Skip to main content

Historical documents

177 Record Of Conversation By Warwick Smith

4th December, 1956


US Surplus Disposals and Japanese Wheat Imports
Mr Propps called at his own request to raise a point or two in
connection with last Friday's discussion with Mr Jones (U.S.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (Economic) Far East). [1]

Mr Propps said that the Embassy had in fact recommended to the
State Department that the U.S. should not seek any tied commercial
purchase obligation by Japan in connection with any P.L.480
transaction on wheat that they might be negotiating. It occurred
to Mr Propps however-and he was raising this point with us only in
an effort to help things along and entirely without instructions-
that the State Department would see it something in this light:

There were press reports that Australia was trying to get from
Japan an import quota commitment for Australian wheat. Australia
was asking the U.S.A. not to tie up any of the balance of Japanese
soft wheat import demand apart from the quantity involved under
P.L.480. However, Australia was asking the U.S. to forego an
opportunity to get a commitment from Japan on imports of wheat
from America not in order that Australia and U.S.A. might compete
on an open footing for this wheat, but in order that Australia
herself might tie up part of the market by means of an import
commitment negotiated with Japan in the current negotiations.

Mr Propps thought that by discussion with us he might find some
relatively simple answer.

I agreed with Mr Propps that this was a real point of practical
significance so far as U.S. Administration's actions were
concerned. However, from our point of view as soon as the
Americans came in to the Japanese market with a P.L.480 deal they
destroyed the commercial character of the market. We, I was sure,
would have no complaints if the whole of the Japanese soft wheat
import requirements- 1.2 million tons-were open to free commercial
competition from supplying countries (but it had to be remembered
that our usual qualification would apply, namely that commercial
meant commercial and not subsidised competition). If, however, the
Americans tied up part of the Japanese import requirement with a
P.L.480 transaction that meant that we were already precluded from
one-third of the market and it did not make much sense from our
point of view to talk about open competition in what was left of
the market. However, the point that Mr Propps had raised was one
to which we would give further thought over the next few days. Mr
Propps and I agreed that it would be better for him and for the
Embassy here to await some reaction from Washington to their cable
rather than to raise with Washington this point which Mr Propps
had discussed with me.

Mr Propps also asked for clarification of our position on G.A.T.T.

in relation to Japan as distinct from m.f.n. treatment. I
explained that it was our anticipation that if the Trade Agreement
worked out reasonably smoothly the application of G.A.T.T. would
follow fairly soon, but we thought it would be rather rash to try
to tackle both problems at once.

1 See Document 176.

[AA : A1310/1, 810/1/39]
Last Updated: 11 September 2013
Back to top