825.00 Revolutions/173: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Culbertson) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 29—5:47 a.m.]
156. I have decided to delay for 24 hours the delivery of the letter transmitted in your telegram 55, July 27, 4 p.m., in order to bring to your attention the probable consequence for reactions. In my opinion we will not receive a favorable reply. We [talked?] over personally and informally with the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs several of the points in the letter and I can reflect the probable reply most clearly by giving his qualifications. He said in substance:
- 1.
- Basically the letter must be considered as conditions for recognition and the United States has never before imposed such conditions.
- 2.
- The terms as set forth in the letter are so broad and comprehensive that they would be more favorable than any commercial treaty that would be accepted at this time, that is, the letter admits no exception such as already exist.
- 3.
- Referring to bank deposits he stated that the Chilean authorities could not commit themselves to take no action with respect to the deposits of Chilean citizens in the American bank since such action would be a qualification of their sovereignty over their own nationals; that this point was not included in any assurances given; that the Minister could not agree in writing not to carry out the provisions of a law now on the statutes, namely, No. 5107.
- 4.
- Referring to discriminations against Americans in favor of Chileans, he remarked that it would be impossible to give such general assurances of national treatment since discriminations already exist, namely, insurance company, Coastwise Steamship and Air traffic, immigration, requirements for foreign banks as opposed to those of nationals.
You may feel that the assurances in the letter are merely a repetition of those given to me orally and this is correct. But it will be replied by the Chileans that such assurances are on a different basis than specific assurances in legal phraseology as in this letter which partake of the nature of treaty stipulations.
[Page 473]I will, of course, submit the letter as it now is if you so instruct after considering this, but my opinion still is as indicated in my telegram 147, July 25, 5 p.m.39
- (1)
- Either we should delay recognition and explain the delay by a public statement or in a letter to the Dávila Government indicate the points on which we ask further assurances but not to ask a reply (our position, of course, could be communicated orally).
- (2)
- We should recollect and if you think necessary reiterate in general terms in our note of recognition an understanding of the meaning of respect for international obligations.
It would help to have the assurances in the letter in writing if we could get them but I am satisfied that we cannot. Once the letter is sent and we receive an unsatisfactory reply, we will be left in a difficult position on recognition and in a very unfavorable position not only with the Dávila Government but also with the Chilean people for they will be a unit against us on an issue of this sort.
In this shifting political situation with political leaders harassed to desperation by economic troubles our large business interests will continue to suffer whether or not we received general declarations of respect for international obligations. New cases arise daily not usually because the authorities are intentionally infringing on international right but because national interests have taken first place with a weak government.
I doubt whether we want to establish the precedent of this letter in our practice of recognition although as I have [stated?] I will submit it if upon consideration you decide to do so, either in its original form or modified to a very general statement of our interpretation of international obligations and to a mention of the specific American interests.
- Not printed.↩