710. Consultation (4)/10–3044: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Bursley)
1958. You should act on the following instructions only after you receive further word either from the Department or from Ambassador Messersmith.19
Please see Padilla urgently and speak to him along the following lines:
We have given very serious consideration to Dr. Padilla’s public statement and to the message which he transmitted to you through Tello (Embassy’s 1371, October 30, 4 p.m.). We, of course, recognize that the Argentine request for a meeting poses an exceedingly difficult problem for all the other American republics and that it must therefore be met with the utmost decision and care.
It is our judgment that the Argentine proposal is a brazen and insincere move which does not deserve consideration on its merits. The Farrell regime is well aware of the actions it must take before [Page 35] the other American republics will accord recognition. A meeting of Ministers such as that suggested by Argentina could do no more than recite Argentina’s failure to comply with its commitments and, in addition, possibly obtain one more promise of performance by the Argentine government. Since the American republics would certainly not accord recognition at a meeting on the basis of a mere promise of future performance, nothing of real significance could be accomplished. Furthermore, Argentine participation in such a meeting would necessarily prevent the consideration of the urgent postwar problems on which the American republics which have cooperated in the war effort should consult at a very early date.
We are of the opinion, however, that the move of the Farrell government should be met promptly by a positive proposal from the other American republics.
We have been much interested in the statement of Dr. Padilla at Havana early this month on the desirability of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers and for some time before the Argentine proposal was made we had been giving serious consideration to suggesting to Dr. Padilla that if he wished to propose the Meeting officially, we would be glad to support him in this suggestion. It would be particularly regrettable if Dr. Padilla’s initiative were to be blocked by this obvious Argentine stratagem. We believe, however, that because of the fact that he has already publicly proposed a Meeting and in view of his preeminence among the statesmen of the American republics, Dr. Padilla is in an excellent position to prevent this happening and to bring about a successful solution of the problem.
We would therefore like to know whether he would now formalize the informal proposal which he has heretofore made by recommending to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, that the Foreign Ministers of the republics which have cooperated in the war effort (thus of course excluding Argentina) meet in Mexico City to consider urgent problems of common interest, including international security organization and other post-war problems. At the same time he could recommend that there be included as a final item on the agenda the subject “The Request of the Farrell Government for a Meeting of Ministers to Consider Argentina’s International Position,” and that the Farrell government be invited to send a representative, to appear at the conclusion of the regular meeting, for the sole purpose of presenting the Argentine case in support of its proposal.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The proposal which we would hope Dr. Padilla will make would not, on the other hand, deny Argentina the hearing which she claims to seek. If she sincerely and in good faith desires to state her case, she will accept an invitation to set forth at the end of the proposed meeting [Page 36] on post-war problems the reasons why her proposal should be accepted by her sister Republics. She will be permitted to meet and explain if possible several fundamental fallacies in the proposal. For instance, the attempted reservation at the end of the proposal if not satisfactorily explained would seem to us to defeat any comprehensive and thorough-going consideration of Argentina’s position. Secondly, the proposal does not set forth precisely what decision or judgment Argentina expects the other Republics to make. Obviously it cannot be expected that the present difficulties between Argentina and each of the other Republics can be finally determined or settled by any vote or resolution taken at the proposed meeting. In other words, a thorough-going analysis of the proposal may well reveal it to be an adroit move which would exclude consideration of the principal points at issue, lead to no possible definitive action and result only in confusion and disunion among the American Republics.
In making his recommendation along the lines set forth above, Dr. Padilla could properly emphasize that the delicate character of the Argentine proposal requires that it be considered by the Foreign Ministers themselves and does not permit effective consideration through the Governing Board of the Pan American Union which, by express stipulation of its basic charter and long tradition, has never concerned itself with political problems. After the presentation of the reasons for the Argentine proposal by the special Argentine representative, the Ministers of the other republics could determine what disposition should be made of that proposal.
Please tell Padilla that we view this as a confidential communication to him. In the event that he views this suggestion favorably, he may wish to sound out other governments promptly. If he is ready to proceed on this basis, we should be very glad to consult with him with respect to the agenda and particularly as regards the time of the Meeting.
- George S. Messersmith. On this date the Ambassador was conferring with the Chief of the Division of River Plate Affairs, Carl B. Spaeth, in Dallas, Texas.↩