811.20 Defense (M) Brazil/1764a: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Brazil ( Caffery )

3259. Your 4325 of October 22, 3 p.m.92 The Department and the other interested agencies in Washington will be glad to examine jointly with the Brazilian and Uruguayan Governments the tire requirements of Uruguay as estimated by the Uruguayan authorities.

With regard to other countries such as Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia the allocations were reached by agreement between the governments of those countries in each case with the United States.

[Page 721]

The resentment in the other American republics arises from the delay in shipping the agreed allocations; this delay is caused solely by the protracted negotiations and delays in Rio. Argentina has offered gleefully to enter agreements to supply tires to Ecuador, etc. in case we fail to fulfill our obligations.

The Department understands that the Uruguayan case may be a special one, for political or other reasons of importance to Brazil; but before “reconsideration of the entire tire allocation plan” we would like to have specific information from you whether the Brazilian resentment is against the several bilateral tire allocation agreements, mentioned above; or whether you are recommending at the insistence of the Brazilian Government to scrap and negotiate again the agreement in the exchange of notes of October 3, 1942 (enclosures 4 and 8 of your despatch 8678 of October 7, 1942),93 especially paragraphs 1 and 5.

The joint objective of the Brazilian and the United States Governments in the general agreement of March 3, 1942 and the manufactured rubber goods agreement of October 3, 1942 was to make the maximum of crucially needed rubber available to the joint war effort without sacrifice to the essential needs of the other American republics (which are to be supplied from the most accessible source).

You will, we are sure, understand why the Department is loath to have “the entire tire allocation plan” reconsidered. If, nevertheless, you still think the Brazilians have valid objections please furnish the Department the full story.

Hull
  1. Not printed.
  2. See footnote 87, p. 719.