810.74/675: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Armour) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:10 p.m.]
2669. Department’s 2017, December 26, 4 p.m. Harbord’s message delivered to Beccar Varela who after discussing it with Roberts, British representative on Local Board, has furnished Embassy memorandum along following lines.
“Today I spoke with Roberts who said that for some time he has held opinion that no approach should be made by the Company and still less by any of the directors. Such approach should be of an official or diplomatic character exclusively. From another viewpoint it is not believed that step suggested would produce any practical result.
Roberts’ viewpoint is also mine, and I add that the nature of our concession and the attitude of the authorities who have drastically regulated everything pertaining to communications to the exterior make it impossible for a company to adopt resolutions without first submitting them officially to the Government.
Private consultation with the authorities by Roberts and myself probably would not give any practical result. Anyway this should not be done without intervention of Aguirre and, furthermore, to do it without the previous assent of the Board itself would be improper. Roberts believes that matter should not be discussed even with Aguirre and consequently does not believe it should be submitted to the Board, which probably would not approve it in any event.
As can be seen our personal desire to cooperate with ideas of Harbord collides with Company’s position before the Government, the presumable attitude of the latter, and the difficulties which would arise among the directors.”
Hayes insists that Transradio Chilena was first approached informally by a Chilean official before its board agreed to take action.
It is apparent that Argentine directors will be much more stubborn, even in unlikely event that Argentine Government gives informal assent to proposed action.
Position assumed by local company as represented in above memorandum would appear to present us with impasse so far as carrying out procedure suggested by Department. I am entirely in agreement with Department that if in some way Company could take action suggested this would place Argentine Government in position of taking positive action in opposition to measure carrying out spirit of Rio resolutions.
Only suggestion Embassy has to make would be to present question squarely to Foreign Office along following lines: that it is incredible to expect company half owned by American and British interests to continue to send messages to Axis countries enabling them to sink [Page 185] our ships and conveying information of value to enemy. In view of this, our Government proposes to instruct American representative in Company (presumably British Government would do likewise) to propose to Board that no messages in code be sent to non-American countries, a measure originally envisaged in Argentine Government’s own decree but later modified. If Foreign Minister as seems probable, were to give negative answer this would at least have accomplished purpose mentioned in Department’s telegram. However, if such action could be timed to follow closely upon break in relations by Chile, this might make Argentine Government more hesitant to take such a position.