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

710 Consultation 4/12–1144: Telegram

The Chargé in Colombia (Daniels) to the Secretary of State

Bogotá, December 11, 1944—6 p.m.
[Received December 12—5:06 a.m.]

2007. ReEmbstel No. 2002 December 10, 10 p.m.⁹⁴ After thorough discussion with Ambassador Wiley⁹⁵ of the contents and significance of Colombian memo of December 9⁹⁶ and in agreement with him I called by appointment on the Minister of Foreign Affairs at noon today with a view to seeking further clarification of Colombian position. In the course of the conversation I referred to the two memoranda from the Embassy embodying the contents of the Dept’s circular telegrams of Nov. 12, 11 p.m. [a.m.] and Nov. 20, 8 [7] p.m., respectively, and again carefully went over the points of view and proposed program of action set forth therein. At the time I said that both Mr. Wiley and myself could not help but feel that the publication of the Colombian memorandum of December 9 might have caused concern in the Department. Dr. Echandía replied that in fact Colombia’s position was no different from that which had previously been stated (reEmbstel No. 1854, November 3, 8 p.m.). His statements regarding the Colombian position may be summarized as follows:

(1) Colombia favors a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs to consider the Argentine question in the hope that such a meeting might contribute to restoration of continental solidarity.

(2) This procedure would be consistent with the general procedure of inter-American consultations to discuss matters of importance to the hemisphere.

(3) In the absence of diplomatic relations with Argentina no other convenient mechanism exists for affording a hearing to the Argentine Government which asked for such a hearing and for thoroughly discussing the entire problem as a matter of continental interest.

(4) Such a meeting would not constitute acceptance of the policy and actions of the Argentine Government, but would merely be for the purpose of analyzing the facts and reaching conclusions. Such conclusions, he added, might conceivably involve the rejection of the Argentine point of view and the exclusion of that country from discussions of postwar problems by the American Republics.

(5) Colombia has not been in sympathy with Argentine policy and actions and has specifically so stated. However, this lack of approval should not constitute an obstacle to utilizing inter-American consultative machinery for bringing about an improved situation.

(6) Colombia favors consideration of Argentine case.

(7) Colombian memorandum of December 9 was transmitted to Mexican Government as reply to proposals earlier made by Padilla and copy has likewise been sent to Ambassador Turbay at Washington for presentation to Pan-American Union. Memorandum is not to be considered reply to Pan-American Union, but rather an expression of Colombian point of view.

(8) Colombia still hopes it will be possible to reach consensus among American Republics before replying formally to Pan-American Union and when the time comes to make it final, formal reply will be prepared to agree to a procedure acceptable to the majority of the American Republics.

I have shown the eight numbered paragraphs above to Dr. Umaña Bernal, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and inquired of him if they accurately summarized the current Colombian position in regard to the proposed meeting of Foreign Ministers. He replied in the affirmative. While the Colombian point of view differs from that previously expressed by the Department in favoring consideration of the Argentine case before discussing postwar problems at proposed meeting it would seem that the door is not closed to reaching agreement on the procedure to be followed in the light of paragraph No. 8 above. In this connection I mentioned this morning to Doctor Echandía that I have been informed that at least 15 American Republics had expressed general approval of the program proposed by the Department (reDeptel circular of December 9 midnight⁹⁹). Doctor Echandía repeated that while the memorandum of December 9 set forth the Colombian position and the reasons therefore [therefor?] it did not constitute a reply to the Pan-American Union and that Colombia would go along with the majority of the republics in an effort to reach a consensus. It is respectfully suggested that this latter possibility be discussed with Ambassador Turbay.

Repeated to Caracas and Quito.

Daniels

94. Not printed.
95. John C. Wiley, appointed Ambassador to Colombia on September 21, 1944, presented his credentials on December 16.
96. The memorandum which appeared in the press on December 9 characterized as intervention the proposed conditional admittance of Argentina to a meeting of the American Republics.
99. Not printed.