765.84/4749: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 12:40 p.m.]
263. A disorientation seems to have occurred in Latin-American policies in Geneva.
The Argentine program during the past month has been forced to undergo a series of modifications as a result of developments here. A number of Latin-American Ministers called on me yesterday, among them certain whose positions I described as supporting Argentina in my No. 250 June 24 [25], 8 p.m., and recounting their difficulties in establishing an understanding in their capitals of precise situations in Geneva state that it was now impossible to say whether they could accord their support or not inasmuch as what position Argentina itself would take now seemed to be most uncertain. Admitting that their advices might be somewhat inexact they said that they nevertheless understood that the Argentine Senate in a recent private meeting had demonstrated a desire that a strong pronouncement, if possible in the form of a resolution, be obtained in Geneva on the principle of nonrecognition and that as a consequence Saavedra Lamas who had let it be known through his delegation here that Buenos Aires would be “satisfied” by a less definitive support perhaps in the form of individual speeches was now confronted by the dilemma either of receiving a setback in his Government or being checked in Geneva. In any case they did not believe that “strong” action could be obtained here and that their present instructions did not suggest that they could support anything of that type.
[Page 172]The Chilean Minister told me that respecting his initiative for League reform, Chile had the support in varying degrees of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Stating candidly that both the Argentine and Chilean actions here might in some respects be regarded as an inopportune intervention in European affairs, the reason he gave for Chile’s action was that a pronounced current of opinion existed in Chile for separation from the League and that in fact his Government might withdraw at any time. The Chilean delegation here had however “persuaded” Santiago to give the League “a last chance” to reform. It will be noted that the Chilean statement before the Council (Consulate’s 259, June 26, midnight, paragraph 489) carried intimations in that sense. He added that somewhat similar to the Chilean [apparent omission] existed in the other states he had mentioned, notably he believed in Colombia. He understood that Mexico was in a like situation respecting the League but that the Mexican Minister here despite his repeated solicitations had been unable to obtain instructions from his Government on any points in the immediate Geneva issues.
- Not printed. For Chilean statement made to the 92d Session of the Council, June 26, 1936, see League of Nations, Official Journal, July 1936, p. 751.↩