835.00/2196
The Ambassador in Argentina (Armour) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 6.]
Sir: Referring to my telegram No. 2729, November 19, 3 p.m.,60 I have the honor to enclose the text and translation of the address made by the Argentine Foreign Minister60 at the banquet given by the Paraguayan Minister, Dr. Rogelio Espinoza, in honor of the President of Argentina, after the conclusion of the recent commercial treaty and payments agreement between the two countries.
It is significant that General Gilbert should have chosen this particular occasion to make an address dedicated largely to a general defense of Argentine foreign policy, rather then to relations between Argentina and Paraguay. I have not had an opportunity to see the Paraguayan Ambassador since the date of this address, but a member of the Paraguayan delegation in a conversation with an officer of the Embassy expressed astonishment and a certain amount of disgust that this particular occasion should have been chosen for such a pronouncement. He pointed out that for his part Dr. Espinoza had limited himself to the few complimentary remarks appropriate to the occasion.
The most interesting portions of General Gilbert’s speech are no doubt those in which he refers to the concept of neutrality as applied to Argentina, and to the interest of the Argentine Government and people in strengthening economic relations with neighboring countries. With respect to neutrality, the Foreign Minister’s remarks go even further than the recent statements by himself and other members of the Argentine Government in interviews with representatives of Chilean newspapers. In the first of those interviews, General Gilbert stated to a representative of El Mercurio of Santiago that the international position of Argentina was none other than that of “a perfect and absolute neutrality”. This definition of the Argentine international position was ratified by President Ramírez in an interview published in El Mercurio on November 11, and reaffirmed by the Vice President, General Farrell, in a further interview published by El Mercurio on November 20. Now General Gilbert goes further and declares that the term neutrality does not adequately describe Argentina’s foreign policy; asserting at the same time that Argentina has not “interrupted” its relations with any belligerent power. The use of the word “interrumpir” rather than “romper” in referring to the severance of relations is rather significant in this regard, suggesting that the Argentine Government, far from breaking relations with the Axis, is not disposed even to interrupt them by such half-way expedients [Page 465] as the “suspension” of relations reported under consideration some weeks ago.
The stress laid by General Gilbert on the interest of his Government in promoting ever closer economic and cultural relations with neighboring countries is a further indication of the very real efforts that are being made in this direction. In his present speech he refers specifically to the agreements concluded with Chile last August, emphasizing the importance of the one looking toward formation of a customs union, and also mentions economic agreements concluded during the past two years with Brazil, Bolivia and Peru. In the following paragraph the Foreign Minister declares that “these international agreements of economic cooperation and direct relations define perfectly a basic aspect of the foreign policy of Argentina.” Despite his assurances that that policy is one of loyal and frank understanding, that Argentine diplomacy is characterized by its truthfulness, and that “the Argentine position toward world problems at this moment has the value of an irreproachable conduct”, one may be permitted some doubts on the subject. As a matter of fact, the recent utterances of the most authorized spokesmen of the Government clearly point to a policy aimed at aligning the neighboring countries of South America with Argentina in opposition to the United States.
As mentioned in my despatch No. 12736 of November 9,61 there are many other indications of such a policy aside from these official public declarations, and the logic of the situation itself points inevitably in the same direction. The emphasis placed by the Argentine Government on the improvement of commercial relations, and particularly on the desirability of concluding a definitive customs union with neighboring countries, would indeed appear to be only the visible portion of a comprehensive plan of action designed to assure an Argentine sphere of influence. The successful execution of such a plan under present circumstances might be nothing less than disastrous to our efforts to promote genuine hemispheric solidarity and mutual understanding based on the ideals and institutions of democracy.
To judge from recent statements made to our Ambassadors by the Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile—as well as those made to me last week by the Paraguayan Minister of Finance, reported in my telegram No. 2725, November 18, 8 p.m.61—it seems evident that the Governments of those countries are concerned over the implications of current developments in Argentine foreign and domestic policies, and are anxious to ascertain our probable reaction to future eventualities.
Respectfully yours,