Anti-boycott Bill Weakened After Americans Refuse to Testify

The chances of Britain adopting anti-boycott legislation have weakened considerably following the United States government’s failure to provide important evidence about the impact of recent American legislation.

Anti-boycott circles here suspect this may have been caused by U.S. reluctance to irritate the British government, which is hostile to legislation. But the American Embassy says the only reason is the lack of conclusive evidence about American legislation which is still new. It also denied that the British government has involved itself in the matter. As a result, however, the House of Lords Select Committee is preparing its report on the foreign boycotts bill, sponsored by the Liberal peer Lord Byers, without an authoritative American statement on the impact of the U.S. legislation on which the bill is modeled. Written and oral evidence was first requested by the committee three months ago. At least two requests were made for evidence from the U.S. Commerce Department, particularly from Stanley Marcuss, Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who is responsible for boycott matters.

PREMATURE TO PASS JUDGMENT

However, the U.S. Embassy, after consulting with Washington, told the committee that it would be premature to pass judgment on the effects of legislation enacted only last year and all of whose provisions still have not come into effect. This refusal is bound to affect the report of the committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which is to be published in September. Throughout the hearings, the American experience of anti-boycott law has been a central theme.

Supporters of the legislation have argued that, contrary to dire predictions, the legislation has not damaged American business with Arab countries and that, indeed, the latter are flexibly accommodating themselves to it. Opponents of the bill have maintained that such conclusions are either wrong or premature.

Last month, Daniel Halperin, head of the Israel Finance Ministry’s anti-boycott unit, urged the committee to ask American officials to confirm that U.S. legislation had not prevented U.S.-Arab trade from continuing to boom. He claimed that Marcuss had told him this himself in Washington.

Despite a further request to the U.S. Embassy, there was still no sign of evidence from Marcuss or his department about the effects of the legislation. Instead, the Embassy briefly confirmed that there had been no immediate damage to U.S. exports, but accused Halperin of having over-stated Marcuss’ confidence about the long-term effects.