Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1928, Volume I
711.1212Anti-War/5
The Ambassador in Mexico (Morrow) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 20.]
Sir: Confirming my telegram No. 256, 3 p.m., of today’s date,70 reporting the receipt of a note from the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in answer to Ambassador Morrow’s note of August 27th, 1928, inviting the adherence of the Mexican Government to the Multilateral Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, I have the honor to enclose a copy and translation of the Mexican note accepting this invitation.
I have [etc.]
The Mexican Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Estrada) to the American Ambassador (Morrow)
Mr. Ambassador: I have received note No. 525 of August 27, last, in which Your Excellency was pleased to inform me that on that day the Governments of Germany, the United States of America, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, India, Italy, Japan, Poland and Czechoslovakia signed in Paris a treaty binding them to renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another and to seek only by pacific means the settlement or solution of all disputes which might arise among them. Your Excellency goes on to state therein certain facts relating to the negotiations which led up to said Treaty and that the United States has been anxious from the beginning that no State should feel deprived of an opportunity to participate in the new treaty, and thus not only align itself formally and solemnly with this new manifestation of the popular demand for world peace, but also avail itself of the same benefits enjoyed by the original signatories, to which end there was included [Page 203] in the draft of the treaty proposed by the United States a specific provision for the participation in the treaty of any and every power desiring to identify itself therewith, which provision is found in the definitive instrument signed in Paris. It is likewise observed that the Powers signing the treaty have recorded in the preamble thereof their hope that every nation of the world will participate in the treaty and that in this connection Your Excellency is happy to be able to say that your Government has already received from several Governments informal indications that they are prepared to do so at the earliest possible moment.
Your Excellency adds that in view thereof you are pleased to communicate officially for my consideration and the approval of the Mexican Government the text of the treaty in question.
In reply and under instructions of the President of the Republic, I have the honor to advise Your Excellency, begging that you so inform the Government of the United States of America, that the Mexican Government has been following with the greatest interest the course of the negotiations which determined the conclusion of the treaty by which the signatory and adhering! Powers condemn recourse to war for the solution of their international controversies and renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with each other, binding themselves to seek only by pacific means the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts.
Such a high ideal, as accurately expressed in Your Excellency’s note, is a manifestation of the popular demand for world peace, always recognized by the people and the Government of my country, which has never committed an act of warlike aggression against any nation, nor incited the thought of the Republic to war against any people.
Although this traditional conduct is universally recognized, I believe it opportune, nevertheless, to mention the attitude of Mexico, not long ago, in the matter of international war. During the International Meeting of Lawyers held in Rio de Janeiro in 1927,71 in discussing the matter of maritime neutrality, the Delegation of my country expressed itself in these words: “The project of maritime neutrality is accepted by the Mexican Delegation, because the policy of Mexico has always been not to intervene in armed conflicts except in case of provocation.” At the same meeting, in discussing the subject of diplomatic missions, the Mexican Delegation asked that the word “war” be deleted from one of the clauses regarding the termination of diplomatic representations, which, after some opposition, was approved unanimously. Perhaps it was because of this that at the time of the Sixth International American Conference at Habana72 the European press stated [Page 204] that Mexico was the first country in America to advise the condemnation of war.
In the Sixth International American Conference held the beginning of the current year, Mexico expressed the same view as regards war. Thus, in discussing the project regarding Treaties in the session of February 11, one of the Delegates pointed out that said project was incomplete because it did not contain provisions relating to the endurance (vigeneia) of treaties entered into prior to a war between two nations and presented at the same time a draft of several new articles; but the Mexican Delegation opposed the inclusion of said articles, declaring that war should be proscribed in America, and that all the international codification being elaborated at that time related to the International Law of peace; adding that it would create the worst kind of impression for the Conference to admit the possibility of an impending war. It will be recalled that in accordance with the opinion of Mexico, the proposal was withdrawn.
Mexico defined its attitude still further when its Delegation, in connection with article 13 of the same project, relative to the intervention on the part of a State responsible for the execution of a treaty, against one of the parties, declared that said article was not acceptable to this country because it could not admit the possibility of an intervention, stating in addition that Mexico only admitted war in self defense. And in signing the Convention in question, the Mexican Delegation made the reservation that under no circumstances did it accept said article 13.
The Delegation of my country likewise declared before the Commission on International Law that it was painful to observe that the Delegates of some American countries were considering the possibility of war, and, therefore, it proposed the following resolution, which was unanimously accepted by the Conference:73
“The Sixth International American Conference:
“Whereas:
“The American nations should always be inspired to unified cooperation with a view to justice and the general welfare;
“Nothing is so opposed to that cooperation as the use of violence;
“There is no international controversy, however serious, which can not be peacefully settled if the parties really desire to reach a peaceful solution;
“War of aggression is an international crime against the human race;
“Be it resolved:
- “I. That all aggression be considered illegal and be therefore declared prohibited.
- “II. That the American States employ all peaceful means in settling disputes which may arise among them.”
When that type of war called intervention was discussed, Mexico, through its Delegation, was steadfast in its opposition to that principle, and ended by presenting a motion against non-aggression (sic), categorically stating that pacts such as that drawn up in Locarno and that conceived by President Wilson when he endeavored, by means of an inter-American treaty, to establish the fundamental bases of Pan-Americanism on the principles of independence, non-aggression, arbitration, and neutrality in cases of civil war, are indispensable in America.
At the time when the United States of America labored during said Conference to introduce into matters related to arbitration the principle of “the renunciation of war as an instrument of international policy”, Mexico set out to establish the prohibition against any warlike aggression, concurring, beforehand, with the opinions expressed by France in reserving the right of legitimate self-defence, calling attention to the Locarno treaties and expressing its desire for the universality of the system, a similarity which reached such a point that the French Ambassador, in a note addressed to the Department of State at Washington on March 30th, 1928, declared:
“In the relations between the states of the American Continent there are similar difficulties which led the American Government at the Pan-American Conference at Habana to approve a resolution limited to the very terms ‘war of aggression’ which the French Government felt compelled to use in characterizing the renunciation to which it is requested to bind itself by means of a multilateral treaty.”
On the other hand, it should be observed that the question of the renunciation of war is linked, by its obvious nature, to that of arbitration, for not only is it found expressed in the Pan-American resolution, but also in the very Treaty for the Renunciation of War, for if Article 2 refers to the solution by peaceful means, there can be no doubt that among these means those most commonly employed are arbitration and its correlatives, such as conciliation and mediation.
Accordingly, in view of the repeated declarations made by Mexico considering war of aggression, offensive war, and, in general, the exercise of international violence as reprehensible in the relations between peoples, and in view also of its opinion, already stated, that there is no conflict, however serious, which can not be settled by peaceful means, the President of the Republic has instructed me to announce to Your Excellency, as I now have the honor so to do, that the Government of Mexico accepts with pleasure the invitation extended by the Government of the United States of America to adhere to the Treaty against war signed in Paris on August 27th, 1928.
Since that Treaty provides that it shall come into effect as soon as the high contracting parties shall have deposited in Washington [Page 206] the various instruments of ratification; and announces, on the other hand, that as soon as it shall have become effective it will be open to the adherence of the other powers of the world, the latter also to deposit in Washington the corresponding instruments of adherence, the Government of Mexico awaits the announcement of the coming into effect of the Treaty, in order to take the necessary steps which may formally establish its adherence, contributing in this manner with a cordial spirit and loftiness of view to the success of this new step of such moral importance in behalf of the peace of the world.
Awaiting the documents which you have been good enough to promise me, I avail myself [etc.]