394.31/1–3151: Telegram
The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Torquay Conference (Corse) to the Secretary of State
priority
386. USTAC. Department pass ECA/W.
1. Third private meeting to discuss the Blankenstein multilateral negotiations proposal held 30 January (reftels 371, 355 and 354).1 [Page 1334] Attendance: UK, France, Benelux, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy, Canada.
2. View apparent misunderstanding, US restated position re limitation on present tariff authority June 122 but US support without time limit effort facilitate integration through reduction European trade barriers in MFN but not preferential framework. Urged move fast view US willingness make appropriate concessions in light any intra-European results reached Torquay. Corse bringing text US statement.3
3. Britain (Holmes) questioned (a) US willingness stay Torquay after agreed closing date, (b) US capacity, even with renewed authority, contribute “in practical way” through concessions valuable to Europe. US replied (a) prepared stay if prospect success effort reduce some European barriers, (b) lack present formal tariff authority beyond June 12 should not support assumption that, if Europeans agree on significant measures advance for integration and welfare, US will lack capacity make valuable contribution.
4. Blankenstein proposed that to save time, (a) each country submit list of 2 or 3 items for meeting later in week, call working group then to select 5 to 10 items for limited Torquay multilaterals, (b) discussions proceed concurrently on principle and method (suggested base or Benelux papers). Stated agreement on principles and method, as well as limited multilaterals, might be completed Torquay before closing date March 22 but if necessary would agree 2 week extension.
5. Norway and Denmark supported Blankenstein proposal. Sweden, Germany, Austria and Canada known to concur basic proposal but did not speak. Chairman (Denmark) suggested meeting Thursday exclusively on 4 (a) above.
6. France suggested postpone submitting lists until after meeting (proposed Friday) to decide basis selection items, but indicated (for first time) willingness proceed view possibility thereby broadening Torquay scope. Suggested list should include tariff items listing country would lower if all other high tariff countries lowered same items.
7. Following arguments for delay or abandonment (made principally by UK, Italy):
- (a)
- Will delay and narrow Torquay bilaterals (made by UK, Italy, France, all of whom have continuously delayed bilaterals to point of jeopardizing their success. Blankenstein replied need to integrate and strengthen European economy more important than any particular method tariff negotiations.)
- (b)
- Is inappropriate Torquay because broader scope than tariffs and because European integration work centered Paris (by UK, Italy. Blankenstein refuted by reference OEEC October resolution transferring liberalization Torquay and by noting Benelux active role both Paris and Torquay.)
- (c)
- Requires long preparation and negotiation (UK said study required of statistical and historical material; Italy said study required of social and economic conditions in each country.)
- (d)
- Difficult agree on list (Blankenstein conceded limited list would not be entirely equitable view limited country interests but thought possible view prospect wider list post Torquay.)
- (e)
- Basically unsound approach to try to equalize tariffs—can’t afford at this period history (UK).
8. Next meeting scheduled Friday p. m., February 2, agenda not clear in light foregoing but may include (1) discussion how commodity lists should be prepared, (2) proposal of items by countries so wishing, (3) discussion of method and principles.
9. UK (supported by Italy) stated their attendance future meeting does not imply acceptance plan as whole or “limited exercise” Torquay. UK expressed “feeling we are being forced”.
10. After meeting, Blankenstein said informally could not envisage consummation successful limited multilateral negotiation Torquay view strong British resistance. Chairman (Denmark) expressed same general view. He suggested informal discussions with important delegations before Friday meeting if favorable results desired.
Sent Department 386, repeated information London 182, Paris 30 for OSR, Rome 3.
- Dated January 26 and January 17, pp. 1332 and 1326.↩
- This refers to the possible lapse of presidential authority to negotiate under the Trade Agreements Act, in the event of failure by Congress to extend the Act of 1949.↩
- Carl D. Corse, Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation, was proceeding to Washington for consultation.↩