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

711.3227/47

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Brazilian Affairs (Walmsley)²⁶

[Washington,] February 24, 1944.

Separately there are in circulation for initialing a draft military air agreement with Brazil approved by Departmental and Joint Chief of Staff representatives and an instruction to Mr. Caffery to negotiate. For convenient reference, copies of these documents are attached.²⁷

I am informed that the President has approved the general arrangements proposed for Brazil; and has added that whatever personnel may be stationed at the Brazilian bases after the war will not be uniformed.

It is reasonable to expect the Brazilian Government to seek certain compensations in return for signing an agreement which would allow the United States to engage in military activities in Brazil in peacetime. It would be prudent, therefore, to ascertain as soon as possible what concessions we are ready to give to attain the objectives envisaged. I believe Brazil may ask us for one or more of the following items:

(1) Extension of the reciprocal transit and landing privileges for Brazilian military aircraft (Article First) to (a) the leased bases in BWI²⁸ and (b) the Canal Zone.

In the case of (a), a general commitment to the other American republics was made with regard to use of the destroyer-base facilities in 1940.

In the case of (b), the Department should support such a request before the War Department;

(2) Security and defense measures at the bases to be Brazil’s responsibility and American servicing personnel to be unarmed.

In our wartime agreements with Brazil, we recognize Brazil’s responsibility to protect the airfields. Our men are armed by tacit consent of the local Brazilian military commanders. In view of the President’s dictum regarding uniforms, I feel that such a concession should be granted if request is made by Brazil;

(3) Recognition of Brazilian jurisdiction over American personnel committing offenses outside the bases; and within the base areas if Brazilians are involved.²⁹

Because the jurisdiction clause (Article Eleventh) is not truly reciprocal in the absence of Brazilian military formations in United States territory and because of the civilian attire of American personnel, I think it would be proper to accede to either or both requests if made;

(4) Incorporation in the present document or a separate one of a continuing guarantee of assistance to Brazil against extracontinental attack. This assurance is contained in Article III of the basic “Politico-Military Agreement of May 27, 1942”.³⁰

In as much as cooperation between American republics against external attack bears inter-American approval by virtue of, for example, Resolution XV of the Habana meeting of 1940³¹ and is one of the justifications of the present agreement (second and fourth whereases), I should think it would be possible and desirable to find a means to continue this guarantee in writing;

(5) Continuation of the guarantee in Article Seventh of the May 1942 Agreement of assistance to Brazil against aggression by another American country instigated by the Axis (sic) and to maintain the present Government in power.

I strongly urge against renewal of any such guarantee, which has no place in the inter-American system. We will have to talk our way out of this one;

(6) Participation of Brazil in similar military arrangements outside the hemisphere.

Ambassador Caffery, with President Roosevelt’s authority, has spoken to President Vargas and has found him receptive to Brazilian participation in whatever arrangement may be worked out for bases in French West Africa. However, as we have no postwar rights in French West Africa to share or give away; and as we regard the Algiers Committee as trustee without the sovereign power to alienate French territory, I do not see how we can go beyond committing ourselves to inviting the Brazilians in if and when. I am fearful lest the apple cart be upset by an indiscretion on the part of some Brazilian official; so I urge that this subject be discussed in Brazil only with President Vargas, whose discretion is model.

I think, as Mr. Hackworth suggests, that it would be politic, in fact highly desirable in the case of so important a postwar commitment as the agreement involves, to inform appropriate members of the Senate Foreign Relations and the House Foreign Affairs Committees of this document and to give them an informal copy of it. There are plenty of evidences of the interest of the Congress in the postwar use of facilities abroad built with our funds. The desirability of informing members of the House Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee for Military Affairs is also suggested in view of the fact that these members made a special visit to these airports last November.

W. N. Walmsley, Jr.

26. Addressed to Philip W. Bonsal and Laurence Duggan, Office of American Republic Affairs; John D. Hickerson, Division of British Commonwealth Affairs; Adolf A. Berle, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State; Green H. Hackworth, Legal Adviser; and Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Under Secretary of State. Mr. Hackworth made the following marginal notation: “I think that we should wait until we see what Brazil desires.”
27. Not printed.
28. British West Indies.
29. For statements of the viewpoints of American and Brazilian authorities on this subject, see memorandum by the Consul at Pará to the Ambassador in Brazil, p. 601.
30. Not printed, but see bracketed note, Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. v, p. 662.
31. For correspondence on the meeting, see ibid., 1940, vol. v, pp. 180 ff.; for text of Resolution XV, see Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, Habana, July 21–30, 1940, Report of the Secretary of State (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 71.