852.00/34201
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Protocol and Conferences (Southgate)
The newly appointed Spanish Ambassador, Señor de los Rios, accompanied by the Chargé d’Affaires, Señor de la Casa, came to pay his first visit to the Secretary.
After the customary exchange of courtesies the Ambassador referred to the difficult situation existing in his country and to the struggle which the legal government is having in maintaining itself. He stated that events in Spain represented a situation not confined to the boundary of that country but to a struggle between two different theories of government. He said it concerned the maintenance of a democracy or the substitution of a totalitarian state. The same forces are at work, he pointed out, in France and the collapse of the present Spanish Government would beyond doubt lead to the collapse of the Popular Front Government in France. This would be followed by a similar result in Belgium.
The French Premier, Mr. Blum, is of course aware of these consequences. His instinct and his desire would naturally be to support the legal democratic government in Spain but other factors have come into the situation. …
The Ambassador then referred to the fact that the United States is detached from the elements present in the European situation. He emphasized the importance of the maintenance of democracies against the threat of dictatorships and he felt that democracies must stand as firmly together as possible and aid each other in as practical a way as possible. Bearing this great need in mind he earnestly inquired whether the United States would not find it possible to extend facilities to the Spanish Government which would be of practical aid in assisting it out of its present complications.
Mr. Hull inquired what the European nations had done in this respect. The Ambassador replied that of course we knew what the situation in Europe had caused the European nations to do. Mr. Hull said he wanted to be quite clear on the point, that his understanding was that thirteen of the European nations had agreed on a policy of [Page 537] non-interference in the internal affairs of Spain and that this procedure seemed to indicate a leadership among the countries most concerned. He added that these countries had decided that the question of non-interference was fairly raised by the Spanish situation.
Mr. Hull then pointed out that the problem of the relationship of the United States with Governments on this Hemisphere had been given a great deal of thought by the present administration, particularly the attitude to be adopted by the Government of the United States not only in times of tranquility in foreign countries but also in times of disturbances in those countries. He said that the Government of the United States had at times in the past occasionally taken entirely innocent steps when difficulties occurred in Latin American countries and that these innocent steps had often led to other complications which had in effect caused interference and even intervention by the United States. Frequently regrettable situations had arisen out of such beginnings.
With a view to avoiding similar difficulties in the future the nations of the Americas assembled at the Montevideo Conference had signed a pact of non-interference in each other’s affairs. This pact* Mr. Hull regards as a great step forward in the maintenance of peace and the free development of the countries concerned. It is interesting to note, he pointed out, that the policies developed in a practical way in periods of tranquility have been the same policies adopted by the European nations under the stress of the present situation in Spain. Mr. Hull felt that on the basis of the conclusions reached at Montevideo and the subsequent leadership of the European nations in the present circumstances, it would be difficult for the United States to deviate from the paths so clearly indicated.
The Ambassador recalled that during the struggle between Calles and Huerta in Mexico, the United States had lent support to the legal Government,78 The Secretary pointed out that this was one of those actions to which he had previously referred which had led this Government to be criticized and had caused those very difficulties which he was anxious to avoid, and so brought on the Montevideo Convention already referred to.
The Ambassador said that the stated policy of European nations was one thing but that the facts were another. Italy and Germany, with the assistance of Portugal, were known beyond the shadow of a doubt to have furnished military aid to the rebels. He added that every single airplane possessed by the rebels had come from Italy or Germany. In these circumstances the rebels were receiving aid and [Page 538] comfort and the legal Government, which merited the support of other democratic legal Governments, was left without the support it so urgently needed.
Mr. Hull stated that the United States had proclaimed a policy of aloofness in the Spanish situation and was using its moral influence and its persuasion to maintain effective this point of view. There is no law on the statute books to prevent American citizens from selling munitions either to the rebels or to the Government. Any such transactions would be private transactions.
The Secretary again referred to the conclusions reached at the Montevideo Conference. He expressed the earnest hope that the Ambassador would read the treaty and the reports of the committees which had considered the texts thereof. He felt that the views of the Western Hemisphere were well expressed therein.
The Ambassador said, speaking of the Western Hemisphere, that the ties between Spain and the nations of Latin America were intimate. Biologically, and therefore mentally, the peoples of those countries were closely affiliated. The Ambassador felt that the collapse of the legal Government in Spain and the establishment of a totalitarian state would be certain to have serious repercussions on this side of the Atlantic. He referred specifically to Mexico in this connection.
Mr. Hull again emphasized the importance of the Montevideo pact and the importance, for the sake of consistency, if for no other reason, of the United States adhering to the principles thereof in other parts of the world as well as in Latin America. He inquired, as stated, why the French Government, the neighbor and special friend of the Spanish Government, had taken the lead in the intervention movement.
The Secretary then referred to the case of the speech made by the Attaché of the Spanish Embassy. This is the subject of a separate memorandum.79
- “Rights and Duties of States,” proclaimed January 18, 1935. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. ii, pp. 428 ff.↩
- Infra.↩