647.116/318
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs (Hickerson)
| Participants: | Mr. Dunn25 |
| Mr. Hawkins26 | |
| Mr. Hickerson | |
| Mr. Keith Officer of the British Embassy |
Mr. Keith Officer came in at 12:15 today after having made an appointment with Mr. Dunn. Mr. Officer referred to the British Ambassador’s call on the Secretary yesterday, at which time he left with the Secretary, without comment, an official press statement of the Australian Government in regard to a modification of their trade diversion policy. Mr. Officer stated that he was very much pleased at the action which his Government had found it possible to take. He stated that there had been some delay of course because of the necessity of reorganizing the Cabinet, and that, moreover, it had been necessary to convince certain members of the Cabinet of the wisdom of taking this step. He went on to say that it is not an easy matter for a Government to alter a policy of this sort, particularly because of the fact that any alteration necessarily carries with it a certain implication [Page 154] that the policy was wrong in the first place. He said that he would like to be able to report to his Government that we were pleased at this step.
Mr. Dunn stated that we do not have full information on the details of this change in policy, but that Mr. Officer could certainly say that we were pleased, and that we certainly regard it as “a step in the right direction”. Mr. Dunn went on to say that we had had a preliminary telegram from our Consul General at Sydney which, according to his recollection, stated that it was proposed, on 36 of the restricted products, to issue licenses immediately without any discrimination against American goods, but that licenses would be continued on 44 products; Mr. Dunn added that the language of the Australian official announcement stated as regards these latter products that licenses would be continued “as at present”.
Mr. Officer stated in reply that although his information is not complete on the subject, he felt that he could assure us that there would be no discrimination whatever against the United States in either of these two categories. He said that this was clear as regards the first category from his Government’s announcement, and that as regards the second category, pending a consideration of the question of whether increased protection is justified, the Australian Government proposes to continue a license system, but without discrimination against American products. He went on to say that it is his understanding that most of the important products in which we are interested are included in category 1, for which licenses will be issued at once, and that whereas there is reason to suppose that not many licenses will be issued for the second category, there will be no discrimination especially directed at the United States.
At this point Mr. Officer stated that he hoped very much that the United States could shortly see its way clear to remove Australia from the “black list”. Mr. Hawkins commented that our attitude in this matter must, under the law, be governed by the facts in the case He stated that the President suspended our trade agreement rates in the case of Australia27 because he had found as a fact that Australia discriminated against American goods, and that to remove this suspension the President would as a practical matter have to find as a fact that Australia does not discriminate against us.
At this point Mr. Hickerson mentioned the fact that it is his understanding that Australia has signed agreements with Germany, and perhaps other countries, under which she has granted tariff reductions which have not heretofore been extended to American products, and that these rates will have to be taken into account along with [Page 155] the question of the licensing system. Mr. Hawkins said that this was certainly true, and that the President’s certification that Australia did not in fact discriminate against American trade would necessarily as a practical matter, have to cover all of our trade and not merely that heretofore covered by the licensing system.
Mr. Officer said that this disturbed him a little bit for the reason that he was not sure that these tariff reductions granted to third countries were not of such a nature that they could only be extended to the United States and other foreign countries in pursuance of some sort of an agreement in that sense. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that ordinarily this was not the case, and that the only instance which he could recall in which this had been the case was in Rumania several years ago, where we had found that they could not, in the absence of some sort of an agreement, extend their lowest tariff rates to us. Mr. Hawkins continued that this situation had been easily and quickly met by an exchange of notes providing reciprocally for the extension of most-favored-nation treatment.28
Mr. Dunn stated to Mr. Officer that we expected to receive further and fuller information on this subject from Sydney, and suggested that Mr. Officer pass on to us any additional information which he received. This Mr. Officer agreed to do.
- Appointed Adviser on Political Relations, July 17, 1937.↩
- Harry C. Hawkins, Chief of the Division of Trade Agreements.↩
- See telegram of June 29, 1936, 6 p.m., to the Consul General at Sydney. Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. i, p. 763.↩
- Signed February 26, 1926, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. ii, pp. 898–901. This agreement was denounced by Rumania in 1929, and a provisional commercial agreement was signed on August 20, 1930, ibid., 1930, vol. iii, p. 799.↩