32. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Belgium0
2689. Bonn Hanainy for Ball. Belgian Ambassador visited Trezise March 31 at our request. Trezise stated he wished express Dept’s serious concern over potentially unfortunate consequences which might result if pattern of recriminations and threats of retaliation continues in Europe against decision increase carpet and glass duties. He emphasized that the European reaction could not fail cause hardening views within United States. Trezise stated we wished to express our concern to Belgian Government before the situation gets out of hand.1
It was pointed out that there are a number of groups in the United States aggrieved over trade restrictions in Europe, for example, farmers and coal producers, and their spokesmen would be happy have opportunity stress such grievances. Inevitably, talk of retaliation in Europe will excite suggestions of counter-retaliation here, in U.S. press and in Congress. Exchange of mutual recrimination cannot help anyone, certainly not U.S.-Belgium or U.S.-EEC relationships.
Recognizing that Belgians do not agree with escape clause findings, they should remember that existing Trade Agreements Act requires President take account of Tariff Commission findings, declining employment or production or profits or relatively increasing share of imports in total consumption. President has asked for new Act that would enable us handle injury cases in different fashion but for now we bound by terms existing legislation. Kind of situation that appears to be developing, however, will not help us get new and more flexible authority deal with import adjustment problems.
As Ambassador knew, GATT Article XIX provided procedures under which Belgium and EEC could seek recourse. We prepared consult promptly under Article XIX and indeed were drafting instructions our Geneva mission at this very time. In response Ambassador’s question meaning of “promptly” we replied we ready consult whenever Belgium or EEC ready. We suggested site consultation might best be Geneva or Washington where expert personnel available, in order expedite talks.
Finally, Trezise observed that if Belgian comments on lack of merit of escape clause findings had validity, this fact would become evident [Page 74] after reasonable period experience with new duties. Existing Executive Order requires review of case within two years and permits earlier review on initiative of Tariff Commission or on request of President. Only after experience with new tariff has been developed could any judgment about possibility reconsideration be reached. However, Dept would propose watch developments carefully and would be ready recommend review if warranted by events. Ambassador should understand, at the same time, that acrimonious row that appeared building up would obviously make more difficult any future reconsideration this matter. Finally we emphasized strongly that any public discussion possibility of review escape clause findings prior expiration two years would be highly prejudicial.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 411.004/3–3162. Secret. Drafted by Beaudry and Trezise, cleared with Weiss. Also sent to Bonn, Paris, The Hague, Rome, Luxembourg, and Geneva GATT.↩
- On March 31 the Department of State sent circular telegram 1654 to 20 posts in Europe stressing that the Belgian campaign against the tariff increases went to unreasonable lengths and asking the posts to use every opportunity to counter it. (Ibid.)↩