612.113/267a
The Department of State to the Mexican Embassy
Memorandum
The Government of the United States has noted with great regret the recent action of the Mexican Government, as published in the Diario Oficial of December 18, 1943, in providing for a sweeping upward revision of Mexican tariff rates, to become effective January 18, 1944. It is of course recognized that none of the duty increases appears to affect items included in Schedule I of the trade agreement between the United States and Mexico.57 Nevertheless, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the action taken is contrary to the spirit of the agreement, and it is a source of deep concern that, at a time when every effort should be made to reduce barriers to trade looking toward a necessary expansion of international commerce after the war, the Government of Mexico has seen fit to institute a program of duty increases which will affect adversely the trade between the two countries.
If this action was taken primarily with a view to diversifying and stimulating the industrial development of Mexico, it must be pointed out that while the Government of the United States has adopted a sympathetic attitude toward, and has cooperated in, such development, this has assumed it being on a sound economic basis without high tariff protection.
In a larger sense, this action of the Mexican Government is contrary to the broad United Nations post-war objectives for reduction of trade barriers both as a desirable end in itself and as a necessary contribution to a solution of the basic problem of international security. Sweeping increases in tariffs and other trade barriers by one country create a very real danger of similar actions by other countries, which can finally result in international trade warfare.
- For text of the reciprocal trade agreement signed at Washington, December 23, 1942, see Department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 311, or 57 Stat. (pt. 2) 833. For correspondence concerning the negotiation of this agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. vi, pp. 489 ff.↩