740.00119 EW/7–1146
Memorandum by the Acting Assistant Chief, Division of American Republics Analysis and Liaison (Halle)34
I call your attention to the following sequence of initiatives by American republics with respect to the terms of the contemplated Treaty of Peace with Italy:
On April 8, the Department sent out a circular airgram to our missions in the republics at war with Italy, instructing them to transmit to the respective governments this Government’s offer to lay their views with respect to the terms of a peace treaty with Italy before the prospective Peace Conference. The only countries at war with Italy not [Page 906] included were Mexico, to which the offer had been made in late March and Brazil, which made the same offer jointly with the United States in view of the fact that it would be represented at the Peace Conference. To date, replies have been received from six of the eleven governments addressed.
According to the Nicaraguan Embassy in Mexico City, on or about May 6 the Uruguayan Foreign Office sent a communication to its missions in the American republics stating that it was prepared to support any measure for achieving a peace favorable to Italy. However, apparently no such note was received in Washington.
Again according to the Nicaraguan Embassy in Mexico City, on May 28 Argentina suggested to Uruguay a joint representation of all Latin American republics to the end that the victorious nations extend favorable peace terms to Italy. In view of its previous initiative, Uruguay agreed.
The British Foreign Office had learned “some time ago” that Italy hoped, with Argentina’s help, to mobilize Latin American opinion in her favor.
During the past week, the Secretary in Paris, the Department, and the Foreign Office in London have been receiving similar communications from various Latin American governments, urging favorable peace terms for Italy. These are quite evidently in response to the Argentine (or Argentine-Uruguay) initiative. Such communications have been received in Washington from Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Peru; in Paris from Colombia, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Venezuela. The British Foreign Office reports having received like communications from five Latin American missions in London, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Panama—but not including the Central American republics or Mexico. It is of interest that the Argentine note to the British Foreign Office is reported to have been the strongest of the five. Apparently July 8 was the “target date” for these joint representations.
It is further of interest to note that Argentina and Uruguay, as well as Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela, were not among the republics to whom we made our offer since they are not at war with Italy.
The communications received in response to the Argentine (or Argentine-Uruguay) initiative have been or will be transmitted to the Foreign Ministers Conference (if time serves) and acknowledged.
The replies to our original offer will, of course, be placed before the Peace Conference.
[Page 907]Here is a case in which Argentina appears in the position of having assumed leadership of and organized the Latin American community of nations—as distinct, of course, from the inter-American. Apparently her lack of participation in the war is not regarded by her as a reason for refraining from active participation in questions of peace, nor has it altogether discredited her moral authority in the eyes of other American republics—principally those in South America.
- This memorandum was directed to the following officers: John C. Dreier, Acting Chief of the Division of American Republics Analysis and Liaison; George H. Butler, Deputy Director of the Office of American Republic Affairs; Ellis O. Briggs, Director of the Office of American Republic Affairs: Spruille Braden, Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs; and Walter C. Dowling, Assistant Chief of the Division of Southern European Affairs.↩