394.31/3–351: Telegram
The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Torquay Conference (Corse) to the Secretary of State
niact
497. 1. With one exception noted below, MN group at tenth meeting reached agreement on text of statement to be addressed to chairman of CP’s in connection with forthcoming special session. UK dissented, presenting alternative, which is being transmitted in separate telegram.1 Canada maintained observer role.
2. Understanding with Dutch and French up to time of tenth meeting had been that US need not subscribe to proposed statement. Immediately before meeting, however, it developed that Dutch are now anxious for US to subscribe. Obvious purpose is to clinch US support for discussion of problem in OEEC. Moreover, likelihood continued Scandinavian adherence to approach would be greatly increased if US subscribed.
3. US representative informed Dutch and later informed meeting that, on basis of his general instructions, he believed US could subscribe to statement with one alteration. Paragraph 4 below shows complete text statement as proposed by Dutch. Paragraph 5 below shows amendment proposed by US.
4. “Delegates representing following countries at Torquay (names of countries) have met in order exchange views about results in field of European tariffs which can be expected from bilateral negotiations taking place Torquay. Undersigned arrived at following conclusions:
“At present moment, Torquay tariff negotiations have been completed. Accordingly, premature to make final judgment as to effects such negotiations upon structure of European tariffs. It is to be anticipated that the significant tariff reductions and bindings which will result from these negotiations, when added to results achieved at Annecy and Geneva, will have made measurable contributions to reduction of European tariff barriers as whole.
“It is not too early to conclude however, that tariff reductions achieved at Torquay will not be of such scope and magnitude as to represent substantial step in creation single market in Europe.
“Some delegates made it clear that in their opinion reduction of disparities and leveling European tariffs would be limited by existing disparities in social and economic structure and special conditions of countries concerned. Other delegations admitted it would not be realistic lose sight of these circumstances and therefore absolute equality of European tariffs not immediately feasible. They felt nevertheless that much more could be achieved in reduction existing disparities, [Page 1360] which are stated in preamble to decision OEEC Council 27 October 1950 to constitute obstacle to achievement single European market.
“Undersigned recognized that although methods heretofore applied in negotiations within GATT had proved their worth, these methods had not been designed with purpose of achieving single European market. They agreed there existed problem of disparity European tariffs and that WP of GATT should be created to make attempt to deal with it. For these reasons they have adopted following:
- “(A) They request chairman CP’s to convene special session at Torquay to create inter-sessional WP.
- “(B) They suggest WP be composed of CP’s or acceding governments which are associated with OEEC, and that WP be authorized to invite other CP’s not OEEC member countries to take part in work.
- “(C) They suggest terms of reference of WP should be following:
- “(i) WP would consider proposals of any member for multilateral or other procedures designed to contribute to reduction of disparities in European tariffs, taking into account to extent necessary the disparities in economic and social structure of different countries, and to provide means of obtaining compensation from other members of GATT for consequent tariff reductions.
- “(ii) WP would develop such other tariff proposals as it deemed appropriate in light objectives OEEC and decisions OEEC Council.
- “(iii) WP would report to sixth session on progress made and would submit for consideration of CP’s at this session such proposals as might require action by CP’s in accordance with provisions of agreement.
- “(D) They suggest that WP should meet, subject to call of its chairman, at such places as it may determine.
- “(E) They further suggest that Executive Secretary should be instructed make appropriate arrangement for cooperation with Sec Gen OEEC.
- “(F) For reasons set out in preamble, undersigned were of the opinion that it would be of vital importance for their work that WP be informed of opinion of Council of OEEC as to method, scope and general outline along which existing disparities in leveling European tariffs could be reduced. They therefore suggest that chairman CP’s transmit present resolution to Sec Gen OEEC for its information.”
5. US suggested that opening words of first sentence paragraph (F) above be stricken and recast so sentence would read as follows:
- “(F) Undersigned recognize that task of OEEC has central relation to work of proposed WP and accordingly consider it most important that WP be informed, etc.”
6. Re proposed change, US explained that original version left strong presumption that WP would be unable proceed without prior direction OEEC. US representative believed this did not accurately reflect his government. While valuing views of OEEC and believing [Page 1361] WP’s work could be expedited and expanded by appropriate decisions in OEEC, US nevertheless felt WP might achieve useful results even if OEEC failed to act.
7. Appreciate earliest confirmation or modification position described above. Although next, possibly last, meeting MN group not scheduled until Wednesday next [March 7], instructions needed as guide for prior negotiation on language with Dutch.
Sent Department 497, niact Paris 52 for OSR, and repeated information Rome 16.
- Infra.↩