667N.116/57: Telegram
The Consul General at Jerusalem (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 16—1 p.m.]
24. Reference is made to last paragraph my telegram No. 23, December 13, 5 p.m. Both officials discussed the matter frankly, their chief points being that the High Commissioner’s order is: first, based on and substantially identical with the British Board of Trade order of September 3 last25 which they believe has been considered carefully by the American Government and accepted without protest and, second, not discriminatory as such in that it applies equally to the trade of all countries including Great Britain. Both admitted however that as in the case of the British order its major intent is to conserve, in Palestine as throughout the Empire, dollar and other free exchange notably for the purchase of war supplies in the United States and that consequently in its administrative application it will insofar as possible, due consideration being had for the needs of Palestine economy, limit imports to those obtainable from sources within Palestine and other countries participating in exchange control or from sources such as Rumania in which for reasons of war policy it is desirable to make extensive purchases. The exposition and justification has also been elaborated for me by the British Commercial Agent in an informal memorandum concluding as follows: [“]Thus the existence of a state of war obliges the mandatory to modify the terms of article 18 in order to satisfy the obligations arising out of the general terms of the Mandate, namely to ensure the integrity and well being of the country in general”. I was particularly struck in this connection by a passing comment of the Attorney General when he said in substance “There has been considerable discussion of the point but I myself am convinced Palestine is at war; there can be on [Page 814] this point no question of divided sovereignty”. Does the Department wish me to pursue this particular subject? In general, and if the Department, while insisting on American treaty rights, is prepared to consider the practical desirability of waiving at least partially and temporarily the exercise thereof, it may be that it would wish me to consider with the local authorities the possibility of obtaining undertakings that in the administrative application of the new control-import licensing system a fair measure of trade in commodities formerly imported from the United States and necessary to Palestine economy will be assured to American exporters. There can be no doubt that Palestine importers will wish to continue to import such commodities, and viewing the matter practically there is reason to believe that with other sources of supply stopped or curtailed a considerable import trade from the United States will continue. On this point the British Commercial Agent argues that in practice United States exporters will continue to obtain as large a share of the country’s total imports trade as in previous years.
- See telegram No. 1411, September 3, 1939, 9 p.m., from the Ambassador in the United Kingdom, printed in vol. ii, section entitled “Representations to the British Government on Effects of Import Controls …”, under United Kingdom.↩