I now have to transmit herewith as, I believe, of interest to the
Department the memorandum commenting on the proposals and observations
of Dr. Campa, which has been prepared by the First Secretary of the
Embassy, Mr. Beaulac. I am in accord with the views expressed by Mr.
Beaulac in his memorandum and agree that Dr. Campa’s proposals diverge
widely from our draft resolution and convention.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the First Secretary of Embassy in
Cuba (Beaulac) to the Ambassador in
Cuba (Messersmith)
Mr. Ambassador: Dr. Campa suggests, in
addition to the Convention and Resolution proposed by the
Department, a Declaration—the advantage of which, according to his
memorandum, “is that a document of this character is in itself the
total expression of American thought and permits the Convention and
the Resolution to become
[Page 232]
effective even though the first of those instruments may not have
been ratified by all the countries of America.”
… the purpose of the Resolution is to cover situations which “may
develop prior to the coming into force of the said Convention
necessitating action on the part of the American Republics to
protect their peace and sovereignty.” A Resolution, of course, does
not require ratification, and, from that point of view, would be
just as immediately effective as Dr. Campa’s Declaration would be;
in fact, as already stated, it is proposed that the Resolution be
placed in immediate effect, regardless of whether the various
countries have ratified the Convention.
Furthermore, Dr. Campa’s Declaration goes much farther than does the
Resolution. The latter provides “that should it become necessary to
establish a collective trusteeship …”, a committee shall be
designated to have certain powers and to act in a certain
manner.
Dr. Campa’s Declaration, on the other hand, provides that:
“The Republics of America declare, first, that the American
islands or territory which are in danger of being subject to
transactions or changes of sovereignty shall be occupied
provisionally by the American nations under the following
conditions. …”
It is obvious, of course, that the French possessions in this area,
for example, are “in danger” of being subject to transactions or
changes of sovereignty, whether or not such transactions actually
occur. My interpretation of Dr. Campa’s Declaration would be,
therefore, that provisional occupation of such territory by the
American nations would at once become mandatory.
The second proposal in Dr. Campa’s Declaration is likewise radical.
He proposes that such islands or territory, at the end of the period
of such occupation, have “the inalienable right to dispose freely of
their own destiny” by becoming independent States or attaching
themselves to other regions with which they are associated in
customs, interests, and population.”
The proposed Convention, on the other hand, provides that
“the American Republics declare their
intention either to restore the territory or territories in
question to their original sovereign, whenever the security
of the Americas renders such transmission of sovereignty
possible, or to recognize their independence if it shall
appear that they are capable of undertaking this task of
self-government.”
In other words, Dr. Campa’s Declaration contemplates (1) independence
of the territories or (2) attachment “to other regions with which
they are associated in customs, interests and population.” Such
other regions might include Latin American countries, for example,
or they might include a non-American State.
[Page 233]
Dr. Campa also provides in his Declaration for a joint mandate of the
American countries over those regions not capable of
self-government. The proposed Convention does not contemplate the
possibility of such a permanent arrangement. In fact, as stated
above, it proposes only (1) return of the territories to their
original sovereigns or (2) independence.
Dr. Campa’s Declaration also contains a provision which would
safeguard American claims to territories now occupied by
non-American countries. This, assumedly, would take care of
Guatemala’s claim over British Honduras and Argentina’s claim
affecting the Falkland Islands.
The additions suggested by Dr. Campa to the proposed Convention and
Resolution are merely to introduce the appropriate references to Dr.
Campa’s proposed Declaration.
It should be evident, from the foregoing, that the effect of Dr.
Campa’s Declaration would be not to provide an instrument which can
be placed in effect immediately pending ratification of the
Convention, since this is already taken care of by the proposed
Resolution, but rather to introduce fundamental changes into the
plan embodied in the draft Convention and Resolution submitted by
us.
Dr. Campa’s proposed Declaration appears to be a rewording of his
proposed “Declaration of Ciudad Trujillo,” which failed of approval
at the Second Meeting of the Caribbean.
