835.01/28
Press Release Issued by the Department of State on September 17, 1930
The Secretary of State stated:5
“I have directed Mr. Bliss, our Ambassador to Argentina, to resume normal diplomatic relations with the provisional Argentine Government; and have directed Mr. Dearing, our Ambassador to Peru, to resume normal diplomatic relations with the provisional Peruvian Government; and have directed Mr. Feely, our Minister accredited to Bolivia, to present his letters of credence and resume normal diplomatic relations with the provisional Bolivian Government. This is to be done tomorrow, September eighteenth.
“In reaching the conclusion to accord recognition to these three governments, the evidence has satisfied me that these provisional governments are de facto in control of their respective countries, and that there is no active resistance to their rule. Each of the present governments has also made it clear that it is its intention to fulfill its respective international obligations and to hold, in due course, elections to regularize its status.
“The action of the United States in thus recognizing the present Argentine, Peruvian and Bolivian Governments does not represent [Page 388] any new policy or change of policy by the United States toward the nations of South America or the rest of the world.
“I have deemed it wise to act promptly in this matter in order that in the present economic situation our delay may not embarrass the people of these friendly countries in reestablishing their normal inter-course with the rest of the world.”
(The Secretary was asked to clarify his statement that this does not represent any change in policy. In reply he stated:)
“In acting towards these three Governments, which we are recognizing tomorrow, we are following the regular rules of international Jaw, and the regular policy which has characterized this country ever since the first Secretary of State announced it—Mr. Jefferson in the Administration of President Washington. But with certain countries there are differences made by treaty either with us or between each other. For example, the five Central American countries have entered into a treaty between themselves in which they agreed not to recognize any Government which came into office by virtue of a coup d’état or a revolution. That was done in 1923,6 and although we were not a party to the treaty, we were in hearty accord with it and we agreed on our part that we would follow the same policy with respect to the five Republics who had agreed upon it.
“I think in order that you may get this clear I will give you a statement Mr. Hughes made in June, 1923, and which represents the present policy of this Government. Mr. Hughes stated the attitude of our Government in regard to these five Central American Governments as follows:
“‘The attitude of the Government of the United States with respect to the recognition of new Governments in the five Central American Republics whose representatives signed at Washington on February 7, 1923, a general Treaty of Peace and Amity, to which the United States was not a party, but with the provisions of which it is in the most hearty accord, will be consonant with the provisions of Article II thereof which stipulates that the contracting parties will not recognize any other Government which may come into power in any of the five Republics through a coup d’état or a revolution against a recognized Government, so long as the freely elected representatives of the people thereof have not constitutionally reorganized the country. And even in such a case they obligate themselves not to acknowledge the recognition if any of the persons elected as President, Vice-President or Chief of State designate should fall under any of the following heads:
- “‘1) If he should be the leader or one of the leaders of a coup d’état or revolution, or through blood relationship or marriage, be an ascendent or descendent or brother of such leader or leaders.
- “‘2) If he should have been a Secretary of State or should have held some high military command during the accomplishment of the coup d’état, the revolution, or while the election was being carried on, or if he should have held this office or command within the six months preceding the coup d’état, revolution, or the election.’
“Those were very stringent restrictions which the different countries entered into by treaty between themselves with the object evidently of discouraging a revolution or coup d’état within the five Republics, and we endorsed that policy so far as those five countries are concerned. It is quite different from the general policy of this country and of the general policy of international law towards the recognition of Governments in the world at large. There are also other exceptions based on treaties although I am not going to go into them in detail. Of course, we have a special treaty with Cuba7 which also changes the general rule of international law and imposes on this country greater obligations in regard to Cuba than we have toward other nations, and we have treaties with other nations like Haiti8 and there may be others. I am not trying to give you an exclusive list, but those are all exceptions to the general policy which we are carrying out with regard to the three Governments in South America.”
- The statement was transmitted to the American diplomatic missions in Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama in circular telegram of September 17, 4 p.m. The first four paragraphs of the statement were transmitted to the American diplomatic missions in Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru in another circular telegram of September 17, 4 p.m.↩
- General treaty of peace and amity signed at Washington, February 7, 1923, Conference on Central American Affairs, December 4, 1922–February 7, 1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), pp. 287, 288.↩
- Treaty of May 22, 1903, Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 243.↩
- Treaty of September 16, 1915, ibid., 1915, p. 449.↩