710.Consultation 2 (C)/65

Report of the American Delegate to the Inter-American Conference of Police and Judicial Authorities ( Spaeth )10

[The first four sections of this report indicate the name of the Conference, a citation to its agenda, a summary of the representation of the participating countries, and an outline of the committee organization of the Conference.]

V

Results of the Conference:

The documents requested under this item are attached.9 Annex “C” contains the resolutions as submitted to the Conference, and Annex “D” contains the texts of the resolutions as approved in the Final Act.

The resolutions in the Final Act follow the order of the program of the Conference. Resolutions one and two relate to Topic I of the program, namely, control of propaganda. Resolution three relates to Topic II of the program, the control of associations. Resolution four relates to Topic III, espionage and sabotage activities. Resolution five relates to Topic IV, cooperation and coordination of national law-enforcing bodies. Resolutions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 relate to Topic V, legislation and judicial procedures for uniform control of subversive activities. Resolutions 10, 11, 12 and 13 relate to the second chapter of the program, namely, inter-American cooperation.

Annex “E” is a copy of the preliminary report of the Delegate11 and indicates both the important points on which full agreement was not reached because of the position taken by Argentina, and also the position taken by the American delegation.

General Comments:

Four of the proposals were combined in a single instrument of draft convention which is referred for study to the Pan American Union. The “proyectos” thus combined were submitted by Honduras (1), Nicaragua-Bolivia (3), Argentina (6), Peru (10). (See [Page 55] Annex “C”) The Argentine proposal on the establishment of national records of habitual criminals on the basis of the Vucetich system of identification (resolution 8, Annex “C”) was considered indirectly, in the draft convention on the Inter-American Police Union, but no specific mention was made in the text of the resolution for the reason that the question of the use of the Vucetich system had been rejected by implication when the Nicaraguan-Bolivian proposal for the use of that system internationally was modified in the sense that the Conference merely recommended the study of an inter-American system of identification.

The Argentine proposal for the unification of penal law (No. 4 of Annex “C”) was rejected completely and was replaced by Resolution No. 6 of the Final Act requesting the Committee at Montevideo to undertake the study of a uniform penal law.

The Argentine proposal relative to associations (No. 5 of Annex “C”) was modified so as to include direct reference to the members of the Tripartite Pact and states subservient to them.

The Argentine proposal relative to expulsion of aliens (No. 7 of Annex “C”) was referred to the Committee at Montevideo for study.

The Argentine proposal relative to extradition (No. 9 of Annex “C”) was rejected and in its place it was recommended that the governments study the Convention of Montevideo of 1940.

The Venezuelan proposal (No. 13 of Annex “C”) relative to the vigorous enforcement of existing laws, was combined with the Bolivian proposal (No. 16 of Annex “C”) relative to the creation of national police units to combat subversive activities.

Comment with regard to the position taken by the several delegations:

As I have indicated in my preliminary report, it was the almost unanimous view that the Conference should recognize specifically by direct reference to the Axis Powers that its principal purpose was to recommend measures relative to subversive activities arising out of the present emergency; that it was not the function of the Conference to formulate preventive penal legislation which would anticipate criminal action arising from any source whatsoever. The general formula proposed by Argentina (see a reservation of Argentina at Page 15 of Annex “D”) was recognized as inadequate because (1) it implied an attitude of antagonism towards Russia, (2) it was so flexible that it could be used by any Government to persecute its own nationals for political reasons.

It is certain that the breach between Argentina and the other republics would have been more serious and more obvious had it not been for the efforts of the Secretary General, Raúl C. Migone, a member of the Argentine Foreign Office, who was successful in persuading [Page 56] the Argentine Government not to raise the Communist issue by specific reference to that party in their resolutions. Dr. Jorge H. Frías, the principal Argentine delegate, strongly urged his own Government, and in conversations outside of the committee meetings, urged delegates from the other republics to include specific reference to the Communist menace. The principal Argentine technical assistant, Dr. Eusebio Gómez, had been described as a staunch democrat, but he took the extreme Argentine position throughout the Conference.…

The delegate from Chile took every opportunity to avoid an express commitment on controversial issues. He frequently abstained from voting, and near the end of the Conference advised the American delegate confidentially that he had received instructions from his Government to abstain from voting rather than to vote against the United States.

The best qualified delegates, both from a technical viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the basic political issues, were those from Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia. This was due to the fact that the countries named had appointed special delegates to the Conference and had not contented themselves, in the manner of so many other countries, with naming their diplomatic representatives in Buenos Aires.

The position taken by the delegate appointed by Haiti deserves special mention and it is possible that the Department may wish to pursue the matter with the Haitian Government. The Haitian delegate, Dr. José Manuel Alvarez Aránguiz, a citizen of Chile, has lived in Argentina for almost 20 years. In several of the subcommittee meetings he voted with Argentina and on no occasion ventured beyond the middle-of-the-road position taken by Chile. He avoided taking a position at the final vote in the plenary session by leaving the meeting immediately before the vote.

Publications:

The minutes of the meetings and other material published by and for the use of the Conference, together with a set of the principal press clippings, is submitted herewith as Annex “F”.

VI

Importance of the Conference to the United States:

This topic is treated in my preliminary report, Annex “E”. In brief, the Conference clearly accentuated the position of isolation from the rest of the Hemisphere now occupied by Argentina. This accentuation can be attributed principally to the fact that Argentina was required to take the initiative in the presentation of resolutions. In taking this initiative she presented her usual case for non-discrimination [Page 57] among non-American belligerents. Because this position was recognized as antithetical to the program of Rio, the Argentine resolutions were rejected, for all practical purposes, completely.

The other principal result of the Conference is the additional strength given by its resolutions to the Committee for Political Defense at Montevideo.

The resolution which requires careful follow-up consideration by the United States is the measure which recommends that the governments study the project of convention for an Inter-American Police Union, a union which offers the basis for continued cooperation among the police and judicial authorities. The project for the Police Union is to be studied by the Committee for Political Defense and the American citizen member of the committee will submit the results of his study of the union to this Government at an early date.

Annex “G” is a copy of the Final Act as signed by the delegates.

C. B. Spaeth
  1. Transmitted to the Secretary of State by Mr. Spaeth in covering letter of July 6, 1942.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Report of June 18 summarizing the position of the American delegation.