Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1936, The American Republics, Volume V

710.11/2026

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs (Duggan) to the Assistant Secretary of State (Welles)

[Washington,] March 25, 1936.

The advisability of a clarification of the basis upon which our relations with the Central American Republics are to rest appears desirable, particularly in view of the political uncertainty in certain of those countries at the present time. To assist consideration of the matter, and inasmuch as our relations have been closely related to the 1923 treaties,³ Mr. Beaulac⁴ has made the attached study⁵ of those sections of the 1923 treaties having to do with the undertaking to maintain in the constitutions of the several republics the principle of non-reelection and the undertaking not to recognize governments coming into power as the result of revolution or coup d’état. This memorandum treats in some detail the situation arising from the recognition of General Martínez,⁶ the prolongation of his terms of office by Ubico,⁷ and the resulting action taken by the Governments of Nicaragua and Honduras, and concludes that as a result of the “acts of Guatemala, Honduras and even of Nicaragua, described above, we are no longer warranted in invoking the Treaty as a reason for denying recognition to any régime in Central America, since obviously we (who are not even a party to the Treaty) cannot justly invoke it in the case of one violation when the parties to it themselves have both violated it and failed to invoke it in the cases of other and previous violations.”

In view of the recent action by President Carias in convoking a Constituent Assembly in order to prolong his term of office,⁸ and of the possibility of difficulties in Nicaragua, Mr. Beaulac and myself thought that it would be well at this time to make clear to our diplomatic missions in the Central American Republics the attitude of this Government respecting the 1923 treaties, and that if the attached memorandum meets with your approval it might be sent under covering instruction to our various missions.

Your memorandum of March 17, after indicating that interference by this Government will no longer be undertaken with regard to the strictly political questions and other more domestic concerns of the Central American republics, raises the question of whether our representatives in the Central American republics might not use their personal influence in a helpful and friendly way with regard to matters affecting the general relations between the Central American republics, and inferentially their individual or joint relations with the United States.

In the situations of greater or lesser importance which are continually arising between the Central American republics to impair the maintenance of friendly relations, the exercise of good offices to assist amicable settlement of sources of friction certainly is desirable. Precipitate action can often be avoided and the way charted for friendly solution. It does not seem to me desirable, however, for a broad permission to be given our diplomatic representatives to use their discretion in these matters for the following reasons:

In the first place, it is not possible to foresee the precise nature of the situations that arise so that it is not possible to give any hard and fast instructions. Many situations are so delicate and complex that no action will be better than action the precise consequences of which cannot be foreseen. In a desire to be helpful steps might be taken based upon insufficient or inaccurate information which might be prejudicial rather than beneficial. Moreover, in the midst of an active, developing situation it is sometimes difficult for our representatives to maintain an impartial attitude and not to be influenced, no matter how hard he may endeavor to be objective. In the second place, vast importance is attached in Central America to the views of the United States. The opinion of a representative of this Government, even though expressed in his personal capacity, is usually taken to mean the considered judgment of this Government, and is given great if not conclusive weight. Finally, in Central America, where so much depends upon personal relationship, the abilities and standing in the local communities of our representatives varies so greatly that while the Department might be willing to give certain of them some leeway it undoubtedly would not wish to do so with others. On more than one occasion inept handling of situations by our own representatives has not only served to make these situations worse but has resulted in embarrassment for and intense criticism of the United States. For these reasons the advisability of any general instruction to our Central American missions is doubted. If our representatives are to be given any latitude in order to permit the discreet use of their personal influence I believe this might better be done after discussion here or, if that is impossible, by private correspondence.

Laurence Duggan

3. Adopted at the Conference on Central American Affairs; see Foreign Relations 1923, vol. i, pp. 320–327, and Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922–February 7, 1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923).
4. Willard L. Beaulac, Assistant Chief, Division of Latin American Affairs.
5. Memorandum of February 18, p. 136.
6. See section entitled “Recognition of the Martínez Government of El Salvador by Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and by the United States,” Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. v, pp. 216 ff.
7. See section entitled “Attitude of the United States Towards the Continuance in Office of the President of Guatemala Beyond His Constitutional Term,” ibid., 1935, vol. iv, pp. 614 ff.
8. See section entitled “Extension of the Term of Office of the President of Honduras Through a Revision of the Political Constitution,” pp. 682 ff.