835.00/2872: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Armour) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:10 p.m.]
1437. My telegram 1414, June 3, 9 p.m. Fact that Peluffo was unwilling to give me list of acts they propose to take to implement the break does not, I feel, alter necessity of our proceeding to draw up, if we have not already done so, our own list of minimum conditions for recognition. As discussed with Spaeth in his talk with Kelly and myself it would seem advisable that steps to be taken by Argentine Government be divided into two parts, those prior to recognition and those we would expect to follow shortly thereafter. We might at same time accompany our terms with intimation that if recognition follows we would be disposed to consider making available to Argentina certain materials in scarce or critical supply on similar basis as to other American Republics (it would be understood, of course, that for time being at least this could not include war materials). If this Government continues to refuse to act favorably then I feel there is no course open but to order me home “for consultation” or to announce that I am returning on “leave of absence”. Kelly is entirely in accord with this procedure and has made a similar recommendation to his Government. We both feel that present situation cannot be permitted to drag on much longer.
From Caffery’s telegram 2035, June 3, 4 p.m.,19 it would appear that Aranha has put up through Argentine Military Attaché in Rio [Page 278] steps he considers essential for recognition. Would it not be possible to reach a common denominator with Aranha on our joint minimum conditions? If Uruguay, Peru and Mexico, for example, could be brought in we could then present single unified program thus avoiding inevitable confusion resulting from separate approaches ranging from Padilla’s impractical suggestion (at least I so consider it) based on implementation of Rio resolutions to our own list as set forth in Department’s telegram 804, May 17, 9 p.m.,20 which if it was intended to represent our terms would, I think Department will agree, have to be revised or made more specific. Or perhaps the approach suggested in Dawson’s telegram 514, June 5, 6 p.m.,21 might prove feasible.
I am inclined to feel that Peluffo’s reluctance to be specific on what they are prepared to do is due to not wishing to commit himself until he knows specifically what our terms are and that compliance would bring recognition. In any case I feel that now is definitely the time for a showdown.
Repated to Rio, Montevideo, Lima and Mexico.