394.31/9–2851: Telegram
The United States ( GATT ) Delegation to the Secretary of State
Tagg 45. Summary No. 9. In presentation Czech position opposing declaration proposed by US on suspension GATT obligation, Czech del made following statements: (1) problem, which much wider than trade, one CPs not competent to judge; (2) US violating basic internatl agreements and internatl law; (3) US requesting legal decision without legal basis; (4) US allegations re nullification unproved; (5) para 2 US proposed declaration unfounded since Czech had made no declaration that US had nullified benefits. Much of speech diatribe on “US crusade against USSR and People’s Republic” and US pressure on other states, citing Battle Bill and present unprecedented pressure on CPs on Czech item. This contrasted with Czech choice of constructive “road to peace” and econ stability and with noninterference of polit matters in council econ mutual assistance in which no question of pressure.
Fr del expressed regret situation had arisen and view of many that this very serious problem to all CPs especially since first time asked to take such action which might set precedent. Felt no art of GATT cld be applied but that wider principle internatl law applicable since exceptional general circumstances exist in the impairment whole advantage both parties expected to accrue under agreement. Under these circumstances, considered US draft declaration good. Also spoke refuting Czech charges. Although regretting situation, UK felt nothing gained [Page 1421] by failing recognize situation that exists and that declaration suitable solution to difficult situation confronting CPs.
Cuba and Italy spoke in support US proposal. Belg suggestion that Art XXVII might apply refuted by Philip (Fr) who pointed out neither US nor Czech have ceased to be CP since each remains CP with respect to others. India and Greece denied vigorously the charge that they submitted to US pressure.
With respect to Czech charges, Thorp declined to take time to disprove all, confining himself to two points as examples that whole story not told. Thorp felt no further statement necessary for CPs to reach judgment on one fact we asked be determined—that exceptional circumstances exist which nullify benefits of agreement. He pointed out that Czech del had been convincing witness in proving case for proposal. This testimony, in addition to Thorp’s, indicated clearly that exceptional circumstances exist.
Czech rejection decision and request of CPs in Tagg 42.1
In explaining abstentions, Burma and Indonesia said they lacked instrs. Dan del stated abstention centered on doubts regarding art under which action taken. Dan experts felt solution cld be found under Art XXIII. This supported by Sweden.
Friday’s plenary to consider relations between GATT and ECOSOC balance of payments restrictions, and exchange agreements.
- September 28, 11 a. m., infra.↩