Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T16:39:19.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugar and Anglo-Peruvian Trade Negotiations in the 1930s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Bill Albert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the inter-war period the international economy was drastically altered as economic nationalism and the desire for self-sufficiency were strengthened in the aftermath of the Great War. Even Britain, the bastion of free trade, began to adopt protection and trade preference from 1919. The narrowing of European markets had serious consequences for primary commodity producers, many of whom, induced by high war-time prices, had greatly increased their output and used windfall profits to install more modern processes and increase capacity. When commodity prices began to fall from about the mid-1920s, the most common response was to raise output, and this simply helped to push prices still lower. With the Crash in 1929, the position of primary producers changed from bad to catastrophic. Prices collapsed, flows of capital and credit dried up and the already weakened international economy broke into fragments. Countries moved to protect themselves by the introduction of exchange controls, systems of trade preference, higher tariffs and bi-lateral trade agreements. In Latin America the most widely known bi-lateral arrangement was the so-called Roca-Runciman Agreement celebrated between Britain and Argentina in 1933 and renewed three years later.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 121 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lewis, W. Arthur, Economic Survey 1919–1939 (London, 1949), passim.Google Scholar

2 Timoshenko, V. P., World Agriculture and the Depression (Ann Arbor, 1933), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

3 Drosdoff, D., El Gobierno de las Vacas (1933–1956) Tratado Roca-Runciman (Buenos Aires, 1972), passim.Google Scholar Between March 1933 and March 1934, Latin American nations entered into 68 bi-lateral agreements. Paul, A. Varg, ‘The Economic Side of the Good Neighbor Policy: the Reciprocal Trade Program and South America’, Pacific Historical Review, 45, No. 1 (1976), p. 49.Google Scholar

4 Ratification may have been of little importance, particularly for Britain, in that on the agreement being signed the lower tariff rates came into force, as did the purchasing undertakings. See below, p. 139.

5 In the years 1924–28 beef accounted for 11.2% of Argentine exports, in 1929 for 10%, 1933– 11.2% and 1936 – 12.1%. The comparative figures for Peruvian sugar are: 1924–28 15.6%, 1929– 10%, 1933 – 13.2%, 1936 – 7.5%. Argentine data from Roger Gravil and Timothy, Rooth, ‘A Time of Acute Dependence: Argentina in the 1930's’, Journal of European Economic History, 7, no. 2–3, (1978), p. 353Google Scholar and Guido, di Tella and Manuel, Zymelman, Las Etapas dcl Desarrollo Económico Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1967), p. 133. For Peruvian data, see Table 2.Google Scholar

6 Baltazar, Caravado Molinari, Burguesía e Industria en el Perú 1933–1945 (Lima, 1978), passim.Google Scholar

7 Rosemary, Thorp and Geoffrey, Bertram, Peru 1890–1977. Growth & Policy in an Open Economy (London, 1978), pp. 79–80, 100.Google Scholar

8 Rippy, J. F., British Investments in Latin American (Minneapolis, 1959), pp. 67, 76;Google ScholarMax, Winkler, Investments of United States Capital in Latin America (1928), p. 148.Google Scholar

9 Lima: Manuscripts of the Sociedad Nacional Agraria (hereafter SNA, MSS.), Memorandum ‘Bases para un Contrato Comercial entre La Gran Bretaña y el Peru’, July 28, 1932. (All the S.N.A., MSS referred to are in the Archivo Agraria in Lima and are uncatalogued.)

10 Thorp, and Bertram, , op. cit., pp. 104–6.Google Scholar

11 S.N.A., MSS, undated Memorandum on need for trade treaty with Britain.

12 Forbes, to Simon, Lima, 12 18, 1934. London: Public Record Office, Board of Trade Papers (hereafter, BT).Google Scholar

13 Swerling, B. C., International Control of Sugar, 1918–41 (Stanford, 1949), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 29.

