Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

323. Letter From Secretary of Commerce Connor to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (Schultze)¹

Washington, June 30, 1966.

Dear Mr. Schultze:

I have received from Mr. Focke a copy of a letter addressed to you, dated April 15, 1966, from Assistant Secretary of State MacArthur² commenting on my proposed revisions in Executive Order No. 11052,³ as amended, which I transmitted to you on March 29, 1966.⁴ Mr. Focke indicates that you would be pleased to receive any further recommendations from me in the light of the position taken by Assistant Secretary MacAr-thur.

All departments appear to concur in my first proposal, to provide formal representation for the Agriculture and Treasury Departments on delegations to cotton textile negotiations. Although the Agriculture, Labor, and Treasury Departments also concur in my second proposal relating to the chairmanship of U.S. delegations to negotiations on cotton textiles, the Department of State and the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations disagree.⁵

Comments of the Department of State on my second proposal indicate that there may be some misunderstanding as to its nature and intent. Assistant Secretary MacArthur’s letter states that “it is the responsibility of the Department of State to carry on negotiations with foreign governments.” I am not suggesting that this basic responsibility of the Secretary of State be modified in any way in the field of cotton textiles. My proposed revision in the Executive Order specifically states that “the Secretary of State shall designate the Chairman of each delegation from among the representatives designated by the members of the President’s Cabinet Textile Advisory Committee.”

I am suggesting that the Secretary of State have the flexibility to designate, as chairmen of delegations to the GATT Cotton Textiles Committee or the negotiation of cotton textile bilateral agreements, the most qualified officers available in the government without regard to the departments for which they work. I know of no other case where this flexibility is denied to the Secretary of State by Executive Order or otherwise.

As I have pointed out, more than fifty U.S. delegations to international conferences dealing with economic subjects in 1965 were chaired by officials from departments or agencies other than the State Department. A number of these involved important foreign policy interests, as in the case of cotton textiles. In these cases the government gained by utilizing the most qualified person as chairman, and thus benefitted from the flexibility of choice available to the Department of State.

I can cite examples of three officials currently concerned with all or some aspects of the textile program who are not attached to the Department of State and who would be eminently qualified to serve as chairmen of delegations to the GATT Cotton Textiles Committee or to negotiation of bilateral agreements.

The present Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Resources would be a logical choice. He is Chairman of the Interagency Textile Administrative Committee and the Management-Labor Textile Advisory Committee. He was an employee of the Department of State from September 1961 until September 1965, throughout the life of the Short Term Cotton Textile Arrangement and the first three years of the Long Term Arrangement and is today still a Foreign Service Reserve Officer detailed to this Department. He served as the Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the GATT Cotton Textiles Committee and to bilateral negotiations while he was assigned to the State Department. His move from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce should not preclude the Secretary of State from relying upon his expertise as a delegation chairman.

The Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Labor Affairs has had extensive experience in areas of Southeast Asia which are growing in importance as cotton textile producers and exporters to the United States. His services as chairman of a delegation which might negotiate cotton textile bilateral agreements with such countries would be invaluable, if the Secretary of State were to designate him as chairman. His background knowledge of the textile program is extensive and he has had long experience in negotiating in many fields.

The Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, resident in Geneva, is a Foreign Service Officer with the rank of Ambassador. As he is not an official of the State Department, Executive Order 11052 as presently written would preclude him from serving as chairman of the U.S. delegation to the GATT Cotton Textiles Committee although he is resident in Geneva. He was one of the negotiators of the Long Term Cotton Textile Arrangement when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and he is presently handling cotton textile problems in the Kennedy Round.

Finally, referring to the recent directive of the President concerning direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities overseas by the Department of State, Assistant Secretary MacArthur suggests in his letter that “furtherance of the national interest in cotton textile negotiations as in other areas of negotiations with foreign governments requires this kind of coordination and direction.” I cannot agree with the notion that the kind of coordination and direction required for effective administration of U.S. foreign policy can be achieved by continuing to preclude the Secretary of State from selecting as delegation chairmen individuals of the greatest competence available from all parts of the government at any given time. Regardless of who chairs U.S. delegations to negotiations with foreign governments these delegations follow instructions predetermined by their government. In the formulation of these instructions, interested agencies look to the Department of State for guidance on the foreign policy interests of the United States.

I think it should be clearly understood that in the field of cotton textiles, the authority for any negotiation is determined by the President’s Cabinet Textile Advisory Committee of which the Secretary of State is a member. This Committee is responsible, under the provisions of Executive Order 11052, for “supervision over the administration of the Long Term Arrangement Regarding Trade in Cotton Textiles done at Geneva on February 9, 1962” and for providing the President with advice “generally with respect to problems relating to textiles.” Positions taken by the Cabinet Committee are implemented in negotiations with foreign governments. U.S. delegations engaged in these negotiations should have the benefit of the best qualified chairmen without regard to the department for which they work.

In replying for the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, Ambassador Roth has indicated that particular examples of the adverse effect of the present situation should be shown before his office can consider the proposal further. I think that he would agree and indeed his comment on my proposal so implies, that the best qualified individuals should chair U.S. delegations notwithstanding their departmental affiliation. Without regard to the particular experiences of the past, it is enough, in my opinion, that a substantial potential problem has been recognized. I feel that we should proceed to deal with it as promptly as possible on the basis of the principle of providing maximum flexibility to the government and not tieing our hands.

I hope that the foregoing clarifies the nature and intent of my proposed revision of Executive Order 11052, as amended. I have no further recommendations to make, other than to suggest that if there should still be objection to my proposal, you might wish to convene a meeting of the six agencies concerned to discuss and resolve this problem. In the alternative, I shall be glad to have the President’s Cabinet Textile Advisory Committee meet to consider it.

Sincerely yours,

John T. Connor ⁶

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, INCO–COTTON GATT. No classification marking. Copies were sent to Secretaries Rusk, Freeman, Fowler, and Wirtz, and to Herter.
2. Under cover of a May 19 letter to Secretary Connor, Arthur B. Focke, General Counsel of the Bureau of the Budget, enclosed a copy of MacArthur’s April 15 letter to Schultze. (Ibid.)
3. Cotton Textiles and Cotton Textile Products, September 28, 1962. (Federal Register, vol. 27, p. 9691)
4. As summarized in Connor’s March 29 letter, the proposed amendment dealt “both with the composition of United States delegations to the Cotton Textiles Committee established by the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and to bilateral textile negotiations contemplated under the Long Term Arrangement Regarding Trade in Cotton Textiles, and with the selection of chairmen for these delegations.” A copy of the proposed amendment is attached to Connor’s March 29 letter. (Department of State, Central Files, INCO–COTTON GATT)
5. In addition to the Department of State objections (see footnote 2 above), the other agency views were expressed in letters to Schultze from Fred B. Smith, Acting General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury, April 8; John A. Schnittker, Acting Secretary of Agriculture, April 18; W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, April 22; and William M. Roth, Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, May 4. (All ibid.)
6. Printed from a copy that indicates Connor signed the original.