[Enclosure]
Meeting in Room 285, State Department on November 9, 3 p.m.
Including the Acting Secretary, Chiefs of the Diplomatic Missions of
the American Republics Except Argentina and El Salvador, and Certain
American Officials (See Attached
List61)
The Acting Secretary briefly welcomed the Chiefs of Mission. He mentioned
the helpful comments which had been made by various Chiefs of Mission
preceding the meeting and expressed the hope that further helpful
comments would be forthcoming in this meeting, adding that he understood
that various of them had now received instructions from their respective
governments. He then said that he understood that some of the Chiefs of
Mission who have received comments from their governments wished to
present these immediately. He said that of course anyone who wished to
read these views in full would be welcome to do so, but he thought that
the discussion would perhaps get further if they only read the comments
in connection with the several chapters as they were reached. He said
that the agenda for today included discussion of the first four chapters
of the Dumbarton
[Page 942]
Oaks
proposals,62 and in so far as time might permit the fifth
chapter also.
The Acting Secretary then said that a summary had been prepared in the
Department of the discussions of the preceding meeting.63 When the Chiefs of Mission expressed interest
in this, he ordered copies of the summary to be distributed. He then
mentioned that a translator was present to translate the discussions. He
next emphasized the importance of discretion regarding the discussions
and stated his belief that everyone would feel at liberty to talk more
freely if the material did not reach the press. The Acting Secretary
mentioned the presence of several of the American group who had been at
Dumbarton Oaks and said that with this array of experts he hoped he
would be able to answer any questions which the Chiefs of Mission might
ask. Finally, he expressed the hope that the Chiefs of Mission would
join him at the Blair House for refreshments after the meeting.
Ambassador Blanco of Uruguay then mentioned that he had received an
official expression of his Government’s views. He said that a special
commission was appointed by the Uruguayan Government to study the matter
of post-war organization and emphasized that Uruguay wished constructive
work to be undertaken in order to modify and perfect the work which had
already been done through the League of Nations.
He stressed the responsibilities of the American republics before the
war. He then spoke of the participation of the American nations in the
two Hague Peace Conferences. In order to emphasize the desirability of
the full participation of the American republics in international
organization, he mentioned the occasion on which the American republics
had jointly refused to participate in the previous peace conference
because certain of them had been excluded.64
The Venezuelan Ambassador then read his government’s comments on the
first four chapters of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.65 This document, although not for publication,
is to be distributed among the representatives participating in the
discussions.
The Colombian Ambassador said that he expected to receive his
instructions in a day or so.
Ambassador Castillo Nájera then made a proposal to simplify and speed up
the procedure. He suggested that the Uruguayan and Venezuelan documents,
together with any documents which might
[Page 943]
subsequently be received by the Ambassadors from
their respective governments, should be circulated to all the
participants in the discussions for their study. In addition, a
committee should be appointed to summarize all these views and comments,
and to note the differences among them and between them and the several
chapters of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals to which they refer. In this
way a general agreement in the views of the American republics would be
facilitated. The Acting Secretary commented that this seemed to
contemplate a united front among the American republics, to which the
Mexican Ambassador assented.
The Guatemalan Chargé d’Affaires, while favoring the Mexican Ambassador’s
proposal in principle, suggested that the appointment of the committee
be postponed until more opinions were available for it to consider.
The Honduran Ambassador66 emphasized that the principal task of the committee
should be to make a résumé of the opinions as they were presented. He
added that Honduras accepted the principles of the Dumbarton Oaks
document, while having certain points it wished to raise with regard to
details. He said that a Caribbean or Central American republic should be
included on the committee.
Following a further exchange of views the Haitian Ambassador suggested
that the committee comprise the five senior Ambassadors and one
representative from the Department. The Ecuadoran Ambassador67 then commented that the
question of personnel was unimportant, the job to be done was to boil
down the several views in order that the group could work effectively.
The committee would not discuss; the real discussion would be in the
large group.
The Acting Secretary then proposed, and it was agreed, that a committee
be appointed consisting of the four senior Ambassadors (Mexico, Brazil,
Venezuela and Uruguay) and Mr. Norman Armour. This was approved.
The Chilean Ambassador68
then proposed that the suggestions of the various governments be sent
direct to the committee (it was later agreed that the documents should
be sent in the first instance to Mr. Armour, who would circulate them to
members of the committee). The Honduran Ambassador pointed out that the
purpose of the committee should be to coordinate and boil clown. He
suggested it be called the Committee of Coordination. This was
approved.
The Acting Secretary then asked whether there was any question on the
first four chapters of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The Colombian
Ambassador referred to Article 10 of the League Covenant69
[Page 944]
and asked why there was no
reference in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals to a guarantee of territorial
integrity. Mr. Pasvolsky70 in reply remarked that the
question of such a guarantee must be examined in the light of a close
study of the first two chapters of the Proposals. He stressed that the
emphasis in these is on ways of insuring the security of nations, and
said an attempt might then have been made to do this by making a long
list of specific guarantees, including one on territorial integrity, but
there is danger in such a course as it is hard to make the list
complete. If adequate steps were taken to insure security a guarantee of
territorial integrity is not necessary. The recognition of the sovereign
quality of states and the acceptance of the obligation not to use force
and to live up to the principles of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals would
be a better guarantee of security and therefore of territorial integrity
than any specific mention of the latter could be. The Guatemalan Chargé
d’Affaires commented that in other words the document did not represent
a retrogression from such past guarantees as Article 10 of the League
Covenant. Mr. Pasvolsky emphasized that the guarantees in the Dumbarton
Oaks proposals were in his opinion much broader and more effective than
those of Article 10.
The Acting Secretary again emphasized the desirability of considering the
discussion confidential and requested that the documents regarding the
previous meeting which had been stapled together be taken apart,
inasmuch as some were marked for the press and others were confidential.
He then invited the Chiefs of Mission to adjourn with him to Blair
House.