15 League of Nations, The Course and Phases of the World Economic Depression (Geneva, 1931), pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

16 International Sugar Council (I.S.C.),, The World Sugar Economy. Structure and Policies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 95;Google ScholarSwerling, , op. cit., pp. 27–8.Google Scholar

17 I.S.C., op. cit., p. 134.Google Scholar

18 League of Nations, Sugar. Memoranda Prepared for the Economic Committee (Geneva, 1929), pp. 31–2.Google Scholar

19 Swerling, , op. cit., p. 29.Google Scholar

20 S., Pollard, The Development of the British Economy 1914–1950 (London, 1962), pp. 192–200; Lewis, op. cit. Ch. V.Google Scholar

21 Swerling, , op. cit., pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

22 Swerling, B. C. and Timoshenko, V. I., The World's Sugar. Progress and Policy (Stanford, 1957), pp. 200–1.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., pp. 202–6.

24 Ibid., p. 204.

25 I.S.C., op. cit., p. 197.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., pp. 166–7; Swerling, and Timoshenko, , op. cit., pp. 157–9.Google Scholar

27 I. S. C., op. cit., p. 167.Google Scholar

28 Swerling, and Timoshenko, , op. cit., p. 159.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., pp. 159–63.

30 The Jones–Costigan Act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, and this necessitated its revision in 1937. I.S.C., op. cit., p. 167.Google Scholar

31 See below, pp. 139–140.

32 Peru, Ministerio de Fomento, Estadística de la Producción de caña de azúcar y azúcar de caña en el Perú, various years.

33 Dunn, W. E., Peru. A Commercial and Industrial Handbook (Washington D.C., 1925), p. 107.Google ScholarUnión de Productores de Azúcar, El Azúcar Peruana (Lima, 1943).Google Scholar

34 I.S.C., op. cit., pp. 138, 228–9, 237–9.Google Scholar

35 The estate of San Jacinto in the valley of Nepeña was a relatively small producer, accounting for only about 3 per cent of the country's production. Casa Grande on the other hand was the single largest producer in Peru and during the 1930s produced about 30 per cent of the country's sugar. (Based on statistical returns to SNA, 1931 and 1932.)

36 Informe de la Cornisión Comercial Peruana enviada a Chile en 1932. (Copy published, Lima, 1972.) It was argued that there was about a 2p per quintal difference to be earned in Chile, this amounting to only about £17,000 to Peru. S.N.A. MSS, Memo.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 2.

38 La Vida Agrícola, 02 1926, p. 153, 09 1927, pp. 753–4.Google Scholar

39 Kindleberger, C. P., The World in Depression. 1929–1939 (London, 1973), pp. 190–1.Google Scholar

40 Informe de la Comisión‖, pp. 40–2.Google Scholar

41 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Breve Historia de Los Convenios Comerciales entre Perú y Chile’, Lima, 05 31, 1941. (Memo to the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores).Google Scholar

42 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Consideraciones Básicas Para Ia Celebración de un Convenio Comercial con Chile‖’, n.d. (1932?).Google Scholar

43 S.N.A. MSS., ‘Tratado Comercial Celebrado entre el Perú y Chile el 17 December Marzo de 1934’, (Mimeo of text.)

44 ‘Quarterly “E” Report for Peru’, December 1935. BT11/338/1.

45 Cavendish-Bentinck, to Hoare, , Santiago, 09. 26, 1935, BT11/338.Google Scholar

46 Quarterly ‘E' Report‖ ’, Dec. 1935.

47 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Puntos de vista que en concepto de los Azucareros Peruanos Deben tenerse presente al celebrar un Tratado Comercial con Chile’, Lima, 12 1932.Google Scholar

48 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Consideraciones Básicas‖’.

49 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Informe que presenta el Comite de Defensa de la Industria Azucarera a La Junta de Productores’, Lima, 10 30, 1928.Google Scholar

50 Bentinck, to Henderson, , Lima, 07 26, 1930Google Scholar and Bentinck, to Simon, , Lima, 11 18, 1933. BT11/229.Google Scholar

51 S.N.A. MSS. ‘Memorandum’, 04 23, 1932.Google Scholar

52 Clemente de Althaus, a financial expert and Jorge Chamot, Secretary of Lima Chamber of Commerce. The committee was subsequently accredited to the Peruvian legation in London and negotiations made official. El Comercio, 06 5, 1932.Google Scholar

