TRADE TALKS IN MOSCOW FAIL

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25247, 28 July 1947, Page 7

TRADE TALKS IN MOSCOW FAIL

Concessions Sought By Soviet

BRITISH MISSION RETURNS (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

\Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, July 26. The British-Russian trade talks ended without agreement, says the diplomatic correspondent of “The Times.” The news reached London while the leader of the British delegation (Mr Harold Wilson) was flying back to London to-night-“The trade talks broke down not on prices but on financial concessions asked for under the 1941 agreement*” said Mr Wilson at a press conference in Moscow before leaving for London. “The Soviet Government made the financial question a condition of any comprehensive trade agreement” Mr Wilson added that a small timber agreement was signed last week, and also a contract for a supply of pitprops. Reuters’ Moscow correspondent says that the concessions asked for would cost Britain several millions of pounds. Both sides made final offers, but ultimately it was found impossible to bridge the gap, and it is understood that the 1941 credit remains in full force.

Under the 1941 agreement, says the diplomatic correspondent of “The Times,” Britain supplied Russia with goods valued at £100,000.000 on the understanding that £40,000,000 was paid in cash and £60,000.000 by credit i epayable over seven years at 3 per cent. The rate of interest was reduced last year to 2 per cent. Lately the Russians asked for a reduction to one-half per cent, and for an extension of the repayment period. Wheat and Timber “After a weeks hard bargaining failure seemed inevitable yesterday, but both sides made a final effort to reach agreement,” says the correspondent. “Mr Wilson had three talks with the Soviet Trade Minister (Mr Mikoyan) in 24 hours, but difficulties became acute when the Russians demanded a high price for wheat, and there were other outstanding difficulties even when the two siaes came nearer about wheat. ‘‘lt is uncertain whether the agreement on timber will now be put into effect. Russia was to have supplied 50,000 standards in return for timbercutting equipment, and she would have supplied 1,000,000 tons of cereals, half of them wheat. Britain could not have paid the Russian price for wheat because there is not enough British machinery available to meet the cost of all the products Russia could have supplied. The balance would have been payable in sterling, convertible to collars. It would have caused a substantial drain on Britain’s dollar resources.

“Agreement will doubtless be sought again when the trading balance is more even.

n«;SSj^ eak^ own \ s a political disappointment. It was hoped that Britain Russi , a , could demonstrate that trade could be developed between W . estern Europe in spite JSr th u ? ussian Propaganda against the Marshall proposals.” 6