711.9327/11–2046: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)

1066. CAB and Dept agree (Urtel 1916 Nov 2D) retention Chinese route 3 and omission Seattle.

Draft agreement summarized your 1916 Nov 20 and exchange of letters now generally satisfactory, but in preparing latest draft in contemplation press release Dept calls attention to following points on which clarification desired so we may have precise language. Ur 1436 Sept 7 subpara 3 para 5 gives language to be added Art 10, which previously followed Art 10 Chicago standard form. Art 10 language your 1436 Sept 7 satisfactory by itself but not in addition to Art 10 Chicago. If latter included this would conflict with 4-year period stated Art 11. Therefore recommend deletion Chicago Art 10 if this not already done, leaving Art 10 language your 1436 remain by itself.
Ur 1471 Sept 12 said Depts suggestion had been followed in converting pertinent parts Chicago standard form to bilateral language, but we still lack precise language Art 3. Our usual bilateral language this art reads “operating rights which may have been granted previously by either of the contracting parties to an airline of the other contracting party shall continue in force according to their terms” and we prefer this if Chinese agreeable. However, if Chinese insist on original Chicago form first reference to “any” should be changed to “either”.
References to US and China in preamble should be revised to read US of America and Republic of China.
In Art 8 suggest addition “or its successor” after PICAO.48
Para B your 1738 Oct 25 says Art 12 Bermuda will be included as Art 10 Chinese agreement, which Dept interprets as addition to Art 10 set forth your 1436 Sept 7. Since there is no close relation to latter, suggest Art 12 Bermuda become new Art 11, and present Arts 11 and 12 renumbered accordingly. Possibly this already done, as your 1916 Nov 20 refers to 13 arts. Also, para B your 1738 Oct 25 mentions “the term aeronautical authority, etc.” which should be “authorities” instead. Although not clear from your 1738 Oct 25, presume “and any person or body authorized to perform functions presently exercised, etc.” will also apply to Minister Communications as well as CAB.

Advise final action taken re above points although Dept does not desire conclusion agreement delayed or prejudiced, and therefore leaves your discretion necessity raising them again with Chinese.

[Page 1259]

Do Chinese object publication exchange of letters (Para F your 1916 Nov 20)? If so, presume no objection making contents known on confidential basis to interested US airlines.

  1. Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization.