710.Consultation (3)A/232a: Telegram

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

412. From the Under Secretary. President Prado of Peru, in personal letters to the President and to myself, has recently expressed on repeated occasions his desire that Peru be given a greater measure of participation in the work of existing inter-American committees. In particular, he desires that Peru be given the opportunity of representation on the Juridical Committee at Rio de Janeiro25 to fill the vacancy which will be soon created by the withdrawal of Costa Rica from that Committee. He has also requested participation by Peru in the Committee on Political Defense at Montevideo, which could only be accomplished through enlargement of the number of the Committee, unless one of the existing representatives on that Committee is withdrawn.

If Peru be appointed to the Juridical Committee at Rio de Janeiro, not one of the nine Central American and Caribbean countries would be represented on that Committee, and I feel sure that Aranha26 will agree that an effort should be made to give representation to that [Page 10] important group of American states on a Committee which should have the unanimous support of all of the American republics in view of the important work with which it is entrusted. It is therefore my belief that the vacancy created by Costa Rican withdrawal should be filled by Cuba, as a desirable representative of the nine Central American and Caribbean countries.

I believe, however, that the wishes of President Prado should be met on account of the important contribution which Peru can make to inter-American activities, and I feel that Peru would be of valuable assistance if a Peruvian representative were appointed to the Committee on Political Defense at Montevideo.

The membership of that Committee was selected by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union in accordance with the terms of the resolution adopted at the Rio Conference.27 The number of the Committee can only be modified by a similar inter-American resolution and cannot, in my judgment, be changed by the Governing Board of the Union itself.

The question arises whether, in the interests of hemispheric security, a representative of Peru should not be appointed to replace the present Argentine representative on that Committee. That Committee is entrusted with the task of promoting inter-American security by combatting subversive activities throughout the hemisphere, particularly in the field of inter-American communication. So long as Argentina persists in her present policy, it would seem illogical for the representative of the only American nation which is permitting the continuation of communications with the Axis powers to take part in steps designed to prevent communications with the Axis powers. The incongruity of the present situation is enhanced by the fact that the Committee is about to recommend the censorship of inter-American communications passing to and from Argentina. From the practical standpoint, it would even seem to be prejudicial to the security of the 20 republics cooperating against the Axis for a representative of the only American power maintaining relations with the Axis to have full cognizance of the security measures recommended to the respective American governments by the members of the Montevideo Committee.

I wish you would discuss this question confidentially with Aranha and tell him I would be grateful for his views. If he agrees that the Argentine representative on the Montevideo Committee should be replaced by a Peruvian representative, the matter could be dealt with [Page 11] in one of two ways: First, a recommendation to that effect by the Montevideo Committee itself, addressed to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union; or, second, for the representatives of the other 20 American republics on the Governing Board of the Union to make a joint recommendation to that effect based solely on the security issue involved in the fact that an Argentine representative on the Montevideo Committee, which is technically representative of all of the American republics, cannot be expected to represent the defense interests of all of the other American republics now cooperating against the Axis powers.

I will discuss alternative number 1 with Dr. Guani before he leaves Washington, in order that he may discuss it further with Aranha when he reaches Rio de Janeiro. In the event that alternative number 2 is regarded as preferable, I would like to have Aranha’s suggestions as to how the initiative in the matter can most advantageously be undertaken. It may be that he will feel that, in view of the direct interest of the Peruvian Government in the matter, the Peruvian Government might discuss the question along the lines above indicated with the other American republics for the purpose of having action undertaken by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union.

I think it is clearly in the interest of the entire hemisphere that no step be taken which would be regarded as unfair or as involving undue pressure upon Argentina. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the issues involved in this question are those of the ability of all of the American republics to defend themselves against the Axis, it seems highly undesirable that the practical results to be anticipated from the work of the Montevideo Committee should be prejudiced by continued Argentine representation on that Committee.

Please telegraph me Aranha’s views. [Welles.]

Hull
  1. See resolution XXVI of the Third Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, Department of State Bulletin, February 7, 1942, p. 135.
  2. Oswaldo Aranha, Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  3. Resolution XVII, Department of State Bulletin, February 7, 1942, p. 128.