740.00111A.R.–N.C./111
The Ambassador in Brazil (Caffery) to
the Under Secretary of State (Welles)
No. 133
Rio de
Janeiro, May 28, 1940.
Dear Sumner: Afranio Mello Franco81 asked me yesterday to let you know that
Jimenez Ortiz, who is the second representative (the first stayed a
fortnight) appointed by Costa Rica on the Neutrality Committee, after a
stay of six weeks is leaving on Saturday not to return. It is Mello
Franco’s opinion that if Costa Rica is not in a position to maintain a
representative here, she should withdraw and be replaced by another
country on the Committee. However, Dr. Fenwick does not agree with this:
I asked him to set out his point of view in a memorandum which he has
done. I send you herewith a copy thereof.
With all good wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the American Member of the
Inter-American Neutrality Committee (Fenwick)
Comments on the Situation Within
the Neutrality Committee
After taking a recess early in February, the Inter-American
Neutrality Committee reconvened the first week of April upon the
arrival of a new delegate from Costa Rica. At the end of the month,
however, the Argentine member left for Buenos Aires and the
Committee has been unable to make any formal recommendations since
his departure. The present rule of procedure is that recommendations
must be formulated in sessions at which all members of the Committee
are present. Recommendations may, however, be voted by a majority
provided they have been discussed in full session.
The Argentine member is now returning but the Costa Rican member,
substituting for the original appointee, is leaving at the end of
the week. Under the circumstances it would seem wisest in my opinion
that the Committee dispose of the business now before it, without
waiting for the arrival of a new member from Costa Rica which would
take possibly a month.
Three problems are still before the committee and they have been
thoroughly discussed in sub-committee, awaiting the return of the
Argentine member. In view of recent developments in Europe which
[Page 315]
have undermined the
fundamental principles of neutrality, the problems before the
Committee seem to most of the members relatively insignificant. But
it is thought best to proceed with their solution and clear the
record, after which a recess might be taken for two or three months,
during which the members would be subject to recall upon being
advised by the Chairman that there was urgent business to attend to.
I have urged that the members pledge themselves to return
immediately upon call, and that if they cannot do so they should ask
to have substitutes appointed.
Under the circumstances it would seem wiser not to await the arrival
of a new appointee from Costa Rica but to dispose promptly of
present business and then to recess for two or three months.
