865.48/4–1547: Telegram
The Ambassador in Italy (Dunn) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
810. Reliable ranking Italian official reported in confidence that Sereni,1 Communist Minister Public Works privately admitted to a Christian Democrat Minister that Communist Party is opposed to post-UNRRA aid to Italy from US for reason that it creates friendship and strengthens ties between the two countries. However, Togliatti and other leaders reportedly prefer that party exert no outright opposition lest such action might encourage the US to give even more relief. In other words, party cannot afford publicly to oppose US aid.
It is not clear whether line of action will be to play up role of Communist Party in obtaining and distributing US goods to workers, to use delaying tactics in making agreements, to foster dissipation or wasting of relief grant by foolish expenditures or wasteful distribution, or to maneuver US into position where difficulties in delivery could be blamed on US.
Apparent food policy of Cerreti,2 Communist High Commissioner for Food, is to institute differential rationing, to issue food packages [Page 883] to workers as well as pensioners and indigent, to lower prices, and to reduce luxury consumption. It appears also that he and his party favor elimination or reduction of amassing controls as an appeal to farmers and/or as an indirect means of discouraging US aid. Former Under Secretary of Agriculture, Spano,3 also Communist, reportedly denounced publicly the amassing program in speeches to warn [farm?] groups.
Cerreti has reportedly reorganized Commissariat to include section to handle food packages and has asked Federconsorzia4 to organize along similar lines with budget of two billion lire annually.
De Gasperi reportedly scolded Cerreti for proceeding with food package proposal (Embtel 780, of April 11, 19475) without prior approval. Cerreti said proposal was strongly favored by UNRRA and acceptable to US Embassy. Contrary to his purported statement neither UNRRA nor Embassy has expressed opinion.
Embassy has not yet been presented with complete food package proposal but on basis preliminary information submitted disadvantages appear to outweigh advantages. De Gasperi is said to oppose proposal. Main defects appear to be (a) the expense in dollars for processing and packaging; (b) the utilization of US labor for work that could be performed by Italian unemployed; (c) the shifting of the entire food relief burden for specified classes on the US while freeing a portion of Italian indigenous food from control; (d) the distribution of certain processed food items not normally consumed and not always wanted by Italian consumers (i.e. margarine and canned milk); and (e) the possibility of distribution of packages to workers through Communist-controlled organizations.
On the other hand, the advantages seem to be: (a) broadening the base of rationing to the commodities and thereby providing a well-rounded diet for needy and productive classes; (b) easy and quick distribution permitting rapid transfer from one area to another; (c) giving possibility of tighter controls and more easy observation of distribution; (d) possibility of US labels on each package for publicity purposes.
Sent to Department 810, repeated to Moscow as 48.
- Emilio Sereni.↩
- Giulio Cerreti.↩
- Velio Spano, Under Secretary in the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forests in the second De Gasperi cabinet, July 1946–January 1947.↩
- Federconsorzia, Federation of Syndicates or Unions.↩
- Not printed; it described the plan for food packages for low-income groups proposed to the Embassy by officials of the Italian High Commission for Alimentation, with the United States supplying up to 10 million completely assembled packages per month which presumably were to be requested as part of the post-UNRRA aid program. The Embassy did not endorse the proposal but asked for full details. (865.5018/4–1147)↩