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

740.00111A.R.–N.C./152

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

Rio de Janeiro, October 21, 1940.
[Received October 30.]

Dear Mr. Welles: On my arrival here in Rio on October 2nd I found only three other members of the Committee present, so that, under the terms of the resolution taken at Havana,⁸ we were unable to begin official work. But our Chairman Dr. Mello Franco promptly cabled to Dr. Podestá Costa in Buenos Aires, asking him if he could not join us promptly and enable us to hold formal meetings.

It appears now that the Argentine government has appointed in place of Dr. Podestá Costa the new ambassador from Argentine to Brazil, Snr. Labougle, and I understand that he is to arrive very shortly, so that we can begin on November 1st as scheduled.

The Venezuelan government is, I am informed, making a new appointment in place of Dr. Herrera, but I have not as yet heard the name of the substitute. I regret very much the loss of Dr. Herrera, because his judgment was always sound and his views clear and convincing. Apparently Costa Rica is not yet ready to make an appointment in place of Snr. Jimenez; but that need not prevent the Committee from getting down to work.

Among the problems before us are the following:

1) We were asked by the Havana Meeting to prepare the draft of a convention dealing with the juridical effects of the Security Zone and the measures which the American states may be disposed to take in cooperation in order to obtain respect for the Zone.

2) We were asked to study the project presented by the Uruguayan delegation at Havana on the Extension of Territorial Waters. In that connection could you be so good as to ask Mr. Duggan to forward to me any observations, which the Department made at Havana, together with the views of the Department that may have been formulated since that time.

3) The problem of food stuffs and other raw materials as contraband, which was put before us by the Meeting at Panama, is still awaiting further discussion, after we have received from the various governments an answer to inquiries sent to them by the Committee last Spring. Conditions have changed so much since October, 1939, that I doubt if even the States which were most interested in the problem at that time are now very eager to obtain an answer.

4) Then there is the larger and more comprehensive task, assigned to us by the Havana Meeting, of preparing a draft convention covering the whole field of the law of neutrality.

This is of course an undertaking which, if carefully carried out, would take us two or three years, depending upon the amount of time we are prepared to give to it. I see no reason why the Committee should not divide up the work into various sections and assign one or more sections to each of its members, so that the preliminary work can be done away from Rio de Janeiro if so desired. I have worked up a rather elaborate classification of the various subjects coming within the general field, and I hope that we can spend some time in clarifying the inter-relation of the various topics before we proceed to undertake the study of them by individual assignment.

With warm personal regards,

Sincerely yours,

Charles G. Fenwick

8. See Department of State, Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, Habana, July 21–30, 1940, Report of the Secretary of State (Washington, 1941), pp. 14, 17, 59, 67.