611.9194/11–1054: Airgram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in India1
Subject:
- Air Agreement Problem
A-124. For: Ambassador Allen. On November 3 Dept and CAB received views Air Transport Association, TWA and PAA on best course USG action this problem.
Dept and CAB have now determined it to be desirable and urgent end US official silence this matter with immediate approach by you to GOI with aim attaining continuation U.S. carrier commercial services India on basis compatible with established world-wide US international air transport policy.
Dept and CAB convinced type and tactic of approach vitally important assure best chance realization U.S. aims. For this reason instructions this telegram provide for four distinct approaches which should be taken in sequence in course your handling this matter. Your first interview with GOI should be for purpose presenting Approach One. Approach Two should not be presented until considered GOI response is made to Approach One. Your advancement to other positions as required should be in same manner. Officials in GOI, level of approach, timing, and use of oral interviews, aides-mémoire, formal notes, [Page 1774] etc. left your discretion (subject penultimate paragraph) but should be made in best manner assure sympathetic examination each approach by GOI. Inform Dept if you perceive any disadvantages above procedure and following Approaches.
1. Approach One
In order to break ice GOI should be informed to effect US has carefully reviewed basic policy positions taken by GOI and USG during 1953 aviation consultation both in light of experience since then and in relation world-wide air transport policy of US. USG has concluded from this review that there appears to be very small prospect of reconciling basic policy positions at this time. In the light of this apparent impasse we desire to open door for GOI expression of its views regarding possible solutions of difficulty so as achieve common benefits of uninterrupted continuation air services under US–India air transport agreement signed 1946. USG believes it would be most unfortunate for Indo-US relations in many fields, particularly in cultural and commercial interchange, for there to come about cessation US airlines commercial flights India this time.
FYI. This approach should take the form of setting forth number of considerations supporting foregoing belief with hope that GOI will find them reasonable and a basis for continuation air service under 1946 Agreement. (Statement of these considerations is accompanying this communication.)2
To extent that you consider it effective, presentation should be made in written form in addition to oral presentation. This position designed obtain fullest possible statement current overall GOI attitude on problem and inform GOI of current USG views. Dept and CAB anxious have available current expressions GOI position soonest. Indications exist (Emb Desp 425)3 GOI prepared enter some kind “interim arrangement” and it is hoped obtain elaboration on this without giving impression that US willing enter arrangement incompatible with established US world-wide air policy. Bluntly, US desires GOI without apparent US stimulation to propose withdrawal of denunciation. Dept does not believe US should suggest GOI withdrawal of denunciation. End FYI.
2. Approach Two
Second approach at appropriate time might take form of suggestion that procedure for schedule changes be adopted for use accordance existing agreement. Carrier wishing increase schedules over a route segment into or through India would notify other government of proposed change 30 days advance effective date such change. Absence of [Page 1775] reaction during 30 day period would be interpreted as absence of objection. However, if govt. believed proposed service unwarranted under agreement it could so notify other govt. and service would go into effect for one year only, with understanding that either govt. may request consultations at end that year to determine whether service should continue. During year’s trial operation no other increase would be made over such segment without advance agreement two govts.
FYI. Above approach, proposed by TWA, not considered by Dept and CAB to be likely to appeal to Indians. TWA says it has reason to believe Indians disposed to accept proposal. Despite USG doubts if you, from own information and observance Indian reactions, believe presentation valuable you are authorized to use the position. If no value, or if even possible detriment involved, do not use.
Approach considered weak because under agreement as now understood by both governments no specific period of experience is required before capacity consultation can be requested. Therefore arrangement requiring period of one year before consultation is more stringent to GOI than existing agreement.
This approach may also be altered if necessary by reducing the year to not less than 6 months and/or by providing that dissatisfied govt. may definitely ask at beginning of service for consultation to commence at end of trial period, such consultation to be held unless request withdrawn. If consultation held service would continue during time of consultation. End FYI.
3. Approach Three
You should request GOI postpone date of effectiveness of denunciation air agreement. In return USG prepared agree US airlines operating under Agreement will not, during period postponement, increase frequencies without prior concurrence both govts. USG believes further experience international operations airlines India and US will bring closer together views of GOI and US on air transport policy matters.
FYI. If GOI agrees to postponement, you should try to make it at least one year. In your discretion you should restate as many of arguments provided in pouched instruction as appropriate. In addition, you should point out to GOI that in accepting this suggestion it is left in a position in which it does not have to be concerned about an increase in US carrier frequencies during postponement, while at same time Indian economy is not deprived of significant tourists and trade for which US carriers are directly or indirectly responsible. Moreover, termination notice would remain outstanding thus requiring further consideration of problem before the end of postponement period if US services are to be continued beyond that period. In your discretion you may inform GOI that this suggestion is considerable concession by USG in interest settlement. End FYI.
[Page 1776]4. Approach Four
In belief that GOI and USG understand each others’ positions on provisions of agreement on which there is dispute as well as reasons for these positions USG, after deepest reappraisal problem, makes following proposal with profoundest hope that GOI will accept it in mutual interest avoiding severance Indo-US commercial aviation relations. Proposal is that procedure for filing of schedules under Article VII (b) of agreement be revised so that if aeronautical authorities of one party object to an increase in existing service by an airline of other party, those authorities may immediately bring about intergovernmental consultation of type referred to in Articles IX and X of agreement to examine proposed increase in service in light of provisions of agreement. New service would go into effect thirty days after filing, unless by intergovernmental agreement arrived at prior to that date it was determined that proposed new service was not warranted. Ultimate disposition of new service would be decided as result of aforementioned consultation.
FYI. This position may be regarded as an adjustment in US interpretation of Bermuda principles. It was arrived at with great reluctance and only because of unusual circumstances in India and great importance to US of continuation of US commercial airline service to India. USG position on this matter previously taken with GOI was that consultations involved could not be brought about by objecting govt. until a reasonable period of operating experience with new service had been had, such period not being less than six months. Under Approach Four, added service would be examined on basis experience of existing services. If GOI accepts this proposal would expect withdrawal present termination notice accordance Article X(e). End FYI.
5. Summary Remarks
Above approaches are interpretations of present agreement and therefore amendment not required. At present time Dept and CAB cannot envisage any other proposals that USG could make to GOI in order preclude withdrawal US carrier services. However, we wish to examine closely all GOI reactions and any GOI proposals before informing US carriers they should prepare for termination. In event of termination, USG would expect to retain rights under International Air Services Transit Agreement4 to make non-traffic stops in India.
Full substance GOI reactions should be cabled Dept as obtained. You are authorized resolve problem on basis any US positions contained this instruction. Should GOI seek exchange notes on such basis, cable full suggested text Dept for advance approval. Any solutions advanced [Page 1777] by GOI should be cabled Dept for comment prior notification to GOI of firm USG reaction.
Contents this instruction have not been disclosed to US carriers. In view conflicts between US carriers and differences in approach believed essential that contacts be maintained by Dept and CAB with policy officials of companies in US. Therefore, request you avoid giving carriers substantive information on developments unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise. You should inform Dept of any substantive information you convey to carriers. Dept advising carriers that general information will be available here.
- This airgram was drafted by Ernst of the Aviation Policy Staff and was signed by H. Alberta Colclaser, Chief of the Air Transport Branch of the Aviation Policy Staff.↩
- This enclosure, “Suggested Statement for Use by Ambassador Allen in Connection with Initial Approach to GOI on Air Transport Agreement Problem,” is not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- This agreement was signed in New Delhi on Nov. 16, 1946. For the text, see TIAS No. 1586, or 61 Stat. (pt. 3) 2373.↩