611.4731/294
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. John R. Minter of the Division of European Affairs
| Participants: | Mr. Keith Officer, |
| Mr. Hawkins, | |
| Mr. Deimel, | |
| Mr. Minter, | |
| Mr. Fuqua. |
Mr. Officer came in at Mr. Hawkins’ request to continue preliminary discussions. He was handed a list of products which the United States would wish to have considered for concession (copy attached)24 and a memorandum regarding special paragraphs which it might be necessary to include in the General Provisions (copy attached).24
Mr. Officer perused the list, and noticing that the nature of our requests would vary considerably, asked that we help him arrange the categories so that he could telegraph the list in as simple a form as possible. All agreed that the mere listing of products by name and number under each of nine or ten categories should convey to the Australian authorities a full picture of the scope of our requests.
Mr. Hawkins explained that we did not necessarily require yea or nay on each of these products, but simply an indication from the Australian Government whether it is prepared to negotiate an agreement having this scope. Mr. Officer said that this list was just what he expected to receive, recognizing as he did that since we send to Australia a diversified list of manufactured products, our list would necessarily be longer than theirs. He did not anticipate any delay in receiving a favorable reply. He would be out of town for the “long weekend” but would return to his desk Wednesday when he hoped to receive his instructions.
Mr. Officer then branched off into the question of the timing of an announcement. He had been told on his last visit to the Department that there were two questions to be discussed, the “whether” and the “when”. The latter was to be discussed seriously only after the former was settled. But we had told him that on our part we were not then sure of the “when”, and gave him reasons why it may be difficult, if not impossible, to make public announcements this year. Although on his previous visit, when Mr. Officer had appeared startled at the doubt of beginning at once and had expressed rather forcibly some of the dire consequences which he personally thought might result, had said he would not inform his government of this unfavorable turn of events, he told us today that he had telephoned to Mr. [Page 137] Bruce25 at London. Mr. Bruce had immediately got in touch with Canberra and had urged that the delegation, which would start eastward on February 15, should postpone its departure until March 15 at the earliest. In the first place, Mr. Bruce realized that their departure on February 15 would embarrass the United States, and their arrival at London would be before he was ready for them. However, he would be ready for them at the end of May and he wanted that part of the delegation which would travel via the American continent to leave on March 15, the balance traveling directly from Australia to England by leaving early in May or late in April. Mr. Officer said that the “fat would be in the fire” as soon as this group left Australia, or even before, because naturally the wives begin to say goodbye sometime before departure. Since the Australian people were fully expecting a delegation to proceed to the United States, it would be impossible to deny any feature of their intentions. Consequently, since it would be impossible to maintain secrecy beyond the first week in March, he felt that we should get down to serious discussion of the date of announcement by the end of next week. Mr. Hawkins told Mr. Officer that we were concentrating our efforts on trying to reach a decision in that matter, and asked that Mr. Officer get in touch with him Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
Regarding the memorandum on the subject of the duty on inland freight, Mr. Officer said the request was not unexpected, as he was aware of how much importance we attached to the freight diversion problem.