835.5151/128
The Chargé in Argentina (White) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received June 19.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s telegrams No. 30 of June 3, 3 p.m., No. 31 of June 5, 6 p.m., and to my telegrams No. 48 of June 5, 12 noon and No. 51 of June 7, 6 p.m., also to my despatch No. 2097 of June 2.
As to these telegrams, it occurs to me from the Department’s No. 31 of June 5, 6 p.m., that there is a bare possibility that the Department may have misunderstood the nature of the diplomatic reception of the Argentine Foreign Minister. This is a business and not a social function. It occurs weekly and is for the transaction of any matters, important or the reverse. While one can make use of it for asking questions for which one would not be warranted in asking a special audience, it is nevertheless a suitable moment for the transaction of all kinds of affairs. Any other appointment with the Minister for Foreign Affairs requires special notification.
In view of the Department’s wishes, I did not see the Foreign Minister on Tuesday, June 6, but obtained an interview on Wednesday, the 7th. It seemed to me that I could not do better than to read to the Minister the pertinent portions of the Department’s cable in Spanish. In the first place, because the instructions stated very succinctly what the Department wished to communicate, and in the second place, because it would prevent interruptions by the Minister in my exposition; for Dr. Saavedra Lamas being quick-minded and a fluent exponent of his own ideas, I suspect encounters difficulty in listening patiently to others. When I announced my intention of reading the telegram, the Minister summoned the Under Secretary to listen also. After I had finished the reading, I stated that in consonance with the Department’s desire to keep open the channels of trade as widely as possible, it had reverted to the matter of the interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause as this arose in connection with the Argentine-Chilean modus vivendi (see Instruction No. 709 of May 23, 193311 which had come by air mail the day before).
[Page 741]The Minister thereupon requested that I give him a written memorandum of the foregoing. I replied that I was not sure whether my Government would wish this done but that I would be glad to telegraph. He then suggested that I should not bother to do that but should rather dictate some notes to the Under Secretary.
When I left the Minister, I began reading to the Under Secretary the first portions of the Department’s telegram No. 30 in Spanish, which he proceeded to take down in longhand. When he had covered the portion in regard to the circular of the Exchange Control Committee, he said that he thought a statement of this importance should be signed by me. I replied that I desired to take home his draft as it appeared to me to be happily worded. He said that I could not read his notes, so these were typed out. When I had seen the draft, it appeared to require a few modifications, so I said that I would take it home and as for the portion about the exchange provisions of the Roca agreement, I would consult my Government by telegraph.
Yesterday morning on opening the papers, I read statements to the effect that the Embassy had been in communication with the Argentine authorities and that in order to remove the obstacles a meeting of the Exchange Control Committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance had been held yesterday with representatives of the First National Bank of Boston and the National City Bank of New York, with the result that a satisfactory arrangement had been reached. The statement in The Buenos Aires Herald is enclosed herewith.12
I thereupon rang up the First National Bank of Boston and was told that the Minister of Finance had stated that he would cause the circular of the Exchange Control Committee of May 31 to be rescinded and that he had also invited Mr. Lanusse, an Argentine of prominence and a high official of the Bank of Boston, to become a member of the Exchange Control Committee. In view of what appears to promise a satisfactory arrangement, I have refrained from making any further written statement in regard to the circular of the Exchange Control Committee so far. There is enclosed herewith the English text of the Minister of Finance’s reply to my memorandum of June 1st. It seems a little vague, but the Boston Bank assures me that it is enough to warrant them in disregarding the circular of May 31st. I have no official cognizance of Dr. Hueyo’s reply so far.
As to the expediency of notifying the Foreign Office in writing of the objections to the exchange provisions of the Roca agreement, if the Department intends to launch a protest against this, I see no objection to putting the matter in writing. It is even possible that such action might, if published, add an additional strength to criticisms of the Roca agreement which adversaries of the Government [Page 742] may raise in Congress; on the other hand, it might have an adverse effect. As the success of a protest on our part seems very doubtful, it occurred to me that possibly the Department would not wish to be on record as making such.
There is also enclosed, as a matter of record—it has little other importance—a copy and translation of the circular of the Exchange Control Committee of June 2,13 interpreting that of May 31. While this relieves Argentine exports to the United States from having to carry the burden of all dollar exchange, at the same time, it leaves a measure of discrimination against the dollar in that permits must be required for dollars for the purchase of other exchanges which are not needed in the case of currencies of other countries. I understand this feature of the situation is also to be removed.
Respectfully yours,