437. Ecbus 416 from Brussels, April 151

[Facsimile Page 1]

Washington pass Schaetzel. Commissioner Rey and Mansholt invited me yesterday to call at Commission this afternoon. Inasmuch as the subject of the conversation was to be the present impasse in US-EEC Article XXIV: 6 negotiations, Corse, on my invitation, came and accompanied me. Commissioner Rey presented me with two aide-mémoires. One dealt exclusively with the question of wheat, which was handed we understand, in identical version, to the Canadians today and will be subject of separate telegram. The other and more important dealt with the Commission’s deep anxiety over what they now consider to be a hopeless opposition of views and expectations between the two delegations in Geneva. Rey stated categorically that community had exhausted agricultural and industrial concessions that it could consider offering to the US during the Article XXIV: 6 phase. He spoke of the astonishing paradox that outstanding difficulties with the UK had been resolved satisfactorily whereas difficulties with the US, the trusted friend of the European Community, continued to place us far apart. He stressed the vital importance of the establishment of a common agricultural policy without which a United Europe of the Six could not be achieved. He dwelt therefore upon the agricultural aspect of the Geneva negotiation expressing conviction that EEC offers met XXIV: 6 obligations not only for CXT as [Facsimile Page 2] whole but also specifically for agricultural sector. Mansholt agreed with Rey and stressed willingness community to negotiate maximum levies on wheat. Mansholt warned that under the status quo there was a danger that export opportunities, for reasons unrelated to tariffs, were more likely to decline than if the Commission is permitted to move ahead with the common agricultural policy.

I responded that Washington understood the vital importance of a common agricultural policy as essential in development of Common Market. However I stated that the Commission’s offers in the agricultural field were “entirely inadequate” and that serious effort should be made to meet Washington’s formulation of minimum requirements. Corse dealt illustratively with a number of commodities upon which [Typeset Page 1739] he had tried without success to obtain concession from Donne, the Commission’s chief negotiator in Geneva.

Our meeting adjourned with no narrowing whatever of the gap which divides us and Six. On basis this session and my frequent previous conversations with Commissioners, I am firmly convinced that this deplorable state of affairs attributable, to a considerable extent, to Washington’s prolonged and continuing delays in coming up with a minimum package of demand to which it would be reasonable to expect the community to attempt to achieve settlement. The longer we stand upon our previously defined “minimum package” the less likely it is that the Commission will be willing and able to obtain from the Council of Ministers authority to make further compromises. As the community settles its problems with other negotiating partners there will of course be less and less premium for them to settle with US.

I am not hopeful that the present gap in EEC-US thinking can be easily closed. I am sure however that it is imperative [Facsimile Page 3] that, as contribution to maximum overall result from “Dillon phase”, and in consistent fulfillment of our overall political objectives, a realistic minimum package must be provided Corse at the earliest possible date in hope that this difference between US and EEC be resolved.

Butterworth
  1. US–EEC Article XXIV:6 negotiations; impasse continues. Official Use Only. 3 pp. Department of State, Central Files, 394.41/4–1461.