724.3415/5008: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 23—5:30 a.m.]
99. From Gibson. Department’s 86, June 22, 2 p.m. I communicated substance of your telegram to the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs before the meeting this evening. He reiterated in friendly but decided terms the views outlined in my 94, June 21, 3 [Page 86] p.m., but agreed that I should present the matter to the meeting. I also went into the subject with my Peruvian and Uruguayan colleagues who both expressed opposition to increasing membership of Peace Conference.
The meeting was in fact an informal conversation to take account of the present status of the truce, the procedure for convening the conference. I communicated the substance of section 3 of your telegram to the group.
Thereafter there was a general discussion entirely amicable in tone but decidedly antagonistic to any increase in membership.
The Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs opened the discussion by review of previous discussions and stated that our proposal seemed to indicate a modification of attitude inasmuch as we had in earlier meetings appeared content with the present membership but felt that if Mexico were also to be invited some definite principle should be adopted, such as the completion of the nine-power group, whereas we now definitely favored an extension at least to this extent. He repeated the view that the present membership was more likely to work harmoniously and achieve results and saw no harm in maintaining it. He pointed out that the belligerents had accepted the offer of good offices of a group of powers and that the one addition which had been made to it had been at the instance of one of the belligerents with the acquiescence of the other, questioned the propriety of the mediators taking upon themselves to modify the composition of the group whose good offices had been accepted and stressed the fact that any request for modifications should emanate from the belligerents. He remarked that while Bolivia had at one time broached the subject of inviting Mexico it had dropped the suggestion.
Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs said that he feared any attempt to bring in other powers might produce unfortunate situation through objection by one of the belligerents; that this would be more unfortunate than failure to extend an invitation.
Peruvian Ambassador brought out one point which was new to me, namely, that when protocol of agreement was being drafted before my arrival, it had been suggested that an article might be inserted dealing with possible increases in membership but that it had not been pressed because of the general feeling that any suggestion by the belligerents that further invitations be extended should be submitted to Peace Conference. He added, and the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed with him, that under the terms of the protocol the function of the President of the Argentine Republic was not to choose [Page 87] the countries to be represented at the Peace Conference but merely at the instance of mediatory group to invite powers in the latter.
Brazilian Ambassador, when called upon, indicated statements already made in meetings by the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs as constituting views of his Government. These statements merely expressed opposition to further extension and were not tempered by the confidential statement he made to me that Brazil would be prepared to follow our lead.
Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a friendly but definite statement, said that he was not worried about any ill-feeling resulting from maintaining our present membership but that he questioned good results to come of extending invitations to three more powers as that would make more pointed failure to invite remaining South American countries and that if these were in turn invited, it would make more obvious failure to include remaining Latin American countries. Both he and Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that they believed best course was to keep to the present membership for the immediate work and, after success was definitely in sight, to invite all the remaining countries of this hemisphere to join in the actual conclusion of the treaty of peace.
Uruguayan Ambassador expressed agreement with his colleagues.
In summing up the discussion the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs asked if it was the unanimous opinion of the mediatory group that it would be desirable to keep to the decision already reached, namely, that the group would entertain no proposals for further invitations and that any proposals to this end should be made by the belligerent nations to the Peace Conference. Assent was given by all present except myself.
The Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that President Justo would call the Peace Conference for the latter part of next week in order to afford time for the Brazilian delegation to arrive.
In conclusion I said that I wanted to make very clear that your proposal was based on your essential concern to maintain intact and safeguard the solidarity of Pan-American opinion, not only for the present case but especially for the future; that I must point out that this concern was not a United States monopoly but was of equal importance to the other members of the mediatory group, and that I trusted that they would give the matter their earnest thought and be prepared when the time came to deal with it in the light of this essential concern. [Gibson.]