Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1936, The American Republics, Volume V

611.236 Sugar/10

The Chargé in Peru (Dreyfus) to the Secretary of State

No. 4695

Lima, August 31, 1936.
[Received September 9.]

Sir: Referring to the Embassy’s despatch No. 4682 of August 21, 1936,¹ concerning the Anglo-Peruvian Commercial Agreement, I have the honor to report that during the course of a conversation this morning the Foreign Minister again brought up the sugar question and informed me that the Peruvian Agrarian Society was continuing strong pressure upon the Government to find some early solution for the sugar situation and that President Benavides was still hoping that some arrangement could be made to dispose of some of Peru’s excess production in the United States. He added that Peru was desirous of negotiating a commercial agreement² so as to provide an outlet for this excess sugar production. I explained to Dr. Ulloa that already some months ago Ambassador Dearing had held conversations on this subject with his predecessor, Dr. Concha, and had communicated to the Department at that time Peru’s desire to dispose of some of its excess sugar in the United States, but that nothing had come of it due to the inhibitions of existing legislation on this subject. Dr. Ulloa thereupon said that he hoped I had not failed to communicate to the Department what he had said about the difficult situation for Peruvian sugar as a result of the dumping practised in the world’s markets by the Cuban sugar growers. (See last paragraph of above mentioned despatch.) I replied that I had done so. He then went on to say in a nice way that if the United States continued its preferential treatment to Cuban sugar, which alone made it possible for Cuban sugar growers to carry on their dumping in other markets, he did not see why some influence should not be exerted on Cuba to induce it to accept a smaller quota than was allotted under the Jones-Costigan Law,³ in which case, perhaps, something could be done to give Peru a larger quota.

It would seem that the insistence of Dr. Ulloa in bringing this subject up again so soon may be attributed to his desire to deflect from the Government of Peru the pressure brought against it by the National Agrarian Society, making it appear that the next step must be taken by the American Government.

Inasmuch as Dr. Ulloa during the same conversation brought up the matter of his attendance at the opening session, on September 30, 1936, of the Peruvian-Ecuadoran Boundary Delegations,⁴ it seems plausible to believe that he may desire also during his visit to explore the possibilities of negotiations for a commercial treaty between Peru and the United States.

Respectfully yours,

Louis G. Dreyfus, Jr.

1. Post, p. 917.
2. For preliminary discussions concerning a trade agreement, see pp. 928 ff.
3. Approved May 9, 1934; 48 Stat. 670.
4. See pp. 106 ff.