Assistant Secretary of State Byroade told the House Foreign Affairs Committee: [Mr. Rhodes'] position is that American businessmen are being discriminated against in Morocco, and I think that is true. ** This issue went to the International Court of Justice. *** The French put out rules which we said did not fulfill the Court's decision. We maintain that position. * * * We have attempted to reach a meeting of the mind with the French, so far without success (p. 234, House Hearings on Mutual Security, 1954). French officials told Americans in January 1953 that negotiations will take a long time and the French Government can afford to wait better than American businessmen. The French press, showing that United States trade is falling, boasts of "our great ally's Pyrrhic victory" at The Hague. Confronted with this, Congress again acted. The 1954 Mutual Security Authorization Act requires the President to enforce treaties and to help citizens obtain indemnity for treaty violations. I should appreciate your placing this proviso in your record at this point. (The amendment referred to, sec. 413 (b) (3) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, follows:) [The President] shall, consistent with the security and best interest of the United States, seek compliance by other countries or a dependent area of any country with all treaties for commerce and trade and taxes and shall take all reasonable measures under this act or other authority to secure compliance therewith and to assist United States citizens in obtaining just compensation for losses sustained by them or payments exacted from them as a result of measures taken or imposed by any country or dependent area thereof in violation of any such treaty; The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Report (No. 1799) on pages 72 and 73, under a caption "French Treaty Obligations in Morocco" explains this amendment, stating: For several years, the subject of United States treaty rights in Morocco and their violation by France has been a matter of deep concern to Congress. *** Following the adjudication by the International Court of Justice on United States treaty rights, *** the Department of State *** ruled that our rights in Morocco were being violated. The committee, however, felt that the State Department had not pursued this matter vigorously enough and accordingly provided [the amendment]. The Department now claims still to be trying to get France to respect this treaty and the Court verdict but states there is no means of requiring this. Since this committee is contemplating valuable concessions to trading nations, including France, I hope you will decide to give the Department the means it lacks by insisting that such concessions be limited to nations which live up to their obligations to us. The second part of my recommendation is that Executive acts be prevented from altering treaty terms. I know that even the mention of that must shock you almost to the point of incredulity. It did me when I was first confronted with it. Just the same it was done in 1949. I got an order in United States district court here restraining Secretary of State Acheson from waiving or extinguishing treaty terms without advice and consent of the Senate. He had it vacated and my appeal was dropped when the issue went to the International Court and made it moot. During the Hague trial, the United States Chief Counsel told the Court: The United States * ** insisted on the respect of its treaty right of freedom of trade without restriction on imports and protested the violation of its treaty right repeatedly. *** At the same time, it offered to assent, and did assent, when it deemed it proper, to the request of the French Government that it waive its treaty right and submit American nationals to the prohibitions on imports resulting from the decree of December 30, 1948 (p. 88, U. S. “CounterMemorial" to I. C. J., December 1951). The "assent" which set aside "the supreme law of the land" was in the form of a diplomatic note by our chargé d'affaires in Tangier. On November 12, 1953, an Assistant Secretary of State told me, in the presence of members of his staff, that he frequently set aside treaties and would continue to do so as long as he held office. Apart from the constitutional issue, this jeopardizes all American interests abroad. It means that they are not protected by law, but depend on our diplomats' bargains with their foreign opposites. It makes Senate ratification of treaties meaningless. It gives concerns large enough to defend their interests at the Cabinet or ambassadorial levels great advantage over those who must risk theirs at the lowest echelons. To assure Americans the reciprocity to which they are entitled and to prevent nullification of treaties by diplomatic action, I suggest for your consideration a section in your bill, reading about as follows: SEC. (a) On or before July 1, 1955, the Secretary of State shall prepare and thereafter keep current a list of all countries which are according the United States and its citizens all benefits to which they are entitled under any treaty or trade, tax or custom agreement, to which such nation and the United States are parties. (b) In making this determination the Secretary shall deem that treaty terms have not been and may not be modified, waived, or abrogated by any Executive act. (c) There shall be no reduction of customs duties below the rates prevailing on July 1, 1955, with respect to products produced in or imported from any country so long as such country shall not be listed as required in subsection (a) of this section. The need for this would seem to be widespread. The State Department's Director for Africa, excusing Department inaction in Morocco, stated that he knows 20 areas where discriminations are just as bad. I am submitting a letter by the late Representative Eugene Cox which provides background of this issue and a letter from the Textile Export Association of the United States which shows the effect of State Department policy on our hardest-pressed industry. I should appreciate your placing them in your record. (The letters follow:) Hon. W. AVERELL HARRIMAN, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 11, 1951. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HARRIMAN: I understand that the White House has transmitted to you for review a file relative to the enforcement of United States treaty rights in Morocco. In my opinion, the decision of the Secretary of State should be reversed in this matter if the statements on the attached memorandum are correct or if the treaty rights of the United States are as stated. I believe that the Department of State's decision is based on the possibility that our treaties may have been altered by executive acts without specific renegotiation and ratification by the treatymaking power of the United States. It seems to me that this possibility should be discarded by the President when he makes his decision. It also seems that such a basic constitutional issue as is involved in this question should be excluded from consideration by the Court of International Justice. If the Court should determine that the United States is bound by simple executive acts which conflict with treaties or other United States laws or, for that matter, with the Constitution itself, a means has been found to give legislative power to the executive branch acting in conjunction with a foreign power. Apart from the broader issue it was the obvious intent of Congress to give France her option of making Morocco honor her treaties with the United States or of foregoing ECA aid. This legislation was adopted with full knowledge that the Secretary of State objected to it. In spite of this the Secretary has made an arrangement under