825.00 Revolutions/226: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Culbertson) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 17—12:34 a.m.]
218. Delay and possibly failure would follow any attempt to obtain a formal written answer to your point number 2 in your telegram No. 83, October 12, 6 p.m. However, an answer has been submitted to us orally by both the Minister and the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs. We reduced their answer to a memorandum and showed it to them. They stated that it correctly summarized their views. The memo is as follows:
“The Government of Chile recognizes that during the period June 4th to October 2nd there existed a situation de facto; that there was no Congress then nor is there one now; that there were de facto governments; and that it was necessary to legislate and to perform other acts of government which under the circumstances had to be done by decree laws and administrative acts. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs holds that the acts of government and decree laws which are within the Constitution or which have created interests shall be carried out. Moreover, it is the policy of the new government not to injure national or foreign interests created by those acts and decree laws. The Minister of the Interior has opposed the application of the decree law concerning the Commissariat of Subsistence on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in accord with this opinion unless a fundamental reason should oblige the government to proceed in the interests of public order and provided no other procedure is possible.”
Complying with point 3 of your above-mentioned telegram I exchanged letters yesterday with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. My letter reads:
“With reference to communication of October 4th in which you were good enough to inform me of the formation of a government under the Vice Presidency of Don Abraham Oyanedel, my Government has instructed me to inquire whether, as we assume it will, this new government will respect the international obligations of Chile and will afford to American interests full protection as provided for under the laws and the political Constitution of the State.”
The reply in translation reads:
“In reply to your communication of even date I take pleasure in declaring to you that naturally the Government of Chile, as a constitutional government, will respect its international obligations and the interests of foreigners in conformity with the laws and the political Constitution of the State.”
Merely as a matter of precaution we made it clear that this exchange of letters does not imply recognition nor is it a bargain for recognition. Similar letters somewhat more general in character have also been exchanged with the British Ambassador and the German Chargé d’Affaires.
In reply to point 4 of your above-mentioned telegram I can add very little to my former telegrams and despatches. It is probable that the present regime will remain in power until the elections on October 30th and thereafter until the new President assumes power, but I cannot state this as a certainty. No one who knows the situation in Chile could venture more than this. Some groups desire to postpone the elections. Others do not want them held at all. For the time being the armed forces are unpopular and apparently are sufficiently depressed not to undertake a coup d’état. The extreme Left is aggressive in the interests of Grove but it seems certain that the carabineros and the civil guard can assure the country against any serious social disorders.
Since my despatch No. 1266 [1276?], October 5th,58 the Conservatives have named a candidate for President but it is not believed that this will affect materially the results of the elections.
In reply to the specific questions under your point number 4 in the above-mentioned telegram no serious subversive movements exist at the present time. Antofagasta remains a little snooty but in the north as elsewhere the administrative authorities of the government are respected. A conciliatory attitude is being taken toward the north.
I should like to be able to assert categorically that political stability has returned to Chile. However, I must state the facts as they are. Disequilibrium exists and while it exists Chile will suffer from political instability. If recognition is to await a stable political regime it will wait a long time.
In my opinion therefore we should select a moment of quiet and establish formal relations with one of the scenes in the passing show. At present we look upon one of the more quiet and serious scenes, at least it takes itself and the Constitution seriously and therefore may take its obligations seriously. The Minister for Foreign Affairs based his assurances in the above-quoted exchange of letters on the Chilean Constitution. His theory gives them added weight not only with this regime but will give them significance with a government which comes to power through the elections. By recognizing this regime we will obtain the special assurances given and in addition the general guarantees [Page 503] of a government which takes the Constitution seriously for foreigners as well as natives.
Moreover, if we and the European powers recognize, these acts will help stability and make relatively certain the elections which are, to say the least, a bona fide effort to return to constitutional government. In fact in my [any] public statement which you make in connection with recognition it would be well to associate recognition with the elections as a definite step toward the return of constitutional government in Chile.
- Not printed.↩