714.44A15/206
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. LaVerne Baldwin28
| Participants: | Mr. N. M. Butler, Counselor of British Embassy. |
| Minister Des Portes. | |
| Mr. Duggan. | |
| Mr. Baldwin. |
Mr. Butler referred to his oral statement of July 6, 1940 to Mr. Duggan and mentioned again the Guatemalan suggestion of a cash payment of $5,000,000 and a cession of territory. He stated that Great Britain could not accept a cessation because (1) of the principle involved, that it maintained that Article VII of the Treaty of 1859 was the point at issue and not the validity of the whole treaty, and (2) the precedent which cession of territory would establish throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth.
Mr. Des Portes indicated his belief that President Ubico of Guatemala was insistent on a cession of territory. He pointed to the complete impartiality of the United States in the matter and our desire to have the question progress toward a solution. He regretted the assurance the British Ambassador had given in his letter of January 12, [Page 441] 1940—“that these terms of reference will empower the proposed arbitral tribunal to effect a settlement of all the issues involved in the event that there had not been compliance with Article VII of the 1859 treaty”, which the actual memorandum accompanying the letter did not bear out, in the terms of reference. He emphasized that Guatemala in any arbitration would adhere to its stand that the failure to carry out Article VII wiped out the treaty and that therefore the question of sovereignty of Belize arises. He pointed out that no direct personal approach had been made by British Minister Leche in Guatemala either to Foreign Minister Salazar or to President Ubico; an intermediary had been availed of; there had been no flexibility in Leche’s instructions, which flexibility Minister Des Portes believes is greatly to be desired.
Mr. Duggan gave as instance the negotiations with Panama relative to the revised treaty with the United States29 to indicate the success attendant on direct negotiations and felt that a direct approach with frank discussion of all possibilities and perhaps an indication of the maximum or minimum would result in better understanding and an eventual solution.
Mr. Butler stated his belief that an indication by the United States to President Ubico that the British were adamant in not permitting consideration of a cession of territory would greatly better the situation, taking the point of view that an appropriate hint from the big brother would be of great assistance. Mr. Duggan again mentioned our impartiality and interest in arriving at a solution but that naturally we were not the intermediary.
There was also raised the report confidentially received from our Embassy in Mexico that British press agent Foote of Guatemala had given to the United Press a story which Minister Des Portes considered exaggerated as to the inability of Guatemala to suppress “fifth column” activities and the report from Guatemala of the possibility of a “people’s revolution”, Mr. Des Portes adding that he did not believe that Foote had been in Mexico. Such a story would naturally prejudice the British position in Guatemala. Mr. Des Portes also mentioned the anti-Nazi and anti-British attitude of the Guatemalans but their strong sympathy for the French.
Strong emphasis was given in the conversation to the idea of direct negotiations and increased authority to Minister Leche. There was apparent no change in Mr. Butler’s attitude as previously stated.
Mention was made in the conversation of the fact that the press campaign in Guatemala on the Belize question had been halted. Mr. [Page 442] Duggan also pointed out to Mr. Butler that any successor to President Ubico might not be so favorably disposed as Ubico in the endeavor to settle the question.