394.31/2—851: Telegram
The Temporary Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Torquay Conference (Phelps) to the Secretary of State
niact
414. USTAC. Pass ECA/W.
1. First meeting WP to select items for MN’s met February 7, went through lists presented by countries mentioned ourtel 404, paragraph 2, (repeated Paris 35, London 188, Rome 6) plus Austrian and Danish lists, asking, for each item, whether any members WP objected. On objection, item was rejected. All items were rejected except 65.03 B 1 A, men’s hats, 84.56 A calculating machines, all cutlery items on German list and photographic and movie products on Benelux list, ourtel 404.
2. Austria list: (Brussels’ nomenclature code) EX 48.01 K–1 smooth paper, 58.12 C embroidery of artificial fibers, 58.12 E embroidery of cotton, 60.05 B woolen clothing, 65.03 B 1 A men’s hats, 69.06 C refractory bricks, 73.42 A 2 screws, nuts, bolts, etc., EX 82.01 C sickles.
3. Denmark listed certain cheeses.
4. At end of review Blankenstein (chair) questioned whether few items accepted were significant enough to justify multilaterals Torquay. Concluded members objected in many cases because they were not sure by what method list would be used. Proposed to report to main [Page 1344] group in this sense and to propose to main group, therefore, to proceed with examination his original proposal re methods and principles, as incorporated in Benelux papers. He could see no objection to proceeding thereafter, if time, to further effort limited MN’s. This was accepted without objection.
5. US (Schwenger, Macgowan, Blick)1 made no statement. Had neither urtel 356 nor Brown’s telephone report House action February 7.2
6. Some noteworthy features of meeting:
- a.
- UK, Italy represented by lower level people than in main group (Italy, Gardini,3UK, Huggins).4 UK representative uninstructed. Since Blankenstein proposed procedure as to whether objections, question arose whether lack of objection meant willingness reduce rates on condition others did likewise. This forced UK state position that selection items did not commit his government in any way, lack of objection meant merely UK was willing to study whether possible reduce, he might be able indicate more difficult cases, but UK would be willing to study any item. On cheese, he pointed out problem supplies from Commonwealth would make particularly difficult (El-worthy,5 Ministry of Agriculture, was present with him).
- b.
- Most items perfunctorily rejected by only one objection without explanation. Italian, France main objectors.
- c.
- On automobiles, the three major countries, UK, Germany and France did not indicate objection (except general qualification UK reported above). Since this was early item, Italian objection was probed somewhat. Italian stated present tariff minimum necessary level avoid drastic injury domestic industry (Italian rate highest).
- d.
- In the case of textiles, France (Larre) pushed hard for MN discussion on ground item was significant and sufficiently diverse provide benefits all participating countries. Admitted improbability results Torquay, but emphasized such discussion more useful than limited MN’s present accepted items. Germany, supported Benelux, objected because item too complicated to complete Torquay, had to deal with entire textile and fiber list together.
- e.
- Austria generally constructive. Suggested cuts on items difficult Austria (e.g. certain textiles) might be possible if simultaneously other countries cut on items helpful Austria (e.g. paper products).
7. View foregoing, Schwenger, Blick, MacGowan judge better results possible than indicated Blankenstein conclusion. Possible this was a perfunctory exercise to prove to us impossibility limited MN’s Torquay. Any results will require major effort because our appraisal practically all OEEC countries Torquay oppose success limited MN’s, France desires effort confident failure and thereby strengthen position [Page 1345] for European preferential talks Paris, Italy fears cuts, but considers preferential talks can give immigration concessions and others to compensate, Benelux, Scandinavia fear MN’s here, will prevent agreement principles MN’s later—indifferent whether MN or preferential, UK, see previous telegrams.
8. Have informed Blankenstein these impressions and instructions to push. His instructions not to permit limited MN’s interfere discussion methods and principles, not yet effectively begun. He plans proceed Hague Saturday return Torquay late Wednesday.
9. We are considering possible US statement urging more thorough effort. Welcome suggestions.
10. We consulted McKinnon6 on this and related question date extension. He is keeping Wilgress informed, feels latter should return Torquay prevent breakdown both bilaterals and MN’s. Suggested we phone Wilgress. Will do when we have date extension instructions.
11. Will telephone Brown7 9:30 tonight Torquay time.
Sent niact Department 414, repeated information Paris 37 (for OSR), London 191, Rome 8.
- Harold P. Macgowan and Milton H. Blick were members of the U.S. Delegation to the Torquay Conference for the Department of Commerce and the Economic Cooperation Administration, respectively.↩
- On February 7 the United States House of Representatives had passed the Trade Agreements Extension Act with important amendments.↩
- Dr. Walter Gardini, member of the Italian Delegation.↩
- Mr. K. Huggins, member of the British Delegation.↩
- Miss J. Elworthy of the British Delegation.↩
- H. B. McKinnon, Chairman of the Canadian Tariff Board, Deputy Leader of the Canadian Delegation, and Head of the Canadian Negotiating Team.↩
- Winthrop G. Brown, Director of the Office of International Trade Policy.↩