The Chargé in Venezuela (Dawson) to the Secretary of State


34. Urtel 15, Jan 9, 4 p.m.44 Re IDPLC action relative Haucks and Blohm. Embassy’s thinking predicated in all those cases on (1) prestige list is suffering from our inability to police trade strictly and [Page 1324](2) that we actually gain much more prestige by forcing parties accept terms of control (which as Venezuelans they consider humiliating) than allowing present situation to continue deteriorate. If these cases ride out storm without any concrete disciplinary action on our part and become automatically restored in market when PL is withdrawn, general consensus will be they have put one over on us. …

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Blohm and Haucks did not come to Embassy entirely their own volition but because Foreign Minister45 told them they must come to agreement with Commission and US. If we flatly reject these cases, Minister and Commission may well feel they have exhausted attempts to enlist our cooperation in solution problems affecting Venezuelan nationals (see despatch 8196, Dec 1846). Embassy does not consider Blohm and Hauck hard core cases and in October received agreement from Dept to delete without imposing any controls; deletion was deferred owing local political situation now clarified.

Embassy is not in position pleading these cases but request serious reconsideration in view above points. British will not oppose.

  1. Not printed.
  2. Carlos Morales.
  3. Not printed.