738.39/200a: Circular telegram
The Secretary of State to All Diplomatic Missions in the American Republics Except Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico
You are requested to transmit the following note to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Government to which you are accredited:
“I have been instructed to present to Your Excellency the following statement:
[Page 138]“‘At the invitation of the President of the Republic of Haiti, the Presidents of the Republics of Cuba, Mexico and the United States tendered their good offices to the President of the Dominican Republic and the President of Haiti with a view to seeking a pacific solution of the unfortunate dispute which had arisen between these two American nations.
“‘In tendering this friendly assistance, the three invited governments believed that they were acting in accordance with the traditional desire for peace of our New World and in strict conformity with the spirit displayed by all the American Republics in the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace recently held at Buenos Aires.
“‘On November 15, the President of the Dominican Republic replied to the Presidents of Cuba and of the United States, and subsequently in identic terms to the President of Mexico, professing satisfaction at the tender of good offices but reserving action pending receipt of information as to the grounds upon which the Haitian Government based its request to the three invited governments. The President of the Dominican Republic added that upon learning the point which the Haitian Government considered to be the subject of controversy the Dominican Government would hasten to define its line of action.
“‘Although the Haitian Minister in Ciudad Trujillo had communicated to the Dominican Government the reasons motivating the invitation of the President of Haiti for good offices, the Ministers of Cuba and of the United States at Ciudad Trujillo (there being no Mexican diplomatic representative there) on November 18 requested an interview with the President of the Dominican Republic to deliver to him a copy in translation of the original invitation from the President of Haiti requesting the good offices of the three friendly governments; and they were accorded this interview on November 22.
“‘Meanwhile, the President of the Dominican Republic on November 20, appointed three special envoys to the invited governments to assist the already regularly accredited Ministers then resident at the capitals of those nations.
“‘Shortly after the arrival in Washington of the Dominican special envoys to the United States and to Mexico, and upon the initiative of the Dominican Government, informal and confidential conversations were held at the Mexican Embassy on December 2 and 3 between these two special envoys and the Dominican Minister in Washington representing the Dominican Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Haiti and the Haitian Minister in Washington representing the Haitian Government, and the Mexican Ambassador, the Cuban Chargé d’Affaires and the Under Secretary of State of the United States of America representing the three invited governments.
“‘After hearing an ample exposition of the points of view of the two governments party to the dispute, the representatives of the three invited governments arrived at the following conclusions: (1) that regrettable incidents involving the loss of life of an undetermined number of Haitian citizens had occurred in the Dominican Republic; (2) that direct negotiation between the two governments concerned had thus far been unproductive; (3) that negotiation by means of [Page 139] informal conversations participated in by the three invited powers had likewise been unproductive; and (4) that the incidents had assumed an international aspect.
“‘In connection with point (3) above, the representatives of the invited governments had suggested that if the Dominican Government should accept the formal tender of good offices, a Commission composed of representatives to be designated by the three invited governments should be constituted.
“‘This Commission was to have proceeded to Port-au-Prince to obtain information which the Haitian Government might have desired to furnish for the purpose of assisting the Dominican authorities to clarify the facts. The Commission would then have proceeded to Ciudad Trujillo there to remain until an investigation to have been undertaken exclusively by the Dominican authorities had in the opinion of the Commission itself been terminated.
“‘This investigation would have included an inquiry in particular into every one of the cases covered in the information proffered by the Haitian Government to the International Commission. A report of this investigation would have been communicated in full to the Commission.
“‘On behalf of the Government of Haiti, the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs on December 3 formally accepted the proposal as outlined above. The Dominican representatives agreed to communicate the proposal to their government immediately and to meet on December 8, when they would be prepared to communicate the reply of the Dominican Government.
“‘At the meeting on December 8, the representatives of the Dominican Republic stated that they had as yet received no instructions and requested a postponement, giving formal assurances that they would have instructions on December 10 or the morning of December 11 at the latest.
“‘On December 11, the Dominican Delegation presented an extensive memorandum, in which it set forth its points of view, to the effect that the request for good offices was without justification and that the formula, presented by the representatives of the three invited powers, should be replaced by a program which the Dominican Government submitted for the consideration of the Haitian Government; a program which provided:
- “‘(1) Reaffirmation by the two governments of the diplomatic agreement of October 15, 1937.
- “‘(2) Continuation of the investigation already inaugurated and greatly advanced by the Dominican Government.
“‘Guarantees would be given which, in the opinion of the Dominican Government, would suffice to satisfy the Haitian Government.
“‘The representatives of the three invited governments limited themselves to transmitting to the Minister of Haiti the memorandum mentioned above.
“‘The representatives of the three invited governments, after mature deliberation, came to the conclusion that the incident in question had become a factor susceptible of disturbing the peace of the American continent. It will be recalled in this connection that the 21 American Republics declared at the Inter-American Conference for [Page 140] the Maintenance of Peace “that every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every one of them”.3
“‘The representatives of the three governments, anticipating that the Government of Haiti would not accept the proposal offered by the Dominican Government, recommended to the Minister of Haiti for the information of his Government that the Government of Haiti take every possible means of avoiding measures tending to aggravate the situation, and that the Government of Haiti resort to the international treaties in force between the Dominican Government and the Republic of Haiti.
“‘On the 14th of December the Government of Haiti stated that it had invoked the Gondra Treaty of 1923 and the Convention on Conciliation of 1929.4 The Governments of Cuba, Mexico, and the United States trust that the procedure contained in the Inter-American peace instruments resorted to by the Haitian Government may obtain a satisfactory solution of the controversy, the notice of which would undoubtedly be greeted with sincere gratification by all of the American Republics.’”
- From resolution XXVII, Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Co-operation, Report of the Delegation, pp. 227, 228.↩
- The treaty between the United States and other American Republics signed at Santiago, May 3, 1923, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 308, is known as the Gondra Treaty. It was supplemented by the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation, signed at Washington, January 5, 1929, ibid., 1929, vol. i, p. 653.↩