560.AL/5–1646: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
secret
London, May 16, 1946—8
p.m.
[Received May 16—5:34 p.m.]
5202. For Wilcox and Brown from Hawkins. The following memorandum handed us
by Liesching this afternoon is official British reply, approved by
Ministers, to our proposed plan for trade meetings:
- “(a) We fully appreciate the
circumstances in which the US Government have proposed this new
programme and accept the necessity to postpone the detailed
discussions on tariffs until March 1947. We share their desire
to keep interest alive and make some progress in the meantime.
But, having undertaken to use our best endeavours to bring the
discussions to a successful conclusion, we feel bound to say
that, in our view the new programme in its entirety would not
serve to further this object.
- “(b) We see considerable advantage in a
meeting of the Preparatory Committee (lasting preferably not
more than 4, and certainly not more than 6 weeks) for the
purpose of (I) exchanging views and removing any doubts about
the intentions of the American proposals, (II) of expounding the
considerations which led up to the joint statement by the US and
the UK which was issued on their publication on the 6th
December, and (III) of enlisting support of the principle of a
worldwide reduction of trade barriers.
- “(c) On the other hand, we see no merit
in the proposed drafting sub-committee. We do not see how such a
sub-committee could do any
[Page 1324]
useful work. Either there would be
constant reservations which would thwart hopes of positive
progress or some degree of commitment would be involved for
which governments would not be ready until commitments on actual
tariff reductions were also under negotiation, that is to say
until the ‘drafting’ countries meet in March. Indeed, if for
such reasons governments were led to take firm positions on
points of difficulty, we feel that the establishment of a
drafting sub-committee might positively impede the successful
outcome of the later conference.
- “(d) Moreover, we consider that July is
too soon for the meeting of the Preparatory Committee. Owing to
the close connection between the published proposals on
commercial policy and the financial position we, for our part,
could not attend a meeting of the Preparatory Committee
appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations until Congress has acted on the financial agreement, and
we consider that 6 weeks’ notice should be given, in order that
members of the Preparatory Committee may have time to make the
necessary arrangements to attend.
- “(e) Our view is, therefore, that a
decision on the date of the meeting of the Preparatory Committee
should be deferred. Provided Congress has acted on the financial
agreement in time, the aim should be to hold a meeting early in
the autumn. We should have been inclined to suggest September,
but as meetings in the United States of the General Assembly of
the United Nations and of the Economic and Social Council have
already been arranged for the 1st September, the 1st October
appears to us to be the earliest practicable date.
- “(f) We consider it extremely
desirable, for reasons which we feel sure are appreciated by the
US Government, that the proposed meeting should be held in
Europe (preferably in London or Geneva).
- “(g) Meanwhile, we welcome their
proposal that we and they should continue to have informal
exchanges of views with other countries such as have already
served to remove misunderstandings and to promote the ideas
which both countries share.”
