724.3415/4979: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received 2:13 p.m.]
84. Department’s 73, June 14, 2 p.m. From Gibson. Have discussed with Cruchaga and Macedo Soares the question of inviting additional countries mentioned to participate in the Peace Conference. They both feel that an increase of the present number would be unfortunate and a handicap on further efforts, They outlined in different terms substantially the same objections as follows:
- (1)
- There is a logical justification for present membership consisting of neighboring countries and the United States. If we once begin extending the membership there will be no logical place to stop until all countries of this hemisphere were included.
- (2)
- Anything gained by including further South American countries would be more than offset through the exasperation of the Central American and Caribbean countries not included.
- (3)
- There will be a risk of an embarrassing situation arising in connection with the inclusion of Ecuador in view of the opposition of Paraguay (see third paragraph of Embassy’s 67, June 6, 1 p.m.51).
The tasks of the Conference and negotiations on matters calling for expeditious decision will be difficult enough under present conditions in view of the erratic character of its chairmanship, lack of organization and the uncontrollable eloquence of some of the members. It is important to restrict to a minimum the amount of time consumed in speech-making and this will, it is contended, be less for a group of six than for double the number, and this difference in time may well be the difference between success and failure. (I must say that after a week’s experience with the mediatory group I share this view.)
As I see the situation up to the present time the mediating powers have looked upon the negotiations as a sort of forlorn hope. The first success in stopping hostilities has had a rather sobering effect and there is considerably less disposition to open the door to other countries through the feeling that this would introduce more confusion into a situation which is still precarious.
I have not sought to consult President Justo on this subject as he leaves foreign affairs strictly alone and any approach to him would be resented by Saavedra Lamas. The latter has definitely expressed himself as opposed to increasing the number of mediators (see despatch No. 719, May 21, page 2 of enclosure52). In view of Saavedra Lamas having so recently and so emphatically expressed himself on the subject to the Ambassador, have considered it [un]wise to open this subject in conversation with him.
Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs leaves today for Rio de Janeiro. [Gibson.]