53 S.N.A. MSS. Clemente de Althaus to President of SNA, London, 07 31 1932.Google Scholar

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Basadre, J., Historia de la Rcpúlica del Perú, Vol. xiv (Lima, 1968), p. 330.Google Scholar

57 S.N.A. MSS.Althaus and Chamot, to Benavides, A. (Head of the Peruvian Legation in London), London, 09 7, 1932.Google Scholar

58 Ibid

59 ‘Annual Report on Peru’, 05 30, 1933, p. 15. London: PRO, Foreign Office Archives (hereafter FO), FO371 /16597.Google Scholar

60 Memo, D. Wilson, Lima, 10 15, 1934, BT11/307.Google Scholar

61 Forbes, to Simon, , Lima, 05 23, 1934, BT11/229.Google Scholar

62 Wilson, to Bentinck, , Lima, 11 18, 1933, BT11/229.Google Scholar

63 Telegram, Wilson to FO, Lima, 03 3, 1934. Cragie (FO) to Overton (BofT), London, April 20, 1934, BT11/229.Google Scholar

64 Ibid

65 Board of Trade Minute, 10 1934(?), BT11/307.Google Scholar

66 Hamilton (Boft) to Vansittart (FO), 03 26, 1934, BT11/229.Google Scholar

67 Forbes, to Simon, , Lima, 10 2, 1934,Google ScholarForbes, to Simon, , Lima, 04, 1934, BT11/229,Google ScholarForbes, to Simon, , Lima, 10 19, 1934, BT11/307.Google Scholar

68 B. of T, to Under Secretary of State FO, Oct. 1, 1934, FO371/16597.

69 Forbes, to FO, Lima, 11 12, 1934, Memo, on meeting with representative of Duncan Fox, Nov. 22, 1934, F0371/16597.Google Scholar

70 Memo, from Forbes, , 12, FO371/16597.Google Scholar

71 Memo, from Wilson, D., Lima, 10 23, 1934, BT11/307.Google Scholar

72 Wills (BofT) to Cragie (FO), Dec. 11, 1934, BT11/307.

73 Forbes, to Simon, , Lima, 12 18, 1934, BT11/307.Google Scholar

74 Broad to Fraser, , London, 01 25, 1935, FO371/18721, Council of Foreign Bondholders to Troutbeck (FO), March 11, 1935, FO371/18721,Google ScholarFraser, to Troutbeck, London, 06 12, 1935, FO371/18724.Google Scholar

75 Gravil, and Rooth, , op. cit., p. 357.Google Scholar

76 Council of Foreign Bondholders to Benavides, A., London, 05 10, 1935, FO371/18721.Google Scholar See also Wynne, W. E., State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders, Vol. 2 (New Haven, 1951), pp. 182–94. It was mainly the 7½ per cent Guano Loan of 1922 (£962,000) which was held in Britain. At this time Peru was making part payment on this loan, whereas the large dollar loans made during the Leguía period were in complete default.Google Scholar

77 Telegram to Forbes, , undated (end of 04 1935?), BT11/379.Google Scholar

78 Agreement Between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Peru relating to Commerce and Navigation. With Protocols and Exchange of Notes'. Oct. 16, 1936 (hereafter referred to as Agreement), BT11/644.

79 Minutes of formal meetings, BT11/379 file C.R.T. 852.

80 Forbes, to Simon, , Lima, 05 8, 1935, BT11/379.Google Scholar

81 Memo. Board of Trade on Peruvian sugar proposals, April 29, 1935. Minute CRT Department, May 1935, and Minutes March 20, 1935 and March 30, 1935, BT11/379.

