611.3531/1625
The Ambassador in Argentina (Armour) to the Secretary of
State
No. 1879
Buenos
Aires, January 28, 1941.
[Received
February 6.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of a
memorandum of a conversation between Dr. Ovidio Schiopetto of the
Argentine Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Attaché of the
Embassy, relating to the proposed corn marketing agreement between
Argentina and the United States.
[Page 502]
The proposals of the American Government relating to a corn marketing
agreement were transmitted to the Foreign Office on September 20, 1940,
but to date the Embassy has not received a written reply indicating the
attitude of the Argentine Government towards these specific proposals.
At no time has the Argentine Government taken the initiative in
indicating a desire to discuss the suggested provisions of an agreement
and the two conferences held with Dr. Schiopetto relating to the
proposed agreement were sought by the Agricultural Attaché.
It will be recalled that on September 12, 1940, when the Argentine
Government accepted the proposal of the United States to negotiate a
corn marketing agreement, the acceptance was closely related to, if not
motivated by, the desire of the Argentine Government to secure financial
aid for the construction of a distillery which could utilize a portion
of the Argentine corn surplus. The distillery project was apparently
abandoned after a preliminary study and as indicated above the Argentine
Government has evidenced no interest in the corn agreement since that
time.
There are, undoubtedly, many abnormal marketing conditions at the present
time which would make the operation of a corn marketing agreement
extremely difficult but of more significance is the apparent
indifference and lack of interest of the Argentine Government in the
proposal. It will be noted that Dr. Schiopetto has expressed a personal
opinion in favor of suspending the efforts, for the time being, to
conclude an agreement. Under the circumstances, there seems to be little
prospect of reaching an agreement and unless the Department perceives
objections, I feel that efforts to conclude an agreement might be
suspended for the time being.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the Agricultural Attaché in
Argentina (Nyhus)
[Buenos
Aires, January 23, 1941.]
It will be recalled that upon leaving Dr. Schiopetto at the time of
my last conversation with him on December 21, he stated that he
would consider the matter of the proposed corn marketing agreement
carefully and after a week or ten days we could discuss the matter
again. Upon calling him about ten days ago, he stated that he was
about to leave on an extended trip with the Minister of Agriculture
and stated that he would get in touch with me upon his return. He
returned on Sunday and in view of his leaving again for Uruguay
[Page 503]
on Sunday, I gave him a
ring yesterday in order to confer with him before his departure for
Montevideo.
I asked him if he had had time to consider further the proposed corn
marketing agreement and he said that he had but with little success.
He again raised the question: “What is the world market today?” and
I replied that it was essentially the United Kingdom market. He
stated that in his opinion it would be difficult to justify and to
defend publicly an agreement which divided with another country a
market which Argentina already had and which would represent,
accordingly, a reduction in the market outlet for Argentine corn. It
will be recalled that he raised this same argument in my last
conversation with him.
I made it clear that this was an erroneous interpretation of the
proposal, that at the present time, due to the greater availability
of ships on the North Atlantic and the shorter ocean haul between
New York and Liverpool, the United States was in a better position
to supply the English market than Argentina, whose grain exports are
being restricted sharply by the lack of freight boats.
I stated that in my opinion, the proposal would probably try and
secure for Argentina larger corn exports than present shipping
conditions will bring about. I maintained that far from being
injurious to Argentina, it was intended, and it could prove to be,
distinctly advantageous, that the purpose and intention of the
proposal could hardly be criticised but its workability under
present conditions might be subject to some doubt. I explained that
the proposal for a corn marketing agreement was suggested by the
American Government as a result of criticism of sales of subsidized
American corn to the United Kingdom and that the proposal was made
to demonstrate that the United States did not intend to pursue a
policy of intense price competition and of acquiring an undue
portion of the United Kingdom market.
I think that he accepted my explanation in these respects and stated
that for the agreement to accomplish its purpose, it seemed to him
that it would be necessary to include England in a three-cornered
agreement so as to insure Argentina of that portion of the English
market that would be mutually agreed upon between the American and
Argentine Governments. He expressed doubt, however, of the
willingness of England to enter into an agreement of this character
and that national survival might make it essential for her to buy
supplies of corn in the United States.
He continued by stating that as he looked at the matter personally,
emphasizing that it was from a personal standpoint, he could not see
how under present conditions an agreement of the character proposed
could be operated. I suggested that in order to provide a reply
[Page 504]
to our note of September
20, he transmit his points of view through the Foreign Office. He
then emphasized that these were his personal opinions and that
although he was prepared to advise the Ministry of Agriculture in
accordance with the views expressed, nevertheless his opinions could
hardly be considered official until they had passed through the
usual Government channels. He suggested that the Embassy prepare a
report describing the present status of the matter (ambiente) to the American Government,
implying thereby that our reply on the basis of this conversation
would satisfy the American Government and added, rather
incidentally, that the question might be raised in the report if the
American Government had other suggestions of a less rigid character
than a marketing agreement whereby Argentina would undertake not to
“make a present” of her corn, thereby refraining from engaging in
ruinous competition, and in return the United States Government
would undertake not to take over too much of the world corn market
under present conditions. He implied that possibly conversations
along these latter lines might be productive, but he did not amplify
or urge the above suggestion. I felt that the latter suggestion was
inspired by a desire to dispose of the proposal as courteously as
possible.
To a previous question if anyone but himself was giving the proposed
agreement any study, he replied in the negative and since in neither
of our two conversations had there been any evidence, in my opinion,
of a serious acceptance or even thorough study of the proposal, I
inquired if he thought personally that it would be best under the
circumstances to drop the matter. He replied quite promptly: “Yes, I
think so.” My reaction was that he seemed to welcome this means of
disposing of the matter instead of having to prepare an official
reply through the Foreign Office designed to accomplish, ultimately,
the same result, I suggested that possibly when the war was over,
the agreement would be more acceptable to the Argentine Government
and he replied that the agreement might be acceptable prior to the
termination of the war if shipping facilities improved.
