Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume VIII, International Monetary and Trade Policy

349. Telegram From the Mission to the European Office of the United Nations to the Department of State¹

Geneva, May 9, 1967, 1210Z.

3557. BUSEC. LUXCO. GATT for Bator from Roth for STR. Subj: KR Steering Group meeting morning May 9.

1. Steering Group met 9 AM May 9 in wake-like atmosphere hear report of failure of US and EEC to reach agreement.

2. Roth explained US and EEC had carried on extensive bilaterals on theory if impasse on major issues between them broken, rest of negotiations would have fallen into place. Reported that both EEC and US had tried to reach compromise but this had not proved possible. While there are not many issues, those which exist are difficult, e.g., decoupage on chemicals and improvement in non-group agricultural offers. On grains US had suggested “revolutionary” idea of giving up request for access and confining grains arrangement to agreement on price and food aid. This based on assumption that effective access and continuity of access commitments from the UK and EEC not obtainable. US, of course, still interested in meaningful access commitments if obtainable. New approach made in effort to break through on grains but EEC apparently had problems with it.

3. Re future procedure, Roth said US would be available all day and night if necessary for bilaterals and multilaterals. He emphasized importance of our having ad referendum agreement by this evening or tomorrow morning on major issues; failure to do so would put us in impossible position in view of our timing problem. He also suggested Steering Group meet at end of day to review situation.

4. Rey said he wanted to refrain from making detailed comments on previous evening’s discussion because he didn’t want to spoil chances of agreement which he still thought possible. He stated that Community had accepted WW compromise proposal on chemicals whereas US had not been able to. With respect to US grains proposal, he said proposal had come at 3 o’clock in the morning, and the Community needed time to think about it before being able to respond.

5. He suggested WW schedule resumption of bilateral meeting to determine where matters stand. Rey said he had to leave at 6 PM in order to be able to report to the Commission tomorrow morning and to EEC Perm Reps and Council on Wednesday and Thursday² and would return to Geneva Thursday night. He pointed out that in any event it would not have been possible to solve steel problem by this evening since UK was going to Cabinet for more authority. He thought that after consultations with governments, delegations might return with fresh ideas. He thought that three to four more days of negotiations were reasonable and suggested in meantime that we aim at finishing the negotiations by Sunday or Monday.

6. Roth replied that unless the main outlines of the US–EEC package had been agreed by tonight or tomorrow morning he saw no possibility of continuing on Thursday or Friday.

7. Swiss urged WW to use his vast authority and propose an overall package for delegations to refer back to capitals. Nordics referring to Roth’s insistence on ad referendum US–EEC agreement by tonight, asked whether Rey could delay his departure and/or US timetable couldn’t be stretched. Roth explained US didn’t expect have detailed agreement by this evening, but if major issues unresolved would be impossible to conclude negotiations in time. He urged using rest of day as fruitfully as possible and reviewing situation at end of day.³

8. Canadians said would be a pity for other countries to be prisoners of US and EEC because of their schedules. Swiss supported this idea and said that if Rey considered consultations with Ministers desirable, this possibility should not be eliminated. Steering Group convened again for 5 o’clock this afternoon. Grains meeting convened at 10 am to hear explanation of new US proposal. At end of meeting Japanese circulated new request on steel to us.

Tubby

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, FT 13–2 US. Confidential; Flash. Received at 9:11 a.m. Repeated to Bern, Bonn, Brussels, Copenhagen, The Hague, Helsinki, London, Luxembourg, Oslo, Ottawa, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, and Vienna, and passed to the White House and USIA.
2. May 10 and 11.
3. Apparently in response to the impasse with the EEC reported in this telegram, Bator cabled back to Roth “our firm view” that “we must avoid breaking off negotiations” in the face of Rey’s requirements. “The President must not be in a position of risking failure of 5 year effort to make good on an arbitrary deadline when EEC can point to some movement and when Rey can legitimately claim need for personal consultation with his ministers.” Bator added that Secretary Rusk wanted Roth to check with him and the President before any break off. (Telegram 190345 to Geneva, May 9, 11:24 a.m.; Department of State, Central File, FT 13–2 US) In telegram 3573 from Geneva, May 9, Roth responded that “happily I had not pulled the plug” on the talks and that the EEC and U.S. negotiators had agreed to a statement by Wyndham White that all parties accepted the final concluding date of Sunday, May 14. (Ibid.)