82 Board of Trade to Forbes, , 01 16, 1935,Google ScholarForbes, to FO, 01 21, 1935, FO371/18720.Google Scholar

83 Forbes, to FO, Lima, 03 1, 1935, FO371/18720.Google Scholar

84 Memo, from Cragie on meeting with Benavides, A., 04 2, 1935, BT11/379.Google Scholar

85 Minutes Nov. 28, 1935 and Dec. 21, 1935, BT11/379.

86 Telegram Forbes to FO, Lima, Jan. 9, 1936, BT 11/582. See also Foreign Relations of the United States. Diplomatic Papers. 1936, Vol. 5, p. 910.Google Scholar

87 Chamot (Lima Chamber of Commerce) to Fraser (BofT), Lima, April 23, 1936, BT11/582.

88 Fraser, to Troutbeck, (draft telegram to Forbes in Lima), 07 29, 1936s, FO371/17999.Google Scholar

89 Quarterly Economic Report on Peru, Oct. 23, 1936, FO371/19801.

90 Forbes, to FO, 07 31, 1936, FO371/19800.Google Scholar

91 Fraser, to Troutbeck, (draft telegram to Forbes), 07 29, 1936, F0371/17992.Google Scholar

92 ‘Report of the Commission Appointed by the Supreme Government to Negotiate a Commercial Treaty in London Between Peru and Great Britain’, Lima, May 15, 1936 (in translation), enclosed in dispatch no. 165 ‘E’ from Lima, F0371/19800.

93 Ibid and ‘Agreement‖.’

94 Telegram, Forbes, to FO, 12 7, 1936, BTs11/760.Google Scholar

95 A review of the Debates of the Congreso Constituyente from 1934 to 1936 shows that the proposed agreement with Britain was never debated. There is no mention of the discussions in the APRA's paper La Tribuna, and there is but a single uncritical reference in the SNI journal La Industria Peruana. Vol. VI, No. 10 (10 1936), p. 571. I wish to thank Dr Peter Blanchard for carrying out the research on this issue in Lima.Google Scholar

96 Foreign Relations of the United States‖, pp. 908–28.Google Scholar

97 Ibid, pp. 892–908.

98 Ibid, p. 916.

99 La Vida Agrícola, 10 1937, pp. 815–18.Google Scholar Talks were also initiated at this time over a possible trade agreement with the US: Foreign Relations of the United States‖, pp. 928–33.Google Scholar

100 It is, of course, not clear whether this reallocation of part of Philippines' quota was a direct response to the Anglo-Peruvian Agreement. For example, La Vida Agrícola claimed that Peru was the only country to ask for a higher quota from the US. ‘El Azucar Peruano en E.E.U.U.’, La Vida Agrícola, 05, 1937, pp. 411–12.Google Scholar On US trade policy during this period, see Varg, , op. cit.,Google Scholar and Dick, Steward, Trade and Hemisphere. The Good Neighbor Policy and Reciprocal Trade (Columbia, Mo., 1975), passim.Google Scholar

101 I.S.C., Statistical Bulletin of the international Sugar Council, Vol. 4, No.4 (London, 1941), p. 2.Google Scholar Peru received an initial allocation of 330,000 tons of which they only utilized 236,402 tons. The size of Peru's quota was in line with the general level of her previous export performance, as were the quotas for most other countries. The relatively generous allocations were due to the fact that on aggregate the quotas were 500,000 tons above the estimated requirement of the free market for the first year of the Agreement. This was to be followed by a phased quota reduction. Sec Swerling, , op. cit., pp. 57–60.Google Scholar

102 Forbes, to Halifax, , Lima, 05 20, 1938, FO371/21487.Google Scholar

103 Telegram FO to Forbes, , 02 7, 1936, BT11/582.Google Scholar

104 Forbes, to Troutbeck, Lima, 11 27, 1936, FO371/19800.Google Scholar

105 Extracto Estadístico 1940, p. 372.Google Scholar

106 FO Minute Dec. 10, 1938, FO371/21487.

107 Bill, Albert, An Essay on the Peruvian Sugar Industry 1880–1920…. (Norwich, 1976), pp. 12a–25a.Google Scholar

108 Baltazar Caravedo Molinari, op. cit. passim.

109 Thorp, and Bertram, , op. cit., p. 190.Google Scholar

110 See above p. 137.

111 Caravedo, Molinari, op. cit., p. 87.Google Scholar

112 Gravil, and Rooth, , op. cit., p. 347.Google Scholar

113 FO Minute of conversation between Troutbeck and Jardine of FO with Victor Cecil of the Peruvian Corporation, Sept. 26, 1935, FO371/18725.