724.3415/4984: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell)
77. For Gibson. Your 84, June 16, 11 a.m. and 86, June 17, 5 p.m. I have given very careful consideration to the views expressed to you by the Foreign Ministers of Chile and Brazil. I cannot feel that there is any serious basis for the first and second objections listed in your No. 84. With regard to number (1), there is no more logical justification for the present group than there would be for any other artificially selected group of American nations. There would, on the other hand, be complete logical justification for the inclusion in the present peace conference of the nine states composing the original commission of neutrals which dealt with the Chaco dispute throughout the earlier period. Since Uruguay, which was one of this group, and is not a neighboring state, has been included, there is no justification for excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, which were also members of the original commission of neutrals.
With regard to objection (2), while certain of the Central American Republics have periodically attempted during the past 5 years to further a peaceful settlement of the Chaco controversy, their present inclusion as a matter of policy is not comparable to that of the other states above mentioned, and their alleged exasperation because of their exclusion from the peace conference would not be a determining factor in any future inter-American conference which might be called to consider the creation of adequate peace machinery for this Continent. It would, of course, be highly desirable that the Central American and Caribbean Republics be invited to take part, should the peace conference prove successful, in some formal inter-American session terminating the work of the conference.
With regard to objection (3), if the peace protocol is ratified by both Bolivia and Paraguay, discretion as to the invitations to the peace conference would appear to be vested solely in the President of [Page 81] Argentina, and it is not believed probable that since Paraguay urged and obtained the inclusion of Uruguay among the mediating powers she would raise serious objection to the inclusion of Ecuador.
It seems that in your conversations with Cruchaga and Macedo Soares no specific reference has been made to the League recommendations, which specifically provided for invitations to be extended by the President of Argentina to the nations already represented as well as to Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Ecuador.
From the point of view of this Government, the important fact to be borne in mind is that throughout the duration of the Chaco conflict repeated efforts have been made by the various American Republics and various groups of American Republics to bring about a peaceful solution, but at no time has there been any concerted effort on the part of all of the American Republics to press for peace. This has been due, in large part, in my judgment, to the lack of adequate peace machinery on this Continent in which the American Republics could properly have confidence. If any beneficial results are to be derived from the experience of these past 6 years, they would seem to lie solely in the possibility of seizing the opportune moment presented by a successful termination of the coming peace conference and for the United States to join with other powers of this Continent in an initiative to suggest the need for the creation of adequate peace machinery competent to deal with such inter-American disputes should they arise in the future. If this opportunity is lost, you will readily understand that an appropriate moment will presumably not soon again arise. For this reason it would seem especially desirable that certain influential governments, and in particular Mexico and Colombia, should not be offended by their exclusion from the present conference, since the offense thus occasioned would inevitably make them far less willing to cooperate with the nations already represented in the conference in any effort such as that above indicated.
This Government appreciates the attitude taken by the Brazilian Foreign Minister and I shall discuss the possibility in further detail with Aranha after the return of the Foreign Minister to Rio de Janeiro.
Because of the views you have expressed, and because of the fact that it is clearly undesirable to raise any controversial issue at this moment which might delay prompt ratification of the protocols by the two belligerents, you may leave the question in abeyance until further instructions are sent to you. I believe, however, that you will share my view that while the first objective is to provide for a satisfactory and speedy conclusion of permanent peace as envisaged in the protocols, the larger objective from the point of view of our [Page 82] continental policy is to seize the occasion if it is presented to press for adequate continental peace machinery and for that reason to do everything possible to encourage and foster concerted continental public opinion among the American Republics towards that end.