Office of the Historian

611.2531/225: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Chile (Frost)

Washington, December 2, 1937—4 p.m.

55. Your no. 81, November 25, 1 p.m. If after definitely satisfying yourself, by assurances from the Foreign Minister or from García after his return, that the Chilean Government’s interpretation of item (b) is that contained in your telegram no. 80 of November 22, you may execute the modus vivendi.

Your note will be identical with the text transmitted to the Foreign Office on February 22, 1937, as reported in your despatch no. 527 of March 13, 1937, with the following exceptions.

(1)
In the introductory paragraph, there will be inserted the word “friendship,” after the words “treaty of”.
(2)
Article 3 will conform to the text contained in your telegram no. 76 of November 17.
(3)
In article 4, the period will be replaced by a semicolon and there will follow the words contained in the penultimate paragraph of the Department’s telegram no. 48 of November 9.
(4)
In article 6 the word “agreements” will be changed to “agreement”; also, there will be inserted after the words “shall terminate” a comma and the words “if it will not have already automatically terminated,”.
(5)
In article 7 there will be deleted the words “shall come into force as of this day and”, and there will be inserted after the words “treaty of” the word “friendship,”.
(6)
There will be added as article 8 the following: “Both governments undertake immediately to initiate negotiations for the conclusion of a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation.”

You will note that the foregoing text of article 8 omits the obligation contained in the proposal of the Chilean Government to conclude a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation “within the shortest possible time”, which treaty should “regulate in definitive form the economic relations between the two countries.” If, as seems likely, the Chilean Government will desire to initiate exploratory conversations for a reciprocal trade agreement upon the conclusion of the modus vivendi, it would probably be advisable not to discuss the commercial provisions of the treaty until at least the general provisions of the trade agreement have been agreed upon. This does not imply, however, that conversations could not be proceeding with respect to other parts of the treaty.

Before signing the modus vivendi you are requested to inform the Chilean Government orally that although this Government is accepting for purposes of the modus vivendi the exchange clauses proposed by the Chilean Government, this Government would in a trade agreement or in a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation, expect more comprehensive assurances of equality of treatment in exchange matters.

Hull