Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1940, The American Republics, Volume V

740.00111A.R.–N.C./105

The American Member of the Inter-American Neutrality Committee (Fenwick) to the Under Secretary of State (Welles)

Rio de Janeiro, May 3, 1940.

Dear Mr. Welles: I enclose a preliminary translation of the recommendation on the Security Zone which the Neutrality Committee completed last Saturday.⁶⁴ It has been somewhat hurriedly made and is obviously subject to corrections. I shall forward a copy of it to Dr. Rowe⁶⁵ in case he may find it of assistance in making the official translation.

The recommendation, as I suggested in my telegram last Monday,⁶⁶ seems to me to meet most of the important points which we discussed together before I left Washington and which Mr. Duggan and I discussed after you had left on your European mission.⁶⁷ I had to give way on a number of points to the desire of certain members of the Committee not to allow any suggestion to appear in the recommendation which might even indirectly commit them to enforcing the observance of the Security Zone. There was of course no question of that in any case, but it was necessary to go farther than was actually required in that direction in order to satisfy them.

The draft of the recommendation is less concise and definite than I wanted it to be; but you know what happens when a number of persons get at a draft and try to touch it up here and there to meet their particular views. …

Córdova and Herrera both cooperated splendidly in putting the recommendation through the Committee. We three formed a subcommittee to prepare a preliminary draft, and we worked intensively at it in order that our draft might be so complete as to leave no room for obstructive criticism. The result was that in spite of the reluctance of several members of the Committee to go along with us, our draft was accepted without substantial amendments.

You will note in particular that we have tried to defend the principle of the Security Zone as strongly as possible, for on that score there seems to be no ground for giving way to political expedience. We defended the basis of the Security Zone, as set forth in the Declaration of Panama, and then undertook to answer the arguments raised in the British, French and German replies⁶⁸ to the collective protest of the American Republics on December 23rd last. Certain members of the Committee who did not wish to press the matter of the zone very far insisted that no reference be made to the British, French and German objections by name, with the result that our Articles on that point may seem a little vague; but those who know the facts of the controversy will readily be able to interpret the meaning of the generalized answers.

Having defended as effectively as we could the principle of the zone, we pressed lightly upon the measures to be taken to secure its observance. This was done by making provision that in the event of a violation of the zone, a special commission (it might of course be this same Inter-American Neutrality Committee) should be created to investigate the facts of the violation and to determine where the primary responsibility lay. That was necessary, of course, in order to carry out the principle we laid down that self-defense is not forbidden within the zone. But at the same time the creation of this commission to investigate the facts, and the further requirement that after the commission has made its report there must be a consultation among the American Governments to determine what further steps must be taken, will make it possible to postpone definite action as long as the United States and other Governments want it postponed.

Our Committee is now taking up once more the question of postal correspondence, as raised by the inquiry from the Government of Brazil, and of automatic contact mines. I shall enclose in the next airmail a statement of the lines along which the discussions of those topics are proceeding.

Sincerely yours,

Charles G. Fenwick

64. Printed in Special Handbook prepared by the Pan American Union, Appendix F, p. 57
65. Leo S. Rowe, Director General, Pan American Union.
66. Telegram No. 181, April 29, 11 a.m., p. 300.
67. See vol. i, pp. 1 ff.
68. For British and French replies, see note D. D. No. 262, January 26, from the Panamanian Minister for Foreign Affairs, vol. i, p. 689; for German reply, see note No. D–65, February 16, from the Panamanian Ambassador, ibid., p. 696.