724.3415/5005: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell)
86. For Gibson. Your 94, June 21, 3 p.m. The views of Dr. Saavedra Lamas as to the desirable procedure to be followed by the peace conference were communicated to me yesterday by the Argentine Ambassador. The position he takes appears to be based upon the reasonable ground that if the conference confines itself at first solely to juridical questions and is prevented from bringing into the course of the negotiations the practical considerations entailed in the economic and communications phases of the problem an impasse will probably be created and the work of the conference may be indefinitely held up if it does not altogether break down. You may at an early moment inform Dr. Saavedra Lamas that his suggestions as to procedure appear to your Government to be both reasonable and practical and that you will consequently be glad to support the stand which he is taking in the matter.
[Page 85]With regard to the question of the extension of invitations to participate in the peace conference to the other nations mentioned in previous cables, I am informed by Aranha that President Vargas feels as does this Government that it is of exceeding importance to avoid causing offense to the other American republics particularly those who have cooperated in the peace work in the past. The President of Brazil feels further that these views will be shared by the Government of Uruguay. I think consequently it would be well for you to discuss the matter informally with your Peruvian and Uruguayan colleagues and ascertain their views. Thereafter, inasmuch as you have now discussed the matter fully with Dr. Saavedra Lamas, it would seem desirable for you in the next meeting of the commission to bring the question up stating that the Government of the United States, while desiring to present its views, does so for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the other participating governments. The two chief points which you should stress are, of course, first, the fact that it would seem logical to include Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba which served throughout a protracted period upon the Commission of Neutrals of Washington and that it would be difficult to explain to those governments why they should now be excluded from what is hoped will be a negotiation of permanent peace; second, that it is believed to be of the utmost importance in the cause of the maintenance of permanent peace on this continent to obtain the loyal and concerted support of inter-American public opinion behind the work of the conference and that this objective is less likely of achievement if feelings or susceptibilities are injured at this time.
I think it would be well for you to state that this Government would be glad, of course, to abide by the desires of the other governments represented on the commission but that it has believed the matter to be of such great importance as to make it impossible for it to refrain from placing before the commission its own views in the clearest and frankest manner.