811.20 Defense (M) Portugal/163: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Portugal (Fish)
Washington, August 20,
1942—11 p.m.
1134. Your 1076 of August 19.
- 1.
- We saw the Portuguese Minister again today at his request. He stated that he had received a telegram asking whether or not he had followed the instructions given him early in July to advise us that his Government did not intend to grant new mining concessions to foreign capital but that it could not bind itself formally not to do so because it would be contrary to the exercise of sovereign rights. From what the Minister said, we judge that the telegram indicated that if he had not so advised us his Government felt that his failure to do so was the cause of the entire misunderstanding arising out of your letter to Fernandes.
- 2.
- As indicated in the Department’s 1127 of August 18, the Portuguese Minister had advised the Department in accordance with the above instructions. We had previously, in our informal talks with him, asked the Minister if the Portuguese Government would undertake not to grant further mining concessions to the Germans. This particular point was not mentioned in the Department’s 998 of July 18,14 as that telegram was intended to cover only the points which we felt necessary for formal agreement. Moreover, so long as the Portuguese were willing to define the mines which were not free (as set forth in Points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of our 998), we felt it unnecessary to press for formal assurances that there would be no further mining concessions granted to the enemy. It now appears that considerable difficulty might have been avoided had we informed you of the foregoing.
- 3.
- This matter was discussed fully with Bianchi this morning. We advised him that we had not as yet received the text of the note, but repeated our understanding that all references to German concessions had been deleted and that consequently it was necessary that there be some definite understanding as to what was meant by “free wolfram.” He agreed and said that he did not know why the references to the German mines had been deleted. He then replied that although his Government could not agree in writing not to grant further mining concessions to the Germans, it did not in fact intend to do so. He also confirmed his understanding that the German mining concessions within the meaning of the agreement were limited to those referred to in Point (c) of paragraph 1 of our 998.
- 4.
- Bianchi is to telegraph Salazar fully, setting forth the facts referred to in paragraph 2 above and pointing out that it has always [Page 228] been understood between us that “free wolfram” included all wolfram except that produced from the properties referred to in Points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of our 998. We advised Bianchi that upon his so doing, we would instruct you to sign the agreement.
- 5.
- In the course of the conversation, we advised Bianchi that we were most displeased with the tone of Fernandes’ communication to you and that it was its threatening nature which caused us considerable hesitancy in being willing to go forward with the agreement. We said that our willingness to instruct you to sign was only because of the circumstances surrounding the misunderstanding.
- 6.
- It appears to us that the explanation of the matter which Bianchi will telegraph to Salazar should be sufficient to meet the point raised by you in paragraph 3 of your 1076.15 Accordingly, if your British colleague has received instructions to do so, you are requested to sign the agreement.
Hull