710.Consultation 3/816
The Chargé in Argentina (Reed) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 27.]
Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 5694 of July 10,36 I have the honor to submit the following observations on the Foreign Office memorandum of July 8 in reply to the points raised in the informal memorandum left by the Ambassador with the Foreign Minister on July 6 regarding the implementation of the Resolutions adopted at the Río de Janeiro Meeting of American Foreign Ministers:
1. The Foreign Office memorandum does not deny that the Argentine Government has delayed implementation of the provisions of Resolutions I, XVII, XXXI and XL, specifically mentioned in the Ambassador’s informal memorandum, but asserts that “only through erroneous information can it be affirmed that the delay in the application of those resolutions ‘has permitted the continuance by Axis agents in Argentina of espionage and other activities designed to defeat the war effort of the United States and of the other American Republics now at war, and to undermine the collective integrity and solidarity of the continent’”.
2. With reference to the activities of Axis agents in Argentina, the Foreign Office memorandum states that the Government has just sent to the Congress a bill to regulate the right of assembly “in accordance with the spirit of Resolution XVII of Río de Janeiro”. In response to my request, Dr. Bunge of the Foreign Office furnished [Page 206] me with a mimeographed copy of this bill, on which the original date appeared as June 26, 1941. This date had been crossed out and the date July 4, 1941 superimposed with a rubber stamp. Dr. Bunge’s attention was called to the fact that this copy was dated a year ago, although the Foreign Office memorandum stated that the bill had just been submitted to the Congress. He appeared a bit disconcerted and undertook to investigate this apparent discrepancy. He has since informed me that the bill in question was in fact submitted a year ago, but since no action was taken on it before adjournment, it has now been resubmitted with slight alterations. The Embassy has been promised an accurate copy of the bill as now submitted to Congress but has not as yet received it.
The Foreign Office memorandum also refers to the existence of a special organization in the Ministry of the Interior to centralize and coordinate police activities for the suppression of “any activity contrary to the democratic system and the institutions of the country”. The organization in question is under the direct control of the Under Secretary of the Interior, Dr. Castells, who has on several occasions stated to members of the Embassy that the organization has been unable to function because no funds have been made available. To date there has been very little indication of any disposition on the part of this organization or any other agency of the national Government to take any effective steps to suppress activities of the kind described on the part of Axis elements in Argentina; the energies of the police authorities have been devoted rather to the suppression of “Communist activities” and to restricting the activities of prodemocratic organizations under the provisions of the existing State of Siege.
3. The Foreign Office memorandum gives assurance that “the Argentine Government will not disregard any concrete denunciation that may be brought to its attention regarding the existence of centers of espionage or of activities dangerous to continental defense,” and adds that in the only cases brought to its attention by this Embassy, appropriate action has been taken immediately. The foregoing statement is correct so far as is known with reference to four cases, those of Carlos Arnold, Walter Giese, Fred von Kockritz Frydland, and Enrique Volberg. With reference to the cases of Rudolph Borgolte and Augusto Eisner, however, the Embassy has only now been informed verbally that the police authorities have been asked to take steps to expel them from the country. In this connection, reference may also be made to the case of the Spanish Falangist agent Joaquin Miquelarena, who came to Argentina from Spain several months ago as a representative of the Spanish news agency EFE. As reported in the Embassy’s telegram No. 625, [Page 207] April 8, 3 p.m.,37 the Foreign Office explained that although it had originally instructed the Argentine Embassy in Madrid not to grant a visa to Miquelarena, it had subsequently authorized the issuance of a diplomatic visa to him in view of the fact that the Spanish Government had granted him a diplomatic passport and had manifested particular interest in the case. Dr. Bunge himself referred to this case in my conversation with him early this week, citing it as the only instance in which the Argentine Government had made an exception to permit the admission of a person signalized by this Embassy as being an Axis agent.
4. With reference to the admission of Axis agents from other American countries into Argentina, the Foreign Office memorandum states that, in accordance with Resolutions II, VI and VII of the Meeting of Habana, the Ministry of Foreign Relations on June 27, 1941 instructed Argentine diplomatic missions in America to refer to the Ministry all requests for passport visas for consuls and employees who had been serving in offices closed by reason of the severance of relations with the Axis countries, adding that in no case has the admission of such personnel been authorized. It is noted that the foregoing statement makes no reference to Axis agents not directly employed in consular offices. Although the Embassy has received no detailed information in this regard from other American republics, reference may be had to the reports submitted by the Embassy at La Paz (despatches Nos. 2066 and 2075 of May 4 and May 7, 1942,38 transmitted to this Embassy with the Department’s strictly confidential instruction No. 2549 of June 16, 194237) which refer to the “general exodus to Argentina of Axis nationals who have been designated by the Bolivian Government for expulsion”.
In this same connection it may be pertinent to observe that the entry of Axis agents into Argentina is not, of course, confined to persons coming from other American Republics. For some time all indications have pointed to the fact that a large number of Axis agents have been entering Argentina from Europe on Spanish vessels (Reference: Embassy’s despatch No. 4071 of February 5, 194237).
5. With reference to telecommunications with Axis countries and territories subservient to them, the Foreign Office memorandum states that “the Direction General of Posts and Telegraphs, from the point of view of radiocommunications, has adopted effective measures to eliminate in so far as possible the clandestine stations as well as transmissions contrary to Resolution XL of the Third Meeting of [Page 208] Foreign Ministers of Río de Janeiro”. This assertion is directly contradicted by the action of the Argentine Minister of the Interior who on July 10, two days later, addressed a note to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs inquiring whether his agency was in a position to undertake the pertinent measures of control in accordance with the provisions of Resolution XL. The Embassy is of the opinion that the situation remains as stated in its despatch No. 5431 of June 12, 1942,41 namely, that although the Argentine authorities appear disposed to cooperate in the detection and elimination of clandestine radio stations, they have taken no action to close telecommunications between Argentina and the Axis countries.
6. The Foreign Office memorandum makes no reference to the point raised in the Ambassador’s informal memorandum of July 6 regarding travel by Axis agents on Argentine air lines in contravention of the provisions of Resolution XXXI of the Río de Janeiro Conference.
7. The Foreign Office memorandum makes no reference to the point raised in the Ambassador’s informal memorandum regarding the continued dissemination of pro-Axis propaganda by certain newspapers, radio broadcasting stations and publishing houses in Argentina.
8. The Foreign Office memorandum makes a point of mentioning the “strict measures of control adopted by the Argentine Government to watch internal and external movements of funds, for the protection of continental security and solidarity”. The financial measures adopted by the Central Bank for the avowed purpose of implementing Resolution V of Río de Janeiro have been the subject of numerous reports by this Embassy within the past few weeks. In view of the fact that at least certain preliminary steps had been taken to this end, no mention of Resolution V was made by the Embassy in its informal memorandum of July 6. The extent and significance of the measures taken in this connection by the Argentine Government will be made the subject of subsequent reports.
In conclusion it may be said that the statements contained in the Foreign Office memorandum of July 8 do not, in the opinion of the Embassy, justify the assertion in the last paragraph thereof that “the Argentine Government has instituted, in defense of the security of the continent, a plan of control in keeping with the resolutions of the Meeting of Río de Janeiro”. On the contrary, the Embassy is of the opinion that the action that has been taken in this regard is negligible, and that the true intentions of the Argentine Government are best revealed by its recent actions in connection with the sinking of the Río Tercero and the attitude of intransigent isolationism revealed [Page 209] in the address of President Castillo on July 6, reported in the Embassy’s despatch No. 5652 of July 7, 1942.42
Respectfully yours,