560.AL/7–646: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 6—12:46 p.m.]
6507. Embtel 6432, July 2. Helmore today gave us following memorandum on plan outlined urtel 4935, June 24.
- “1. Timetable for transmittal of requests for tariff concessions. Our preliminary view was that the end of December was too late a date for the receipt of specific requests if the drafting countries meeting was to be held in March, especially in view of the need for Empire talks of about 6 weeks’ duration before the meeting. On consideration we feel that it will be necessary to have these requests in by 15th November if there is to be time for adequate preparation and that the drafting countries should be asked where possible to transmit requests by instalments before this date. We, for our part, would be greatly helped if requests on the Dominions, and those on ourselves affecting the Dominions, particularly by the USA, could be transmitted as early as possible. An early deadline for the specific requests is thought to be more important than for the lists of items on which concessions will [Page 1329] be asked, since it is really only the specific requests that will lead to any constructive preparation. It is nevertheless desirable that countries should be asked to transmit their lists of items as soon as possible, without, however, any deadline being laid down.
- “2. Transmittal of US draft charter. Our preliminary view was that (a) publication at any time was undesirable since it might lead govts to take up positions which they could not later retract, (b) it might be better not to circulate a draft before the meeting of preparatory committee in October but rather to circulate one soon afterwards embodying any conclusions arising out of that meeting—and agreed between the USA and the UK—so as to provide a basis for discussion at the drafting countries’ meeting. Further consideration strengthens both (a) and (b). It is not part of the plan that the meeting in October should do any drafting; the existence of an American draft circulated before the meeting would undoubtedly encourage the tendency to embark on detailed drafting. We feel that the clarification and elaboration of the proposals which will be necessary at that meeting should be achieved by an exchange of general views rather than by the study of drafts. Even more important, in view of what happened at the Economic and Social Council in February, is to avoid any suggestion of an Anglo-American “ganging up” vis-à-vis the other countries at the meeting in October of its preparatory committee.
“We agree, of course, that a draft charter for discussion at the drafting countries meeting would be most valuable, and the fact that we would prefer it not to be circulated before the October meeting does not of course affect the suggestion that the UK and the USA might usefully exchange views on the spelling out of the main heads of the proposals before that meeting if, as seemed likely, the work in both countries progressed sufficiently to allow for this.
“We should, of course, as we indicated earlier, instruct our missions abroad to collaborate with the representatives of the USA in any of the hastening action that is now envisaged.”
Regarding last paragraph, Helmore explained how British would collaborate. He said that in the case of Canada British representative there would see Hector McKinnon and say that British do not see how nuclear meeting can succeed without proposed prior exchange of lists. British representatives in other nuclear Empire countries would be informed of discussions with US and instructed to tell govts concerned of British agreement on need for action. This would pave the way for an approach by US. In the case of non-Empire nuclear countries British representatives would also be informed and documented but would not take initiative in approaching govts concerned. They would be instructed to keep in touch with our representatives [Page 1330] and to back up position taken by latter in any appropriate way, which would not include joint or formal representations as this would have appearance of ganging up. British assume that any request to French to support our procedural ideas through French diplomatic representatives in other nuclear countries will come from US alone.
With reference to British view that publication of draft charter at any time is undesirable we pointed out that publication has advantage of giving supporters a tangible worthwhile proposition to advocate and would tend to overcome any impression that may develop that original comprehensive plans for trade organization and code are being prosecuted with diminishing zeal. British replied that their position regarding publication not fixed and that they would be glad to reconsider it later in light of developments.
Correcting statement Emtel 6432, British are not preparing actual legal text of any part of charter but are developing ideas in form of headings on which drafting officers could later fill in details.