740.24112 RP/11–1346: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Bolivia (Flack)
662. Urdes 575 Nov. 13.27 Bol draft decree similar to Peru decree Sept 3 which was passed after consid progress replacem progr and provides mainly for relaxation and readjustm controls in view progr made. Is such decree nec in Bol at this time. Dept has not raised obj [Page 417] in other countries if main objectives repl progr not prejudiced thereby, but prefers ad hoc lifting restrictions instead blanket lifting and has so indicated to several Am Reps. Dept does not wish to give approval Bol decree in present form but will not raise obj to promulg. Exclusion spearheads named from provisions Art 1 permits accomplishm main objective repl progr but summary removal all other local enemy interests from all controls without review indiv cases believed undesirable. (Urtel 1138 Dec 18). Since Ocularium excluded from provisions Art 1 should not mining and other Becker interests be so excluded. In view para 2 and 3 urtel 1125 Dec 1329 Dept has no obj to regarding Gundlach case fait accompli and suggests Gundlach personally be named in Art 1 instead of firm and his pers funds be blocked. Art 3 appears to refer only to exprop specifically decreed in each case. Is this broad enough to permit application expropr decrs Feb 9 and March 31 ’44 to any property not removed from restrictions by current decree. Your comments requested.