710 Consultation 4/12–1144: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Mexico (Messersmith)
2149. I. The Department has given careful consideration to the report of the conversations of December 1st and 2d with Dr. Padilla, as well as to the memorandum1 which, in general lines, states the points on which agreement was reached during the conversations. The Department is in entire accord with the objectives emphasized by Doctor Padilla, and is gratified that his views on procedure are substantially the same as ours.
We have also taken careful note of Dr. Padilla’s important suggestion that our fight against Fascism in this Hemisphere should be implemented by a declaration of our determination to intensify programs, in cooperation with the other republics, for the general improvement of basic economic conditions in the Americas. It is precisely because we feel so strongly as to the desirability of such an intensification of economic programs, that we wish to strengthen the confidence among our own people that the nations of this continent are determined to stand united against appeasement of a government in Argentina which stands for everything we are fighting to destroy in Europe and Asia.
We have now completed a review of the entire situation in the light of the opinions expressed by the other Republics since the beginning of the present consultations.
As indicated in our circular of December 9, midnight,2 sixteen governments, including this government, support the proposal that Republics which have collaborated in the war effort (thus excluding the Farrell government) should meet to consider urgent war and postwar problems.
A majority of the governments have also expressed the view that the Argentine request for a hearing on its international situation should be denied. The reasons for rejecting the Argentine request vary to some extent among the Governments. The view most insistently expressed is that no useful purpose would be served by a debate or argument with regard to obligations which are well known to Argentina, or by one more specification of the actions which the Farrell government has failed to take in accordance with those obligations. Other governments have stated that it is doubtful whether the procedure of the Consultative Meetings was ever intended to be used for a trial of the international conduct of an American state and consider [Page 80] that to accede to the Argentine request would establish a dangerous precedent. The fear has also been expressed that such a hearing would promote disunity rather than Hemisphere unity and solidarity.
A few governments have stated that they favor a hearing of the Argentine case at a meeting of Ministers, and at least two of them favor such a hearing prior to a meeting on war and post-war problems. One government has expressed the view that no decision should be made on the Argentine request at this time.
In the light of these developments and the desire of all of the governments to arrive at a common decision, the Government of the United States was at first inclined to urge that through the medium of a report by the Governing Board an effort be made to obtain unanimous support for the procedure which now appears to enjoy the support of a majority of the governments (procedure proposed by Department’s circular of November 28, 7 p.m.). However, for the reasons stated below it is the judgment of this Government that certain modifications should be made in that procedure, both as it relates to the manner of calling a conference of republics which have collaborated in the war effort, and as it relates to the disposition of the Argentine request for a hearing of its case.
(1) During the consultations thus far effected, one of the Republics has pointed out that there may be a juridical obstacle to the convocation of a Consultative Meeting of Ministers of less than all of the Republics. Since the opinion might be advanced that “Consultative Meetings” in the strict technical sense are necessarily meetings of Ministers of all of the Republics, and since the proposed meeting on war and post-war problems would not include all of the republics, it is feared that the Governing Board of the Pan American Union might be faced with a difficult legal question under the procedure which has been approved by a majority of the republics.
As an alternative, it has been proposed that by consultation through ordinary diplomatic channels, the Republics which have collaborated in the war effort should proceed to arrange the time, place and agenda for the suggested meeting. Since practically all of the interested governments have already agreed on the desirability of a meeting on war and post-war problems, it should be a relatively simple matter to reach agreement on time, place and agenda without resort to the facilities of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union. This method would obviate any consideration by the Governing Board of the question whether a Republic may be excluded from a “Consultative Meeting”.
Once an agreement is reached through ordinary diplomatic channels on the agenda, time and place of the Conference, the country [Page 81] selected for the meeting would issue invitations to the participating governments.
For the reasons indicated, the Government of the United States considers that the suggested alternative method of calling a conference on war and post-war problems has much to commend it.
(2) With respect to the Argentine request for a hearing on its international position, it is true that a majority of the governments have reached a negative decision. However, a small number of the governments favor approval of the request, and at least one government prefers that no decision be made on the request at this time. Furthermore, there is some divergence of opinion as to the propriety of such a hearing at a Consultative Meeting of Ministers.
It is therefore clear that the request of the Farrell government has raised political questions which are beyond the competence of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union to resolve and which can be properly and effectively considered only by the Foreign Ministers themselves. Moreover, although these questions might be answered by a further exchange of views through diplomatic channels, there is a need for personal consultation among the Ministers and it is believed that this can best be accomplished at the conference table.
The Government of the United States therefore recommends that no decision on the Argentine request for a meeting to consider its international position be taken through the Governing Board of the Pan American Union at this time. Instead, it is proposed that in their replies to the Governing Board the several governments state (a) that in view of the difficult and delicate political questions presented by that request, it is deemed imperative that the matter be considered by the Foreign Ministers themselves, and (b) that this consideration should be given to the request at the forthcoming conference of Republics which have collaborated with the war against the Axis, by including the request as the final item on the agenda of that conference.
To summarize:
- (1)
- It is recommended that the proposal for a Conference of Republics which have collaborated in the war against the Axis be treated separately and distinct from the Argentine request for a hearing.
- (2)
- It is further recommended that the agreement already reached on the desirability of such a conference by practically all of the interested republics, be supplemented by an agreement on the agenda, time, and place for a conference, and that this supplementary agreement be reached by consultation through ordinary diplomatic channels. In this manner, a conference can be called without participation by Argentina and without any necessity for deciding whether a republic may be excluded from a Consultative Meeting of Ministers under Pan American Union procedure.
- (3)
- With respect to the Argentine request for a hearing of its case, the Government of the United States believes that the most effective [Page 82] manner in which a final decision can be reached is to consider this request as the final item on the agenda of the proposed conference of Republics which have collaborated in the war effort. This disposition of the Argentine request is preferred to other possible courses because an adequate and effective decision by the interested governments requires the exercise of political judgment by the highest officers of each government. The Ministers of the Republics which would be represented at the proposed Conference would be competent to exercise this political judgment whereas the Governing Board of the Pan American Union is expressly denied all political functions.
- (4)
- If the Conference of Ministers were to decide to grant a hearing to the Farrell government, a representative of that government could be invited to appear at the close of the Conference on war and post-war problems, or arrangements could be made for a later Meeting at which a representative of the Farrell government might appear.
II. In presenting the foregoing views to Dr. Padilla for his comments, you may inform him that we have not consulted any other government on this alternative procedure. We are confident that, if approved, the procedure could be so adapted as to insure emphasis upon the distinction between the government and the people of Argentina, which we are agreed is of fundamental importance. We believe that the procedure is responsive to the spirit and letter of the inter-American consultative agreements and practices and gives practical expression to the desire for close collaboration and for a collective decision which has characterized the discussions to date. Moreover, the procedure respects the traditions under which resort has been made by the American Republics to special procedures and instrumentalities for the consideration and solution of problems of a political character so as to avoid placing undue strain on the permanent structure of the Pan American Union, which symbolizes the basic spiritual and moral unity of the peoples of the Americas.
If Dr. Padilla agrees to the proposal it is hoped that he would invite the interested governments to hold the Conference in Mexico City.