[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the Minister in Uruguay
(Wright)
In a conversation with Dr. Juan
Carlos Blanco, Minister for Foreign Affairs, this
afternoon upon other subjects, I referred to
[Page 93]
the recent discussions at Geneva (of
course, making no reference whatsoever to Mr. Gibson’s telegram).
Even before it was necessary to determine the best manner of
referring to Cosio’s
speech86—and, therefore, to his reported opposition to Mr.
Gibson’s
proposal—Blanco
brought the subject up himself by stating that the attitude of
the Uruguayan delegation was actuated entirely by the devotion
of this Government to the principles of the League of Nations
and that the instructions given to the delegation were to
support any proposal that might strengthen the League of
Nations—in so far as practicable. Blanco further volunteered the information that
the press reports of Cosio’s speech, which had come by way of Buenos
Aires, had probably been exaggerated, and he laid stress upon
the fact that neither Cosio nor the Uruguayan delegation should be
considered as “in opposition” to the proposals of Mr. Gibson.
As this opening afforded me an opportunity to discuss the point
in more detail, I asked him whether he believed that the
proposal of Mr. Gibson or
that of M. Tardieu
represented the prevailing sentiment in South America. He said
that it would be difficult to give an opinion on so broad a
question, because he had observed from the very beginning of the
League of Nations, since which time he had spent at least three
years in Geneva or in London in connection with committees of
the League—that South America was always incoherent on subjects
pertaining to the League—especially disarmament proposals, and
he cited the “unfortunate” observation of the Mexican delegate
which “temporarily diverted” the proposal of the Uruguayan
delegation,87 supported by our delegation, that an
expression of Pan American sentiment be recorded.
I then asked him, more specifically, if he had formed an opinion
as to whether South America in general would be inclined to
approve strengthening the Covenant of the League by putting
teeth into Article 16, or whether a proposal to do away with
certain arms of offense, as proposed by Mr. Gibson, would be more
efficacious from the standpoint of defense as well as of
economy. He said that he could not answer that question either,
citing as an example the fact that even when the question of
disarmament among the A B C countries was broached at Santiago,
at the time of the V International Conference of American
States, in 1923,88 the attitude of these
[Page 94]
three countries on the question of
disarmament,89 and the value of offensive vessels,
could not be determined—chiefly on account of the fact that
Brazil considered battleships as part of her system of
protection of an extensive coastline. Furthermore, he observed
that he thought the question whether Article 16 of the League
would be of any value whatsoever if offensive arms of the kind
mentioned were discarded by mutual consent, was at least open to
discussion. In fact, his whole argument impinged upon support of
the League.
He reiterated what he had said to me before: that the League,
without the participation of Russia and the United States, was
greatly lacking in authority—but he apparently desired me to
draw the inference that Uruguay would continue to support it as
long as there was sufficient breath in it to justify support
(Here must be recalled the almost fanatical support of the
League by Juan Antonio Buero).
Turning then to the question of any apparent difference of
viewpoint between Senor Cosio and Mr. Gibson, Dr. Blanco—again upon his own initiative—said to me
that “‘opposition’ by the Uruguayan delegation to the point of
view of the United States is impossible,” for any member of the
delegation taking such attitude would be immediately disavowed
by this Government. In this connection he again referred to the
attitude of his Government in reprimanding Senor Guani when the latter, in Paris,
at the time of the VI Pan American Conference at Habana in
1928,90
took it upon himself to express opposition to the relations of
the United States with Cuba by virtue of the Piatt
Amendment.91
He voluntarily alluded to the cordial relations between the
Uruguayan and American delegations, referred again to the action
of the American delegation in endeavoring to support the
Uruguayan proposal for a common expression on behalf of the
American States toward the realization of the objects of the
Conference, and once more expressed appreciation of the graceful
act of Mr. Hugh Wilson in
nominating Juan Enrique
Buero as Chairman of the Land Armament
Committee.
He further said that he believed the exact proposals, as well as
the exact replies of the delegates, could only be studied
intelligently upon receipt of the actual texts—and he would
therefore await their
[Page 95]
receipt from Geneva. In view of the fact, he added, that the
Uruguayan delegation was not “opposed to” the point of view
expressed by Mr. Gibson
and, further, that it had instructions to examine from all
points the feasibility of such proposals as that of M. Tardieu, he would be obliged if
I would inform my Government that the Uruguayan Government was
entirely open-minded in this question (subject to the
aforementioned condition that it was desirous of supporting the
League whenever possible), that a true decision could only be
reached after the subject had been fully discussed from all
angles. I observed that I had immediately read between the lines
of the press reports of Cosio’s remarks the fact that Uruguay was
actuated by this motive more than anything else: he said that
this assumption was correct.
In short, it may be said that while Cosio’s general attitude in support of Tardieu’s proposals was in
conformity with his general instructions, his action is not
necessarily the last word of this Government; that the desire of
the Uruguayan Government is that its delegation should keep on
terms of close accord with ours—not at any price, but certainly
to the point of being open-minded in discussions: and that no
attitude of “opposition to” any proposal of the United States
will be tolerated.
I believe the situation, therefore, to be susceptible of further
modulation by discreet action at Geneva—and, possibly, at this
end.
J. Butler Wright
Montevideo
, April 14, 1932.
