611.3531/126
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs (Wilson)
Dr. Espil, Ambassador of Argentina, came in and showed me a cable from his Government which stated that Ambassador Bliss, under instructions from the Department, had pressed our point of view regarding the concessions of the Chilean modus viviendi which Argentina had extended to Great Britain, France and Italy. The cable said that a reply had been sent by the Foreign Office to Mr. Bliss stating that Argentina was unable to accept the point of view of the United States. (Telegram No. 14, January 26, 6 p.m., from Buenos Aires67 relates to this reply). The cable went on to say that the Argentine Government was alarmed at the possibility of “reprisals”; that the modus vivendi with Chile, which expires May 12, was being carefully studied in the Foreign Office, and that it was “probable” if it should be renewed it would be done with the omission of any features which could lead to a claim on the part of the United States. The cable told the Embassy to discuss the matter with us and again urge that we refrain from pressing our point of view.
I read Espil the cable No. 14 of January 26 from Buenos Aires. He said that from the study he had made of the matter he felt that on a basis of treaty interpretation our position could not be justified, but that he quite frankly wanted to put the matter on another basis, that of the broad ground of relations between Argentina and the United States. He said there was no doubt but that the Argentine Foreign Minister had made a great mistake in negotiating the modus vivendi with Chile without having studied the matter carefully and realized the consequences which would flow from such action. The debate in the Argentine Senate on December 6 last had brought out that certain concessions granted Chile, such as lower duties on tomato paste, which were of no important value to Chile, had been of the greatest value to Italy, to which country had been extended the concessions given Chile, and that Italian tomato paste was being sold in Argentina at a price which was ruining the Argentine industry which manufactured that [Page 708] article. Espil said that the Argentine Foreign Office was setting up a commission to study commercial policies and that one of the first things they would take up would be a new treaty with the United States to improve commercial relations between the two countries on the basis of reciprocity. He said that it seemed to be understood that the new administration which will take office in this country on March 4 will be prepared to consider reciprocity treaties. In view of the foregoing, he earnestly asked “as a favor to Argentina” that we should not press our position. To do so, he said, would cause the greatest embarrassment to the Argentine Foreign Minister. In short, he asked us to help Saavedra Lamas to get out of the embarrassment which he had so injudiciously contrived for himself.
I told Espil that he was now putting the matter on a different basis. So far as the legal position was concerned, we had just now received the summary of the Argentine reply. We had been trying to obtain a reply from Argentina for some time and we would now, in view of the numerous citations to American authorities given by Argentina, study the whole question most carefully.
Before seeing Dr. Espil, I talked briefly by ‘phone with Mr. Flournoy68 and with Mr. Barnes,69 who both expressed a certain doubt as to the position we had taken on this matter, and a desire to study the question thoroughly in the light of the Argentine reply.