which treaty violations and assistance to France will continue exactly as if the legislation had not been passed. While there may or may not be any reasonable basis for the French suit, it seems obvious that the President's opinion of whether or not treaty violations exist should be based on the prior expressions of his own staff and not upon that of an international court. As a matter of fact, it seems that the very defense of this action would be based on the official United States opinion of these treaties and their requirements and that aid should be suspended if France does not accede to this opinion during the period when the matter is before the Court. At any rate, this problem has consumed a great deal of time in Congress and in the executive branch. Apparently there is a strong possibility that additional discussion and more stringent legislation may result from the Department of State's proposed solution. While I have not been wholeheartedly in sympathy with the use of the Economic Cooperation Administration as a means of enforcing these treaties, I do believe that it is the duty of the Department of State to enforce them and that this should be based on an interpretation which excludes all possibility that the treaties may have been altered without advice and consent of the Senate. I also believe that the intent of the amendment to the general Appropriations Act should be carried out and that this apparent determination of the Secretary of State to oppose the clear will of Congress is particularly unfortunate at this time in view of his many other acts which detract from the confidence in the administration which should prevail in Congress. Yours sincerely, E. E. Cox, Member of Congress. TEXTILE EXPORT ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JOHN FOSTER DULLES, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. DEAR SECRETARY DULLES: This letter is to request that you act to restore to our members and to all Americans the right to trade in the French Zone of Morocco on a basis identical with that prevailing before the establishment of the French protectorate and similar to that now in force at Tangier. Our members individually, and through the Textile Export Association of the United States, frequently have complained that French protectorate authorities deprive them of former trade, despite treaties guaranteeing them the right to compete freely in Morocco. A statement by the export association figured in 1950 Senate debates which led to legislation intended to deprive France of United States aid until United States-Moroccan treaties are restored. We were told that this law would not be enforced until the International Court of Justice had judged the validity of the treaty rights in question. In our opinion, this was merely a means to evade the law since, it is obvious, the protectorate could not legally have modified prior treaties. Our opinion was confirmed by the International Court, which declared that the principles of the Treaty of Algeciras were not altered by establishment of the protectorate. These treaty violations in the French protectorate had no serious excuse before the Court ruled on them. Since the ruling all excuse, however flimsy, has been removed. The verdict was rendered on August 27, 1952. France, under international law, should have implemented it on that date. It still is not implemented. Our members and their customers still encounter handicaps in the French-administered zone of Morocco which French manufacturers and their customers do not encounter. Our members do not encounter these handicaps and their French competitors do not enjoy advantages in the internationally administered zone of Morocco, where the same treaty is applicable and is respected. In 1952 our exports of cotton textiles to Morocco amounted to 6,582,270 square yards. In 1953 they dropped to 252,428 square yards. We would appreciate your letting us know what your Department has done to extend to the French Zone of Morocco the free competition and equality now enjoyed by United States trade at Tangier, and when our members may begin operating under this regime. Yours sincerely, JOHN W. MURRAY, Secretary-Treasurer. Beginning on page 1174 of the Foreign Affairs Committee's hearings on the Mutual Security Act of 1954 are statements on Morocco treaty violations by the American Federation of Labor, American Legion, Commerce and Industry Association of New York, and the Textile Workers Union, CIO. The same record gives details of the violations as reported by the American Chamber of Commerce of Morocco. It also shows how this chamber abandoned its campaign for treaty compliance after it was threatened by French officials. I have submitted for your files a reprint of an article appearing in Export Trade and Shipper in October 1954. Unfortunately, the results I hoped for when I wrote that article have not materialized. Thank you very much for your consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Does that complete your statement, Mr. Rodes? Mr. RODES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your requests have been granted for the inclusion of the documents indicated by you. Are there any questions? If not, we thank you for your appearance and the information given to the committee. Mr. RODES. Thank you, sir. Mr. CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 5: 17 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., the following day.) TRADE AGREEMENTS EXTENSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the main hearing room of the committee, House Office Building, Hon. Jere Cooper (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. The first witness appearing on the calendar today is Mr. Philip D. Reed, chairman of the board of General Electric Co. We are very glad to have you, Mr. Reed. If you will just follow the usual custom of giving your name and address and the capacity in which you appear, for the record, you may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF PHILIP D. REED, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. Mr. REED. I am Philip D. Reed, chairman of the board of General Electric Co., New York. The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized, Mr. Reed, and you may present your statement without interruption. Mr. REED. Thank you very much, sir. Your chairman was kind enough to permit me to appear today among the last of the witnesses testifying on behalf of H. R. 1. Ĭ requested the opportunity to so appear because I am what might properly be called a proponent, with qualifications. In broad effect the General Electric Co. favors, as it has already publicly stated, the extension of the Trade Agreements Act. Furthermore, we were heartened by many of the points stressed by the President in his message to the Congress on January 10 outlining his foreign economic program for the United States-his recommendations for improvements in customs administration and procedures, for the stimulation of private investment funds abroad, and for progress toward the objective of restoring currency convertibility. We are mindful also of the President's message to the Congress of March 30, 1954, in which he first outlined the broad aspects of his foreign economic policy. The issues involved in the President's program are vital to the wellbeing of our economy. They are complex and difficult issues on which there are many strongly held points of view. Certainly, however, no one can quarrel with the sense of the underlying policy that calls for an overall foreign economic program framed in the light of one guiding principle-what is best in the national interest. There is one aspect of the overall problem of imports which we feel is not adequately covered according to what is best in the national |