussion of further [Page 678] measures envisaged in this clause. We would appreciate Stockholm’s comments on this point.
Reference point 2. We cannot agree to en bloc approval of export program to Norway and Denmark. Any such exports should be referred to JSC on ad hoc basis. We will give instructions to JSC members following receipt of information regarding proposed end use for these exports. In general, assuming end uses are unobjectionable, we are prepared to view such exports sympathetically, particularly those having a humanitarian objective. Similar consideration would be given relief shipments to Poland and Netherlands. We have always assumed that Norway and Denmark were included in definition of Germany and Axis Europe. This is specifically stated in existing War Trade Agreement.
Subject to above considerations we consider the proposed agreement acceptable and see no reason why it should not be concluded now, conditioned upon satisfactory agreement on shipping pool. If there are any reasons for delaying conclusion of agreement of which we are unaware, we desire to be apprised of them promptly and in meantime we see no objection to the suggestion that each of the parties act as though the agreement were in force as suggested in reference telegram.
We assume that agreement will read as contained in your 1103238 (repeated to Stockholm as 826) as modified by reference telegram and our suggested (e) above. If there are any textual changes please clear with us.
Sent to London repeated to Stockholm as Department’s 2535, Dec. 16. [Department and FEA.]