Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume VIII, International Monetary and Trade Policy

261. Telegram From the Mission to the European Communities to the Department of State¹

Brussels, November 3, 1964, 4 p.m.

Ecbus 453. Ref: Dept circ 800 Nov 2.² Due to absence of Rey, I carried out instruction in reftel with Mansholt at 2345 Nov 2 and was able to confirm with Rey early this morning.

Both Mansholt and Rey welcomed US position and emphasized that Agric discussions must continue. Mansholt stated that even though substantive issues could not be resolved until “early in ′65” nevertheless much preparatory work needs to be done. For example, he felt that work should be pushed in international commodity groups for grains, meats and dairy products. He mentioned this by way of illustration and reflected view that also in other areas agric work should continue.

Mansholt emphasized that he wanted this done for both technical and psychological reasons. As Washington is aware, Mansholt insists that agric must be effective part of Kennedy Round. He wishes progress to proceed along parallel lines for both agric and industry. He feels that in addition to technical reasons that it is psychologically essential that movement continue in field of agric.

I told Mansholt that I hoped he would also pay attention to size and content of Community exceptions list. If all of key countries deposit moderate sized lists then there will be in prospect a really significant Kennedy Round. If this in fact is prospect, one can anticipate continued interest and drive on part of industrialists (especially German) for a successful Kennedy Round. It will be evident that in order to obtain this objective that there will have to be a resolution of agric problems early next year. This might help them to use their efforts to see that there is settlement within Community before end of year which will allow Community to negotiate meaningfully in field of agric. Mansholt agreed, saying he would follow carefully exceptions list discussions, and recognized that for both purposes of industry and agric it is essential that lists be kept as small as possible.

I also discussed with Mansholt question as to whether with a renewal of discussions on agric rules it would be desirable to broaden participation, under Wyndham White’s chairmanship, to include other important agric countries. Mansholt felt that this would probably be desirable not only as means of bringing in other countries who have important substantive interests but also in order to reduce public posture of Community-US confrontation over next few weeks. Mansholt stressed that, while he was anxious to go ahead on technical discussion in next few weeks, Community of course will not be prepared to go to heart of pol issues in field of agric until early next year.

Rey’s comments this morning were fully consistent with Mansholt’s of last night. However, they were somewhat more specific regarding rules.

He stated that Committee III would meet Nov 4 after which there would be discussion amongst PermDels and later in Council of Mins meeting on Nov 9–11. He felt that Blumenthal and Rabot-Hijzen should probably meet again after Council of Mins meeting—presumably Nov 12 or 13. He felt that it probably would be desirable to have Agric Committee meet in order to bring in other interested countries. Rey also discussed question of written agric rules. Rey said that in his view, subject to what comes out of Committee III and Council of Mins next week, it would be desirable to renew attempts to obtain written agric rules. He reiterated that Commission does not withdraw any of tentative agreements reached during last two discussions in Geneva with Blumenthal. He hopes that after Nov 9–11 Council of Mins meeting, it will be possible to renew discussions starting from where we stood at end of meeting on Oct 29 and attempt to achieve a written understanding building on that base. I told Rey that, while I did not know what our specific suggestions would be, I was sure Washington would agree with his and Mansholt’s objective of continuing to make progress on agric over next few weeks.

Tuthill

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, FT 13–2 US. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Bonn, The Hague, London, Luxembourg for the Embassy and USEC, Paris for the Embassy and USRO, Rome, and Geneva.
2. Document 260.