816.01/384: Telegram
The Chargé in Guatemala (Lawton) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 9:10 p.m.]
6. Your 4, Urgent, January 18, 2 p.m., received in its entirety January 19, 8 a.m. Have just had a long talk with President Ubico. Although personally against recognition he is willing to carry out the agreement to recognize Martínez January 25 and to join with President Sacasa after recognition in inviting the five Central American Presidents to a conference to be held in Guatemala in February for the purpose of drawing up new treaties. He will not agree to enter into a private arrangement in the sense proposed by President Sacasa before recognition because he is afraid one or more of the Presidents parties to the agreement would, once recognition was accorded Martínez, go back on their word and refuse to participate in the conference. [Page 242] I asked him what difference there would be between that and a refusal by one or more Governments of the invitation to a conference issued after recognition. He replied that in the latter case it would not matter as, if Martínez declined to participate, he would lose the sympathy of the other republics and become isolated. In other words, President Ubico does not want to bargain with Martínez about recognition.
As to the necessity of referring to the 1923 treaty at the time of or prior to recognition, he feels that such reference is useless in so far as justifying the step in the light of the treaty is concerned. He does not understand how President Sacasa or the Department can feel that the treaty is not being violated. His position is that Salvador has not denounced the treaty and that it is still in force with respect to Salvador for all states that continue to be parties. He points out that the Salvadorean denunciation was effected by a government which, by the terms of the treaty itself, could not be recognized and that consequently such denunciation could not be valid for the other contracting states. Holding this view, he feels that any reference to the treaty in connection with the recognition of Martínez would be merely “eye wash” and would impress no one. However, he agrees that the treaty continues in force for Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and he has no objection to the various Foreign Ministers pointing out that fact to the press at the time recognition is announced. Beyond that he will not go.
President Ubico is definitely of the opinion that a new treaty is necessary to the peace of Central America; but he feels that in order to be effective such a treaty should provide sanctions in the form of collective investigation and, if necessary, force. He says that a treaty without such sanctions would be no more than a “scrap of paper”. Incidentally that term has been used in the past few days by several Guatemalan officials all of whom are convinced, despite every explanation of the contrary view, that recognition of Martínez is a flagrant violation of the 1923 treaty. This attitude unfortunately carries with it a somewhat cynical conception of the American Government’s regard for international conventions and will inevitably lessen the respect in which any future Central American treaty of peace and amity is held, unless such treaty provides sanctions. Although many Guatemalan officials (not including the President or Acting Foreign Minister) feel that Martínez has done a good job and that it would be well to regularize relations with him, none of them feel that, in order to do so, it is worth while to violate as important an instrument for peace as the 1923 treaty. President Ubico, on the other hand, contends that Martínez actually is weaker today than formerly and he insists there is real danger of trouble in Salvador, especially if he is [Page 243] recognized. In answer to my inquiry as to whether, since he did not favor recognition of Martínez (although willing to accord it), he had any alternative suggestion, the President said that if it were up to him he would leave matters as they are.
Of course it is evident that personal and political prejudices have much to do with the Guatemalan attitude; yet I feel certain there exists a real disillusionment over what is considered the sudden and somewhat casual manner in which it is proposed to break the terms of the 1923 treaty. It has been pointed out to me both by the President and the Acting Foreign Minister that the United States played a leading part in obtaining acceptance of the treaty and that the course pursued by the various republics with respect to Martínez was mainly due to its strong urging.
Repeated to Managua.