710 Consultation 4/1–846

Memorandum by Mr. Carl B. Spaeth, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs ( Braden )

I notice that the Brazilian Ambassador2 is seeing you at 11 o’clock. With regard to his memorandum of January 8,3 the following points might be made:

We feel that the Uruguayan initiative4 requires full discussion and that it seems almost inevitable that it will be discussed at least informally at Rio. This would not, however, involve a formal addition to the agenda.
We do not feel that the mere fact of difference of opinion on the proposal should result in its exclusion from any inter-American meeting. The inter-American process would become very sterile indeed if controversial subjects were to be excluded.
It is our view that Argentina was to benefit by participation in the permanent Act of Chapultepec only if she complied with the other provisions of the Final Act of Mexico City.5 Argentina has not met her responsibilities under the Final Act of Mexico City. She is therefore not entitled to the benefits of the Act, including participation in the inter-American mutual assistance pact.

  1. Carlos Martins Pereira e Sousa.
  2. Not printed; in this memorandum, the Brazilian Government indicated opposition to any enlargement of the agenda of the proposed conference and expressed a preference for the inclusion of Argentina in the conference (710 Consultation 4/1–846).
  3. The Uruguayan proposal on human rights; for documentation, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ix, pp. 185 ff.
  4. Pan American Union, Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, February–March, 1945 (Washington, 1945). The Act of Chapultepec was Resolution VIII of the Final Act, ibid., p. 40. For documentation on the Chapultepec Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ix, pp. 1 ff.