710 Consultations 4/11–2844: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Mexico (Messersmith)
2093. For Spaeth.65 There follows summary of latest reactions from other countries.
Bolivia. Supplementing telegram of November 28,66 Ambassador Thurston reports Chacón67 following day repeated same statements and in reply to specific inquiry stated that (1) several efforts had been made without success to ascertain Chilean position, and (2) no pressure has been exerted on Bolivia by Argentina. He added that according to Bolivian Embassy in Lima Argentine diplomatic representatives have been instructed not to attempt to influence decision of other American governments.
Brazil. Velloso’s initial reaction to course proposed in circular of November 28, 7 p.m. is favorable; he is endeavoring to see President Vargas and to reply to our memorandum by today. He has sent telegraphic instructions to Martins68 to keep in touch with us and latter saw Armour yesterday.
[Page 71]Chile. Fernández told Bowers yesterday that he personally favored all three points set forth in our circular of November 28, 7 p.m., that he will talk with the President69 and is confident that he also will approve. He will not reply to Governing Board until consensus reached.
Colombia. Colombian Foreign Minister on November 29 informed our Chargé that he had no comment to make at this time on proposals in our circular of November 28, 7 p.m. but would advise him as soon as he had something definite.
Costa Rican reply to Pan American Union has been received by Ambassador70 here with further instructions amending it to conform to proposals in our circular of November 28, 7 p.m. Ambassador is not submitting it to Governing Board since consensus cannot be reached before meeting on December 6th. We have not yet received word from our Embassy in San José.
Haitian government approves all points of our memorandum of November 28, 7 p.m., is so informing other governments, and instructing Ambassador71 here to keep in close touch with us.
Paraguayan Foreign Minister72 has communicated suggestion for investigating committee to visit Argentina to Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil and Bolivia. He states Chile expressed interest. Chiriani also said he had reason to believe that Argentina would agree to receive such a committee. Beaulac73 comments “It is clear to me that he has sounded out Argentina informally and Argentina’s apparent willingness to agree may be significant.”
In reporting talk with Fernández already mentioned, Bowers mentions gossip among colleagues that Paraguayan proposal of investigating commission will be adopted at Governing Board meeting on December 6th. Bowers also notes that on leaving Foreign Office he found Argentine Ambassador74 waiting to see Fernández.
Montevideo reports Uruguayan Minister to Paraguay75 has informed Serrato that according to one version Paraguayan proposal of investigating committee was suggested by Argentina. Serrato thinks this very unlikely because he cannot believe that Argentine regime would accept such an investigation.
Later telegram from Asunción reports Chiriano favorably impressed with formula (circular of November 28, 7 p.m.), will consult government immediately and reply at earliest possible moment.
[Page 72]Peru. We have received summary of Peruvian memorandum from Embassy in Lima and Peruvian Embassy here. Full text not yet available. Summary covers three points:
- (1)
- Meeting to discuss war and peace problems considered premature because conversations between great powers of United Nations not sufficiently advanced to determine role of American nations in future world juridical organization. Peruvian government considers that principles of Atlantic Charter76 and the bases of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference should be completed by an economic agreement to be adopted in the forthcoming conferences on that subject.
- (2)
- Consideration of Argentine question by meeting of Ministers would establish precedent of judging acts of a government which would be in contradiction to procedure adopted in the case of Bolivia and might prejudice sovereignty of states by means of collective agreements.
- (3)
- Refers to proposal of Inter-American Juridical Committee in Rio de Janeiro77 which is under consideration by the various Foreign Offices. For all the reasons indicated Peruvian government believes that the Foreign Offices should continue exchange of views and await result of forthcoming economic conference before calling a meeting, which under the present circumstances might make impossible an agreement based on the unity of the American nations.
Our Ambassador78 reports that Solf79 seemed favorably impressed by three points of our circular of November 28, 7 p.m., and in later telegram states he hopes to obtain approval of President Prado.80
Uruguayan memorandum on November 3081 attempts to answer questions raised in our telegram No. 678 of November 26. After discoursing at length on Uruguayan record of fulfillment of international obligations and lofty motives behind its proposed agenda for meeting of Foreign Ministers, etc., memorandum again argues in favor of hearing Argentine case before consultative meeting of Foreign Ministers. Stresses how unfortunate it would be if Argentine hearing comes at end of meeting, if the “explanation” given is found satisfactory, and Argentines have nevertheless been excluded from participation in agreements reached in meeting on war and postwar problems.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In later telegram Dawson reports that Serrato approves three points of our circular of November 28, 7 p.m., and will so inform other American Republics and Ambassador82 here. He inclines, however, [Page 73] to include statement that Uruguay believes that, if granted, hearing should precede consultative meeting.
Amezaga83 and Serrato “stick tenaciously” to their opinion on this point. They state Uruguay will, of course, go along if consensus is against their position. In conversation with Dawson Serrato suggested that hearing might be granted in an informal meeting to be held several days before the general meeting. You will note that this closely approximates the Panamanian suggestion. It may be desirable to make clear by emphasis on our intention to state our case fully and at length that suggestion of a brief “informal” meeting is quite inappropriate.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister confirms in memorandum to Corrigan points mentioned in conversation reported in telegram of November 28.84 Venezuela will attend meeting of Foreign Ministers of Republics cooperating in continental defense to consider war and postwar problems; in view of divergencies existing between Foreign Offices Venezuela feels it preferable that Union not take definite decision on Argentine request at next meeting and that consultations between Governments continue. Summary of memorandum in telegram from Caracas is not clear but apparently Foreign Minister opposes early meeting, talking about “unfavorable atmosphere” and expressing doubt whether “procedure” would be acceptable to Argentina or to other Republics.
Proposed telegram to Caracas may go out tomorrow and will be repeated to Mexico for information.
- Mr. Spaeth, on direction from the Department, was in Mexico City on this date conferring with Ambassador Messersmith.↩
- Telegram 1956, 10 a.m., not printed.↩
- Gustavo Chacón, Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Carlos Martins Pereira e Sousa, Brazilian Ambassador in the United States.↩
- Juan Antonio Rios.↩
- Francisco de Paula Gutiérrez.↩
- André Liautaud.↩
- Juan Horacio Chiriani.↩
- Willard L. Beaulac, American Ambassador in Paraguay.↩
- Carlos Güiraldes, Argentine Ambassador in Chile.↩
- Alfredo Carbonell Debali.↩
- Joint statement by President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941, Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. i, p. 367.↩
- The Committee proposed a preliminary organization of all the American States to study the possibilities of a new organization for peace.↩
- John C. White.↩
- Alfredo Solf y Muro, Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Manuel Prado Ugarteche.↩
- See telegram 1129, November 30, 1 p.m., from Montevideo, p. 67.↩
- Pedro Beltrán.↩
- Juan José Amezaga, President of Uruguay.↩
- Not printed.↩