710.G Women’s Rights/14
The Acting Secretary of State to President Roosevelt
My Dear Mr. President: The position of the American Delegation at Montevideo regarding the proposed treaty for equality of sexes in nationality matters is being extensively debated in the press. The proposal is substantially as follows:
The contracting parties agree that from the going into effect of this treaty there shall be no distinction based on sex in their law and practice relating to nationality.
The chief group of women here supporting the treaty has been the National Woman’s Party. On the other hand, the National League of Women Voters have publicly opposed the treaty as being the wrong method of approach.
Telegram No. 42 of December 9, 1933, from Montevideo42 reported that the general view of Latin American delegates so far as it could be obtained unofficially was one of opposition to the treaty on nationality of women.
When the treaty came before the Montevideo Conference on December 16 last, eleven countries, it seems from press reports, declared their intention to sign, namely, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Some countries apparently made reservations but this is not fully reported. Ten countries including the United States abstained, the others being Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela.
It is being erroneously stated that the United States is alone in its position, whereas it appears from the press reports that such important countries as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela also find the treaty unacceptable and that this is the position also of four of the Central American republics and Panama.
The position of the Department with respect to the treaty has been based chiefly on two grounds:
- 1.
- Our nationality laws are now being revised pursuant to the Executive Order of April 25, 1933, by a Committee of three members of the Cabinet. Until that report is made and Congress has acted thereon no general international agreement on nationality should be made, in the Department’s opinion, by this country.
- 2.
- Nationality laws of various countries and the national beliefs on which they are based are very divergent. International questions of nationality are due not only to divergent national laws but also to the different results of similar national laws in respect of particular classes of individuals. Nationality treaties are intended to obviate these [Page 198] difficulties and can do so satisfactorily only when they are specific and precise in their language and application. The Department believes that an international agreement in the general language proposed would add to and not lessen present complexities; as a matter of administration, absence of distinction “in practice” would be difficult to the point of impossibility.
There is no doubt that the provisions of our revised nationality laws which will be presented by the Cabinet Committee will conform to the principle of equality. So far as the United States is concerned any international declaration on the point is superfluous and would make the subject one of international obligation to other countries rather than one merely a matter of national policy. So far as other countries are concerned more progress will be made by detailed treaties with them based so far as we are concerned on our own national policy than by such a general agreement as is proposed.
Faithfully yours,
- Not printed.↩