Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, The American Republics, Volume VII

710 Consultation (4)/11–1244: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Mexico (Messersmith)³¹

Washington, November 12, 1944—11 a.m.

2006. The Government of the United States has given very careful consideration to the proposals contained in Dr. Padilla’s memorandum of November 6, 1944,³² and desires to make the following comment:

I

The Government of the United States is in entire agreement that a Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics which have cooperated in the war effort should be held to discuss urgent war and post-war problems. It shares the opinion of Dr. Padilla as to the importance of this Meeting. This Meeting will give to the nations of America that have so wholeheartedly cooperated in the war effort, the opportunity to assess the progress that has been made in the realization of their war objectives and to lay the basis for their effective collaboration in the peace. This Government is therefore glad to support this initiative of the Foreign Minister of Mexico. Any date, either before or after the United Nations meeting, which will permit the participating Governments to make adequate arrangements for both meetings, would be acceptable to this Government. It is believed that such a date can be promptly fixed by mutual agreement.

II

(1) The Government of the United States is, of course, prepared to continue consultation with the other American Republics on the question of relations with Argentina, as we are on all matters of mutual interest. It has been the constant object of this Government, as it has been of all the American governments, to obtain the participation of Argentina in the common efforts and councils of the nations of this Hemisphere. But principles, for which the free peoples of the world are sacrificing the full measure of their human and material resources, cannot be compromised for the sake of an appearance of unity. If Hemisphere unity is to be more than an empty form without real substance, it must be based on action which demonstrates a common purpose, common ideals and a practical spirit of cooperation among both the governments and the peoples of America. Such unity can be achieved only through the conscientious support and active defense of the principles that underlie Hemisphere solidarity as they have been enunciated and put into practice by the American Republics which have cooperated in the war effort. There is grave danger in the creation of a facade of unity behind which hostile forces can work to undermine and destroy everything for which we have been fighting.

(2) On June 22, 1944, this Government stated its position³³ with respect to the present Argentine regime in a communication to the other American Republics which reviewed the development of our system of Hemisphere defense and cited the facts which demonstrated Argentina’s failure to fulfill its commitments as a responsible member of the inter-American system. In the same document, we reviewed the actions of the Farrell government since its assumption of power in February of this year, and established that the present government of Argentina had not only failed to cooperate with the other American Republics but had, in fact, given affirmative assistance to the enemy. In that statement we made the following declaration:

“The large majority of the American Republics do not maintain relations with the Government of Argentina because, in refusing to join in the common defense against a common enemy, that government has jeopardized the security of the Hemisphere and destroyed the unity of the Americas at a crucial moment of their history. Any suggestion that the other American Republics should recognize the present government of Argentina on the theory that recognition would help to advance the cause of hemispheric unity after the war, breaks down completely when it is seen that the most compelling considerations of national safety and independence of each of the American Republics, including Argentina itself, have not moved that government to practice unity in time of war.”

This statement of our position was approved by all the governments which had not recognized the Argentine regime and was immediately followed by the withdrawal from Buenos Aires of the Chiefs of Mission of practically all of the American Republics and of their associates among the United Nations. Subsequently, in response to inspired rumors that renewed consideration was being given to the recognition of that regime, 14 American Republics publicly reaffirmed their solidarity in defense of the unity of the Continent and in condemnation of the policy and actions of the Farrell government.

(3) Nothing that has happened in the last 4 months warrants a change in the position then taken. The Farrell government is and always has been well aware of the actions that would be necessary to implement Argentina’s inter-American commitments and to align it in good faith with the other nations of America. That government is well aware that this is a matter of conduct and not of promise, of substance and not of form. For this reason to attempt to reduce to a formula the conduct which would be appropriate to a nation desirous of being a sincere collaborator in the security of the Hemisphere, is to raise form above substance and to open the way for the evasion of the fundamental obligations undertaken and performed by all the other American nations. A formula is unnecessary where the desire to collaborate is sincere; where there is no such desire, it becomes an invitation to go through a mere formality. It therefore continues to be the view of this Government that there is no need for the negotiation of a formula to guide the Farrell regime and that only through continued and consistent performance of acts that will demonstrate a settled policy of genuine cooperation with its sister republics can Argentina win their confidence.

III

This Government agrees with the Foreign Minister of Mexico that it is very doubtful whether a consideration of Argentina’s conduct at a Meeting of Foreign Ministers would serve any useful purpose. As has been stated above, the Farrell government knows full well what is expected of it, and it is questionable whether anything can be accomplished by one more statement of the case. Nevertheless, if the other American Republics should favor a Meeting for that purpose, this Government is ready and willing to participate in a full and free discussion of the Argentine question. It is believed, however, that the other Republics will agree that if a hearing is granted, it must be a hearing designed by appropriate procedural steps to assure a full and open discussion of all aspects of Argentina’s conduct which relate to the truly fundamental issues. The Argentine proposal gives no assurance that the representative of the Farrell government will not attempt to exclude from consideration the substance of the differences between Argentina and the other American Republics by a technical interpretation of its commitments under inter-American agreements, by resort to an ambiguous reservation with regard to so-called internal measures, or by some other evasive procedure.

If the American Republics decide to grant a hearing to the Argentine regime, we would be agreeable to the appearance of a representative of that regime following the close of the Meeting referred to in Part I, for the sole and exclusive purpose of discussing the Argentine situation. We do not believe that a representative of the Farrell government should attend the meeting on war and post-war problems. Tardy efforts to create an appearance of collaboration should not be considered sufficient to entitle the Argentine regime to participate in such a meeting. Neither should a request for a hearing by that regime be permitted to cause a postponement of a consultative meeting of the other American Republics.

E. R. Stettinius, Jr.

31. This telegram was repeated on the same date as a circular to the diplomatic missions in the American Republics except Argentina.
32. Not printed, but for translation of memorandum of November 8, which was a restatement of the earlier memorandum, see telegram 1404, November 8, 8 p.m., from Mexico City, p. 39.
33. See circular telegram of June 22, 11 p.m., p. 315.