711.9327/9–946: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)
732. For attention Powell. Provisions of tentative agreement generally satisfactory Urtel 1436 Sept 7 subject to following comments:
Your numbered para 5 (a) says body of agreement to be standard form contained Chicago Final Act. This language was drafted on multilateral basis and it is assumed you have converted it to bilateral language such as used in our pre-Bermuda bilaterals with Scandinavian countries, Ireland, etc. Also presume there will be preamble similar to aforementioned bilaterals. Suggest deletion of para corresponding 2B of Chicago form since it is unnecessary and somewhat contradictory to latter part Chicago para 1. Para 3 Chicago form believed unnecessary in Chinese bilateral, on assumption China had not previously granted rights to any US airlines. In event Chicago para 3 deleted, presume subsequent paras (articles) would be renumbered. Confirm foregoing suggestions. It would be helpful if you could refer to present sequence and exactness of articles by comparison with one of pre-Bermuda bilaterals which you have with you.
CAB prefers Article 7 read as follows:
“Substantial ownership and effective control of airlines of each contracting party authorized under this agreement shall be vested in nationals of that party. Each contracting party reserves the right to withhold or revoke the certificate or permit of any airline of the other party in case of failure of such airline to comply with the laws of the State over which it operates, as described in Article 6 hereof, or otherwise to fulfill the conditions under which the rights are granted in accordance with this agreement and its annex.”
Article 9 acceptable.
Article 10 acceptable.
Re article 11 CAB prefers agreement remain in effect indefinitely even if terminable on 6 months notice. However if Chinese insist on 4 year period, first sentence should read “This agreement shall continue in force for a period of 4 years, or until it may be superseded in order to conform with a general multilateral air transport convention which may enter into force in relation to both contracting parties.” Last part last sentence Article 11 should be revised to read: “…27 to allow for consultation between the contracting parties.”
New article 12 should read:
“This agreement, including the provisions of the Annex hereto, will come into force on the day it is signed.
Done at Nanking this . . . . . day of . . . . . . . 1946 in duplicate in the English and Chinese languages, each of which shall be of equal authenticity.
[Page 1240]For the Government of the United States of America:
For the Government of the Republic of China:”
Foregoing assumes Chinese Govt will want one copy in Chinese. If not, above sentence should terminate after “in duplicate.”
Re US route 1, Dept and CAB still highly desirous getting Mukden. CAB also desires Nanking included in route 1 as well as continuing privilege of serving Peiping as alternate to Tientsin on certain schedules. Dept therefore desires you make additional try for Mukden, Nanking and Peiping but as last resort would not insist if agreement sacrificed, and provided Chinese letter includes para re Manchuria.
Route 2 satisfactory. On route 3 CAB suggests you try for Hankow as alternate to Canton so that TWA could serve Hankow on certain schedules and Canton on others.
Commercial stops described para A Annex would of course be revised to include whatever additional stops granted by Chinese. Be sure comma appears before “on the following routes” in both paras A and B of route Annex.
Subject to further info on route 1, Chinese routes 1, 2 and 3 approved by CAB, which is also willing add Los Angeles as alternate to San Francisco on Chinese route 2 in exchange for our desire serve Peiping and Hankow as alternates.
Proposed letter from Chinese to be presented on signing of agreement may of course need revision in light of foregoing comments. Please send revised text based on your further discussions with; Chinese on above points. Second para Chinese letter satisfactory, particularly since future use Hong Kong doubtful owing to inadequate airport.
Can Chinese letter be made public in connection with agreement?
Send future messages this subject in Confidential O.
- Omission indicated in the original.↩