Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 2

560.AL/4–1648: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at Bogotá

secret

Washington, April 16, 1948—4 p. m.

Telmar 73. For Marshall¹ from Lovett and Bohlen.² We have explored with other GATT countries possibility of securing waiver our GATT obligations to Czecho. Canada and Cuba are prepared to support us. UK, France, Belgium, Holland and Australia strongly opposed after consideration by Bevin, Bidault³ and Spaak⁴ personally. They state procedure for waiver obligations to Czecho under agreement not applicable before it has come into effect for Czecho and although they sympathize our feelings re effect change in Czech Govt contend latter has not violated agreement and no basis give us waiver. UK, France and Benelux also stress vital importance to them and other ERP countries of trade with Czecho and Eastern Europe generally and are reluctant even attend meeting to discuss matter. We are satisfied this is firm position.

Alternatives therefore are proclaim rates for Czecho or take unilateral action to withhold them. Lawyers advise Protocol Provisional Application might be invoked to justify latter action but that this would by strained interpretation and court would probably hold we had breached entire agreement. British and Dutch flatly state they do not think Protocol allows partial withdrawal and that if we withdraw from Czecho we break agreement as regards all parties.

If we fail proclaim concessions of principal interest to Czecho, it would be difficult resist inevitable demands that we withhold benefits other GATT concessions of secondary interest to Czecho, e.g. flat glass, negotiated with Belgium, of which Czecho is important supplier. Under Trade Agreements Act this would require finding by President that, Czecho was adopting policies tending defeat purposes Act and therefore that most-favored-nation treatment should be withheld. We should also bear in mind that the United States signed the International Wheat Agreement on March 6⁵ subsequent to the Czech coup. Poland and Czech are among the signatory nations. This agreement obligates the United States, Canada and Australia to supply certain quantities of wheat at not more than certain maximum prices and certain other importing countries including Poland and Czechoslovakia to buy specified quantities of wheat at not less than certain minimum prices. The Agreement, of course, must be ratified by the Senate. It runs for 5 years. The only escape clause is one that can be used in event of eventual hostilities. It would be very inconsistent to denounce the Geneva Agreement vis-à-vis Czechoslovakia and leave the Wheat Agreement in effect with that country.

Have made informal soundings Congressional opinion. Consensus those interviewed (Barkley, Rayburn, Doughton, Mills, Dirksen, Case⁶) is that unless we are prepared cease trade relations Soviet and satellites we have no alternative but to proclaim Czech rates. They feel such action will handicap TA renewal but won’t change many votes that wouldn’t already be against us. Vandenberg, Gearhart,⁷ say matter is for us to decide but voice no objection.

Failure to carry out our agreement vis-à-vis Czechoslovakia would not only seriously weaken our standing with other countries but would seriously weaken our position in insisting Soviets live up to their commitments, e.g. in Berlin. Our whole ability to stay in Berlin depends on Soviet observance these commitments. If we don’t live up to our multilateral Agreements we can hardly expect them to miss this chance to use it against us in this period of tension.

Recommend therefore we proclaim rates for Czecho with clear statement reasons. Realize this is change position previously taken, but attitude other countries, fuller study legal position and result soundings Congressional opinion seem compel this conclusion. Clayton, Thorp concur. Foster⁸ has been consulted and agrees matter should be referred you and Harriman⁹ for reconsideration. If you approve will endeavor secure White House approval.¹⁰ [Lovett and Bohlen.]

Lovett

1. Secretary Marshall was chairman of the United States Delegation to the Ninth International Conference of American States, which was held at Bogotá, Colombia, from March 30 to May 3, 1948. For documentation, see vol. ix, pp. 1 ff.
2. Charles E. Bohlen, Counselor, Department of State.
3. Georges Bidault, French Minister of Foreign Affairs.
4. Paul-Henri Spaak, Belgian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.
5. The text of the International Wheat Agreement may be found in Department of State Documents and State Papers (April 1948), pp. 102–111. The Agreement was not ratified, however. For President Truman’s comments on this development, see the text of his address to the meeting of the Fourth Session of the FAO, November 24, 1948—Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman: 1948 (Washington: GPO, 1964), pp. 948–950.
6. Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky and Minority Leader; Representative Sam Rayburn of Texas, Minority Leader of the House; Representative Robert Doughton of North Carolina; Representative Wilbur Mills of Arkansas; Representative Everett Dirksen of Illinois; and probably Representative Francis Case of South Dakota.
7. Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, and Representative Bertrand W. Gearhart of California.
8. William C. Foster, Under Secretary of Commerce.
9. Secretary of Commerce W. Averell Harriman had been designated United States Special Representative in Europe with rank of Ambassador; his nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 26, 1948.
10. In Martel 77, April 20, the recommendations made in Telmar 73, were approved by Secretaries Harriman and Marshall. “Both state their unhappiness at the box US finds itself in, but saw no other feasible position than one proposed by you.” (560.AL/4–2048)