835.01/535a: Circular telegram
The Secretary of State to the Diplomatic Representatives in the American Republics Except Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia 30
During the eight years before the Axis movement of world conquest reached this Hemisphere, the American Republics devoted constant and earnest efforts to strengthen and perfect the system of inter-American cooperation. Immense progress was made and there was developed a spirit of unity and solidarity which inspired the hope that there would be common and united resistance against any external threat to the peace and security of the continent.
The spiritual foundation for the belief that the supreme test of unity in the face of aggression would be fully met by each of the twenty-one republics was afforded at the Eighth International Conference of American States in Lima in 1938,31 when the American Governments reaffirmed their continental solidarity and proclaimed their determination to make that solidarity effective in case the peace, security or territorial integrity of any American Republic were threatened.
[Page 316]The same spirit animated the Meeting of American Foreign Ministers at Panama, immediately after the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1939.32
Finally, at the meeting of American Foreign Ministers at Habana in July, 194033 following the German occupation of France the American Republics raised to the juridical level their determination to maintain their solidarity against the threatened spread of Axis aggression to the western hemisphere, by solemnly engaging among each other:
“That any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty or the political independence of an American State shall be considered as an act of aggression against the States which sign this Declaration.”
Thus, when Axis aggression did reach this Hemisphere, the Foreign Ministers meeting at Rio de Janeiro in January, 194234 were enabled, upon the binding bases for hemispheric defense already established, promptly to agree upon uniform measures in the military, political and economic fields which each republic should take for the collective security of all.
Firm adherence by all of the Republics to these principles would have established a solid tradition of hemispheric unity, the benefits of which would have been enjoyed by all of our peoples for generations to come. But when the real test came, the government of one of the republics, Argentina, elected to follow a separate and divergent course. By persisting in that course the government of Argentina has not only given aid and comfort to the declared enemies of all of the other Republics, but has seriously undermined the entire structure of Hemisphere solidarity. This is the fundamental issue on which the entire question of recognition of the Farrell government rests.
The large majority of the American Republics do not maintain relations with the government of Argentina because in refusing to join in the common defense against a common enemy, that government has jeopardized the security of the Hemisphere and destroyed the unity of the Americas at a crucial moment of their history. Any suggestion that the other American Republics should recognize the present government of Argentina on the theory that recognition [Page 317] would, help to advance the cause of Hemispheric unity after the war, breaks down completely when it is seen that the most compelling considerations of national safety and independence of each of the American Republics, including Argentina itself, have not moved that government to practice unity in time of war.
Dictated by the demands of common interest in a time of the gravest emergency, when there is at stake the very continuation of their free and independent existence, the multilateral action of the non-recognizing governments has no relation to, and should not be confused with, the ordinary rules or procedure for recognition in time of peace. Any pretense that such collective action by the family of American nations constitutes intervention is without foundation and disregards completely the basis upon which all of the non-recognizing governments have predicated their action, to wit: the common defense and security of the continent. In truth, non-recognition in these circumstances is but a collective assertion that Argentina not only has not made her contributions to the common cause of the American nations, but on the contrary has given aid to the Axis enemy.
Since late in February this Government and the governments of most of the other American Republics have abstained from official relations with the Farrell government. A stock taking is now in order, having clearly in mind the principles to which I have referred. The following review is based upon a detailed study of all significant developments since Argentina broke relations with the Axis.
(1) On January 26 the government of General Ramírez announced the severance of relations with Germany and Japan. It predicated this decision upon the criminal espionage activities “directly chargeable to the governments of the Axis” which “infringe the national sovereignty, compromise the foreign policy of this (Argentine) government, and threaten the security of the continent.” In public statements and in private conversations with diplomatic representatives repeated assurances were given by President Ramírez, Foreign Minister Gilbert, and other responsible spokesmen that prompt and energetic steps would be taken to repress Axis subversive activities and otherwise to implement the break in relations.
(2) But it very soon became clear that powerful elements within the government had determined to combat implementation and to nullify the break. On February 15 General Gilbert, who had played a principal part in the decision to break relations and subsequent efforts to implement it, resigned as Foreign Minister. On February 25 General Ramírez “delegated” his authority as President to General Farrell and some days later submitted his resignation.
(3) At this point, and by reason of this sudden turn of events, nearly all of the American Republics decided to refrain from normal [Page 318] relations with the Farrell government pending an opportunity to determine the reasons for the change and the attitude of the new regime toward the Axis powers.
It has since been repeatedly and candidly admitted by members of the Farrell cabinet that General Ramírez and his principal collaborators were eliminated from the government by pro-Nazi, extremist elements because of the decision to break relations with the Axis.
(4) Consistently with these admissions, the Farrell government has declined to commit itself to implement the break. Indeed, it has disclaimed the relevance of Hemispheric defense considerations or commitments, and by repeatedly insisting that the rupture was the result of foreign pressure has implicitly disavowed any intention to honor it. That this is the true position of the Farrell government is fully established by its extensive record of friendly assistance to and tolerance of the Axis.
