724.34119/1353: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:08 p.m.]
115. From Braden. In interview with Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs this afternoon he was pessimistic of reaching agreement with parties next week and expressed desire to discover some method which would permit the Conference to dissolve gracefully in the event of failure. He suggested implantation of security measures, renewal of diplomatic relations and a non-aggression pact which would leave matters in status quo.
I said that if worse came to worst doubtless some such arrangement could be contrived but pointed out that the one time a mediator had pounded the table (see my telegram 66, March 24, 7 p.m.) Paraguay promptly backed down and I was convinced united forceful stand by mediators would bring desired result. I said pressure on Bolivia would be most effective coming from Brazil, Chile, and perhaps the United States but above all Argentine pressure would turn the trick. He seemed impressed with my argument and assured me Paraguay would be warned (1) they must expect totally different attitude from Argentina than in the last war if another conflict occurs; (2) while Paraguayan intransigence will be interpreted as aggression against Bolivia it will be taken also as a “moral aggression” against the mediatory countries. He concluded by saying he himself would speak in strongest terms to Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs and requested I do likewise since it would be most helpful and as efficacious as it had been with Bolivia when I was in La Paz. I assured him I would do so.
Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs and other colleagues agree it would be advisable as part of our program for me to address the American Club here next Tuesday keynoting negotiations with ex-belligerent Foreign Ministers. My speech would be given all possible publicity. Unless I am instructed to the contrary my speech will be along the following lines:
- (1)
- Horrors of war, a repetition of which would be ruinous to them for generations;
- (2)
- This alone would justify long life of Conference. Equally important is the preservation of the American peace system and good neighbor policy common to all American Republics;
- (3)
- Difference between enforced and negotiated peace treaties. Reason and justice now recognized American principle of action in contrast to prevalence of force elsewhere in the world;
- (4)
- Conference proposal will be made with the knowledge of all the facts, represents mature unified opinion of the six mediators and is an equitable compromise insuring security against war. Both [Page 124] parties in broad spirit of American statesmanship and ideals must make sacrifices of real and imagined rights and claims. These will be more than compensated by benefits resulting from permanent peace;
- (5)
- Work of the United States and other neutrals in Conference has really represented all American opinion hence in case of failure the Conference must render account of stewardship assigning credit or blame where due.
Does the Department want text of the speech for release in Washington simultaneously with release to press here? [Braden.]