724.3415/5111: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:10 p.m.]
244. From Gibson. My 87 [86?], June 17, 5 p.m., and 94, June 21, 3 p.m. Saavedra Lamas told me last night that he felt the time might be ripe any day now for acting on your suggestion that a conference of all American states be called to deal with the general subject of peace on this continent.95 He said that he was instructing Espil to discuss the matter with you.
It was obvious from Saavedra’s remarks that his sudden change of attitude toward the calling of a general conference was not based on interest in the elaboration of peace machinery to avert future conflicts. He is in a state of panic lest the present negotiations collapse and affect his personal prestige. His immediate aim, which he has openly pursued during the past few days, is to find a convenient scapegoat.
In his conversation with me he made it clear with startling naivete that he envisaged the general conference primarily as something on [Page 161] which the Chaco problem could be unloaded. In this connection he said that he felt that rather than “admit the failure” of the present negotiations we should call in the other American states and “make them shoulder their share of the blame” thus avoiding “the ignominy of having the question go back to Europe”.
He said that the averting of future wars was not a matter of practical interest at this time and that we should devote our efforts to getting the American countries to “participate in responsibility for the Chaco”. As usual he has no plan as to how this is to be achieved. The whole idea savors of going over Niagara Falls in a barrel.
I venture to suggest that before making any commitments as to a general conference you have a clear understanding with him concerning its scope and mandate. I think you will agree that one of our greatest difficulties has been that there are too many mediators and that increasing their number will hardly serve to enhance the possibility of settling the Chaco problem. On the other hand there would seem to be some question as to the advisability of convoking a general conference to elaborate peace machinery for the future while the principal existing disagreement remains unsolved.
In the light of the unfortunate experience of this Conference it is clear that any conference entrusted to the guidance of Saavedra Lamas will be handled with a maximum of ineptitude and a minimum of hope. [Gibson.]
- See section entitled “Preliminaries to the Inter-American Conferences for the Maintenance of Peace …” pp. 1 ff.↩