710.11/227½
The Ambassador to Mexico (Fletcher) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Lansing: No progress has been made in the negotiation of the Pan-American treaty during your absence. On the 27th of June Naón informed me that he was not willing to proceed to the signature of the treaty without consulting his Government, on account of the tense United States-Mexican situation. He promised to let me know as soon as he was in a position to proceed. He has not done so. Lauro Müller22 arrived in New York on the 18th. [Page 497] Mr. Wright23 had two interviews with him, but got nothing definite from him on the subject of the treaty. Ambassador da Gama seems to think that it would be unfortunate to go ahead with the treaty without Chile, and that we would lose all the ground we have lately gained along the lines of true Pan-Americanism. Mr. Lauro Müller is expected to return from French Lick in about a week.
In view of the check put on the negotiation by Mr. Naón’s unwillingness to agree to sign, I could not open out the treaty to the other Republics. So the matter rests in statu quo.
Chile is definitely and decidedly opposed to the treaty. The Mercurio—speaking for the Government—characterizes it, in its 4th of July editorial, as a “convention which involves vague and indeterminate powers of intervention in the entire continent” and goes on to say that Chile does not desire to remain isolated; that she understands her continental duties and has lent her assistance or has taken important initiatives tending to establish that policy. But Chile sustains that the Pan-Americanism of concord and equality is a measure of union, but that Pan-Americanism of predominance is a serious obstacle to guaranteeing that cordiality which is indispensable in foreign affairs. A treaty which would give de facto preponderance to one part of the continent over the other would tend to destroy true Pan-American confraternity. It is becoming generally known among the diplomats in Washington that Chile objects to the treaty, and the British Ambassador insinuated to me that the negotiations which Chile is said to be carrying on now with representatives of the Deutsche Bank in New York for a loan might be attributed to the lack of agreement between Chile and the United States over this treaty. I do not believe this is the case, but on the other hand I feel sure that if we go on without Chile, that is, isolating her from the American concert, she will turn naturally elsewhere in finance and trade, and that gradually a spirit of hostility against the United States will be engendered.
My advices from Chile show that they believe we are going ahead with the treaty, and they feel that we are placing them unnecessarily in a false position. If, therefore, neither Argentina nor Brazil really means to go ahead, I think we should know it and act accordingly; otherwise we are uselessly and needlessly alienating the goodwill of Chile.