740.00111A.R.–N.C./136
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of the American Republics (Briggs) to the Under Secretary of State (Welles)
Mr. Welles: Professor Fenwick spent the afternoon of August 12 in the Division talking over the work of the Inter-American Neutrality Committee with me and with Mr. Notter4 and Mr. Bonsal.
We were able to point out to Professor Fenwick that the Habana Meeting had laid out certain work for the Committee including (a) the drafting of a preliminary Project of Convention dealing with the juridical effects of the Security Zone and (b) the drafting of a Project of Inter-American Convention covering all the principles and rules generally recognized in matters of neutrality. It was also indicated that the Meeting authorized the Committee, even though it is permanent in nature, “to hold periodical meetings and to adjourn for a specific time” without prejudice of course to the calling of extraordinary sessions in case of necessity. This provision was very much in accordance with Professor Fenwick’s views.
Professor Fenwick indicated that he will leave New York for Rio on or about August 30. He feels confident that Dr. Mello Franco of [Page 328] Brazil, Ambassador Fontecilla of Chile, Dr. Herrera of Venezuela and Dr. Podestá Costa of Argentina will be available for a resumption of the sessions of the Committee about the middle of September. He expressed some doubt as to the plans of the Costa Rican and Mexican members, Drs. Jimenez and Cordova, respectively. (It is planned to make informal inquiry regarding whether the two last mentioned delegates will return to Rio. The Habana Meeting provided that the Committee may function with the attendance of a minimum of 5 out of its 7 members so that it appears probable that regardless of whether the Mexican and Costa Rican members arrive in Rio at the same time as the other members, no time will be lost.) It is Professor Fenwick’s idea that the Committee will be in session for a period of 6 to 8 weeks and will then adjourn to a specific date; he believes that there should be two regular sessions yearly.
Professor Fenwick laid great stress on the fundamental change in the concept of neutrality following the invasion of Holland and Belgium on May 10. If I understood him correctly, his view now is that the problem confronting the American Republics is the protection of their “defensive neutrality” rather than a scrupulous adherence to their traditional rights and duties as neutrals. In this connection, I believe it would be desirable, should you have an opportunity to do so, for you to go over with Professor Fenwick the position which we assumed in regard to the Argentine proposal of “non-belligerency”.5
- Harley A. Notter, divisional assistant, Division of the American Republics.↩
- See vol. i, pp. 743 ff.↩