835.311/11–2450
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chargé in Argentina ( Mallory )1
This morning I informed the representatives of the American frigorificos of my conversation with the Minister of Economy last evening (see Memorandum of Conversation dated November 17, 1950). I did not give the packers as full an account as is contained in the memorandum referred to but conveyed all the principal points. The packers seemed to be pleased at the possibility of settling something at the meeting arranged for. They referred to a letter sent to the Minister by them on November 152 and asked whether in my discussion of the desirability of a floor arrangement I had referred specifically to local business or their overall operations. I was a little surprised at the question but replied that I had not been specific on the point. The representative of Armour and Co., Mr. Cambré, then said that this was important because on an overall basis his company at least, would not show any loss. What they were after, he said, was that the Government should make arrangements that they make no loss on local business while they were getting along all right on the export trade. He said that with canned meats they were doing all right. The other representatives indicated their agreement with Mr. Cambré, saying that they were very much concerned with local business. They also said that from the standpoint of tactics they did not expect that the Government would go so far as to provide a subsidy but that if their letter induced the Government to correct some of the present problems they would feel their purpose accomplished.3
- Copy transmitted to the Department as enclosure 2 in despatch No. 748, November 24, from Buenos Aires.↩
- Not found in Department of State files.↩
- In a letter to Mr. Miller of November 20, 1950, from Santiago, Chile, Mr. White indicated that he had discussed meat-packing problems with Mr. Mallory in Buenos Aires. He concluded: “The evidence available indicates that the packers have not put their cards on the table with the Embassy in regard to their over-all profit and loss situation and that Les has been placed in a rather embarrassing position with the Argentine Government. It does seem to me that in cases where our diplomatic missions are requested to intervene for American companies, especially in complex matters, our missions should have all the facts before them. Otherwise, they are in the position of a barrister representing a client without as much knowledge of the case as the lawyer for the other party.” (835.311/11–2050)↩