Axis diplomats and consular officers have been allowed the freedom of the country. German firms continue to receive affirmative aid from the government both through large new government contracts and through the requisitioning of critical materials from firms friendly to the cause of the United Nations. Whereas police activity and arrests looking toward repression of Axis espionage were briefly stimulated by the Ramírez regime immediately following the rupture, during the Farrell regime a large number of dangerous Axis spies and agents have been released. Consequently, Axis espionage activities are again widespread. Pro-Nazi papers with a large circulation, (Cabildo, El Federal, La Fronda), enjoy government support and government aid in obtaining newsprint, and have been carrying on a bitter anti-United Nations and pro-Axis propaganda campaign. This propaganda is exemplified by La Fronda’s commentary on Allied landings in France: “It is most comforting that all peoples of the continent are closely grouped under the brilliant leadership of Hitler, who has been supernaturally transformed by developments into …35 more than an intrepid defender of Germany, (namely) he is the defender of Europe.”
(5) Despite this solid array of proof to the contrary, some elements in the Farrell government have occasionally protested a desire to see the break implemented. These same elements concede, however, that were they to make such an attempt, they would be struck down by the extremist elements in the cabinet and the military forces, as were Ramírez and Gilbert. This fact trenchantly reveals that the dominant power in Argentina today is held by pro-Nazi forces determined to enforce their desires.
[Page 319]Most significantly, it is these very forces which control the most important ministries and agencies of both the Federal and provincial governments and are vigorously and rapidly installing, through control of the press, the schools, the courts, and similar key institutions, a domestic totalitarian system which fully complements and buttresses their pro-Axis international policy. Fundamental civil rights have either been destroyed completely or so modified as to be rendered meaningless. All of the government’s powers are being employed to strike down democratic opposition to its vigorous totalitarian program. The most recent, and undoubtedly the most significant pronouncement of government policy was made on June 10 when the Minister of War publicly declared that the entire economy of the country, the life of all its people, must be dedicated to military rearmament. Perón frankly admitted that military force was to be the keystone of Argentina’s international policy, in stating that “Argentina’s diplomacy, as an instrument by which political objectives are attained, must possess the additional argument of its armed forces.”
(6) Starting early in March, members of the Farrell government undertook through intermediaries to arrange interviews with various members of the diplomatic corps. During the past few weeks Ambassador Armour has participated in two informal discussions, on one occasion with Foreign Minister Peluffo, and on another occasion with Peluffo, Perón and Teisaire, the Minister of Marine. Mr. Armour has advised his colleagues of the American diplomatic corps, as he has reported to the Department, that little or nothing was accomplished since in both discussions Peluffo insisted that recognition must come before implementation and on the basis of Argentine promises of subsequent action. The same position has been expressed to other diplomatic representatives of the American Republics and to the British Ambassador.
(7) This Government is now satisfied that nothing can be gained by further discussions in Buenos Aires, and that there is real danger to the collective interest of the non-recognizing governments in the continuation of those discussions. The Farrell government has sought to divide the other American Republics by stimulating and encouraging any differences, however minor, that appear in the positions taken by our diplomatic representatives. By this means, as well as by resort to every kind of political and economic pressure, it has sought to obtain recognition without first implementing the break with the Axis. It is apparently confident that recognition on its own terms by one republic after another is only a matter of time, and regards the continued presence of our diplomatic representatives as a demonstration [Page 320] of our willingness to re-establish relations regardless of implementation. This attitude was made manifest in connection with the recent May 25 celebrations in Buenos Aires and may be expected to result in further similar maneuvers in connection with forthcoming July 9 holiday.
(8) For the reasons I have set forth this Government has decided that the time has come to break the impasse. As a first step we are recalling Ambassador Armour for consultation. Shortly after Armour has reported fully to the Department we intend to initiate an exchange of views through ordinary diplomatic channels with a view to arriving at an understanding with respect to our future common course of action.
Please see the President and Foreign Minister at the earliest opportunity, advise them in full of our position as set forth herein, and state that in the opinion of this Government the attitude of the non-recognizing governments would be most forcefully brought home to the Farrell regime if all of the remaining Chiefs of Mission in Buenos Aires were recalled for consultation during the next two weeks. You should express my particular interest in receiving the views of the government to which you are accredited with respect to our position and the course of action outlined.
Repeated to Buenos Aires, Santiago, La Paz, and London for their information.
- Text repeated on the same date to Buenos Aires (1018), Santiago (739), and La Paz (674). Text also repeated to London (4929).↩
- See Department of State Conference Series No. 50: Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Eighth International Conference of American States, Lima, Peru, December 9–27, 1938 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1941). See also Foreign Relations, 1938, vol. v, pp. 1 ff.↩
- See Report of the Delegate of the United States of America to the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the American Republics Held at Panamá, September 23–October 3, 1939 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1940); and Foreign Relations, 1939, vol. v, pp. 15 ff.↩
- See Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, Habana, July 21–30, 1940, Report of the Secretary of State (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1941); and Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. v, pp. 180 ff.↩
- See Pan American Union, Congress and Conference Series No. 36: Report on the Third Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, Rio de Janeiro, January 15–28, 1942 (Washington, 1942); and Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. v, pp. 6 ff.↩
- Omission indicated in the original telegram.↩