765.84/4760: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 30—2:40 p.m.]
268. Consulate’s 263, June 29, noon.
1. Argentina has encountered increasing difficulties in prosecuting its initiative here due to a progressive sharpening of the following circumstances: (a) marked divergence of view between Buenos Aires and the delegation concerning the practicality of effort here, Malbrán95 having refused to head delegation and Cantilo96 doing so with reluctance; (b) resentment of European states at attempt to play Latin-American politics on the European stage particularly during a critical European juncture; (c) disapprobation of Latin American delegations based on the foregoing coupled with what they regard [Page 176] as an inconsistency between this action and the general American attitude of resisting European intervention in American affairs; (d) desire of Latin-American delegations to present common front in Geneva, thus far resentment at Argentina’s seeking to play leading role and hence a covert desire to see Argentina “taught a lesson”.
To a less extent the Chilean initiatives concerning abolition of sanctions and Covenant revision have encountered similar reactions.
2. The Argentine delegation has been feverishly active during the last few days in exchanges by telephone with Buenos Aires and in endeavoring to obtain support here. These efforts have included earnest solicitation of support among Latin-Americans, virtual “negotiations” with the Italians respecting the text of Argentine pronouncement, a solicitation of support from European delegations accompanied by more than a tacit threat that if Argentina is not given satisfaction it will withdraw from the League.
In the last respect an American-European issue which I foreshadowed in previous telegrams has become more pronounced. A number of European delegations have asserted to me that if it came to a show-down between European harmony and Latin-American sentiment they preferred Latin-America out of the League.
3. The Argentine delegation informs me that its policy is to obtain a strong reaffirmation of what they describe as “American principles” respecting nonrecognition and territorial integrity which they state are jointly expressed in article 10 of the Covenant and in the Saavedra Lamas Pact, such a reaffirmation to be in the form of a non-binding resolution containing no expressed application to Abyssinia.
4. The foregoing is obviously a compromise position but I am given to understand that it represents the lowest terms that Buenos Aires will accept.
The Argentinians invited the Latin-American delegations in Geneva to a conference last evening to expose their point of view as described above at which were present the representatives of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, Mexico and Venezuela.
The Argentine delegation informs me that this point of view was unanimously accepted by the Latin-Americans here. They are continuing this exposé with the Santo Dominican delegation which arrived this morning and with others as they may arrive.
5. The accounts of the meeting given me by certain Latin-American Ministers is however as follows. They somewhat sarcastically refer to the term “unanimity” as meaning that Argentina had to retreat toward their views. From the following description of positions taken as related to that of Argentina they are inclined to feel that it is not necessarily indicated that Argentina will be given unanimous support on all points. Bolivia is in complete accord. Mexico desires [Page 177] to go much further and would like a strong pronouncement with full implications against Italy. Chile and Ecuador incline toward a “European position”. Bolivia and Peru although favoring the nonrecognition principle also lean toward Europe on the ground that “interests of peace must be placed above principles”. The instructions of the Panamanian and Cuban delegations are only to advocate the principle of nonrecognition. The Venezuelan delegate is without instructions. Thus much is seen to depend on exactly how Argentina poses the question before the Assembly, this being yet not entirely clear. While the foregoing presumably represents relatively true positions the form of the statements undoubtedly also reflects a great deal of irritation. I am thus inclined to believe that when it comes to the taking of positions in public that the matter of nonrecognition may progress fairly smoothly along some middle ground.
6. The Argentine Minister has informed me that he intends later to take a position advocating “on juridical grounds” the lifting of sanctions against Italy and that he understands that all Latin-American delegations here will advance a similar attitude except possibly the Colombian representative who states that his present instructions are to favor a maintenance of sanctions, and the Venezuelan representative who now expresses the intention to abstain.