Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1939, The American Republics, Volume V

824.00/908

Memorandum by Messrs. George S. Knight and Richard W. Flournoy, of the Office of the Legal Adviser, to the Legal Adviser (Hackworth)

[Washington,] May 3, 1939.

Mr. Hackworth: It is gathered from the memorandum of April 29, 1939,³ prepared in KA,⁴ that Señor Busch still bears the title of President of Bolivia. Also, it is noted that President Busch’s Cabinet remains unchanged. Apparently the main change in the Bolivian form of government is that President Busch has assumed “complete power in the state” and has dissolved the Bolivian Congress. That is to say, President Busch is still the head of the Bolivian Government but has taken to himself more extensive governmental power than he had formerly.

In the somewhat analogous case which recently arose in Brazil,⁵ President Vargas, before his term of office expired, abrogated the Brazilian Constitution and proclaimed a new Constitution by which he was to continue in office subject to a plebiscite at some undetermined date. In your memorandum of January 7, 1938,⁶ you said:

“As I understand the situation with respect to political changes that have taken place in Brazil, no occasion arises for extending recognition to the present government. It seems to me that the question whether the abrogation of the former Constitution and the promulgation of a new one, and the continuance of President Vargas in office under the new Constitution have been brought about by appropriate processes is a matter primarily for consideration by that country and its people. The situation is not analogous to that presented where the recognized government has been ousted by a coup d’état or revolution and a new régime set up contrary to constitutional methods.”

In a memorandum prepared by you on January 11, 1938,⁷ it was concluded that:

• “1. Where a new régime is established through a coup d’état or revolution, some form of recognition is necessary. It may, of course, take the form of our treating with the government in the regular way or some more formal act.
• “2. A formal act of recognition is not required where the existing government has executed a coup d’état displacing the Constitution by a new one or setting it aside. If that government has already been recognized by us it will continue to be so recognized by the mere continuance of our relations with it.”

From the facts of the Bolivian case, as heretofore presented, there would apparently be no cause for this Government to go through any formal act of recognition. As in the Brazilian case, the continuance of our relations with the Bolivian Government will, it is believed, amount to a continuance of recognition of the present régime in Bolivia. The terms “recognize” and “recognition” are used in two senses with regard to foreign governments: (1) with reference to an act or declaration indicating an intention to deal with a completely new régime as the government of a state, and (2) an act or series of acts indicating an intention to continue to deal with a government already recognized. While considerable changes in the Government of Bolivia were recently made by President Busch, it seems reasonable to hold that the Government now in control is a continuation of the Government which was carried on under him before the coup d’état, especially in view of the fact that his cabinet has not been changed.

3. Not printed.
4. Division of the American Republics.
5. See Foreign Relations, 1937, vol. v, pp. 312 ff.
6. Ibid., p. 315.
7. Foreign Relations, 1937, vol. v, p. 316.