Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

394.31/10–551: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States (GATT) Delegation

confidential

Washington, October 5, 1951—2:14 p. m.

Gatt 71. Re Sec 104. Position paper (D–249)¹ pouched Wed Oct 3 contains fol recommendations: 1. USDel shld request postponement discussion of matter as relates US GATT obligations pending outcome repeal action. 2. US shld, however, indicate willingness to discuss any specific problems from application Sec 104 and to consult individually as under Art XXII and Art XXIII para 1. Some consultations already held in Wash since enactment. Further consultations wld be facilitated if also held in Wash with US officials incl those responsible for admin Sec 104.

TAC approved recommendations subj fol interpretation of recommendation two: Not intended to forestall discussions by USDel in Geneva if under such pressure that in good faith Del has to conduct consultations. Del shld realize, since admin quotas [sic] in Wash, most effective place for representations wld be Wash.²

Minor textual changes being pouched.

[Here follows item on another matter.]

Webb

1. Doc. TAC–D–249/51, October 1, 1951, not printed. This was a position paper for the instruction of the United States Delegation to the Sixth Session of the Contracting Parties at Geneva, approved by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Trade Agreements (TAC). It was entitled “United States Position on Import Controls under Section 104 of the Defense Production Act of 1950”, as amended. The first two pages of the paper were a confidential instruction to the Delegation, the gist of which is summarized in this telegram. The rest of the paper consisted of a 13-page attachment setting forth in detail recent United States import control legislation with particular reference to the application of controls under Section 104, accompanied by much and detailed tabular information.

   Two statements are of interest. In the last paragraph (paragraph numbered 6) of the two-page instruction, TAC admonished:

   • “6. In pointing out the efforts made to get Congress to repeal Section 104, the Delegation should not, however, suggest that this would mean the end of import controls for all the commodities now being controlled under Section 104. They should bear in mind that some of these controls might be reimposed under other legislative provisions such as Section 101 of the Defense Production Act, Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or under the Escape Clause provisions of the Trade Agreements Extension Act.”

   In the informational part of the paper under the section headed “Cheese”, the following occurs:

   • “As regards the inclusion of cheese within the provisions of Section 104, it may be noted that the recent substantial increase in imports of most types of cheese in combination with the recent decreases in United States production of most types of cheese, and the possibility that the Department of Agriculture would have to purchase substantial supplies of cheddar cheese under the price support program, would, in the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, bring about one or more of the results set forth in Section 104.”

2. A handwritten notation on the title page of the position paper reads: “Approved by TAC 10/4 (as recommendations interpreted by Chairman and accepted by Agriculture)”. (GATT Files, Lot 66 D 209, Box 454, “Position Papers Gatt VI”)