710. Consultation 4/7–947: Telegram
The Ambassador in Cuba ( Norweb ) to the Secretary of State
338. During hour long conversation with Minister State31 today I discussed with him substance of Department’s circular telegrams July 3 and July 3, 4 p.m. re Rio Conference, US views, and questions for Governing Board PAU July 9 meeting.
Re Cuban position with respect to the questions he early remarked Government’s views had been placed in hands Ambassador Belt.32 He had apparently not been acquainted with matter under discussion and was thinking on his feet. After some time he expressed definite view that permanent military organization should be left to Bogotá Conference. With regard to voting in consultation procedures he said Cuba traditionally favored “unanimity and solidarity” among American states but conceded that in case of consultation to determine collective measures in such emergency as armed attack on American state by non-American state less inclusive agreement might become more practical. He agreed with our thesis that collective measures accepted in consultation should be obligatory only for those who in consultation had concurred in them and on both questions under point I.
He suggested though without apparent vexation that Rio Conference after being many times postponed had now been called on rather short notice. He did not know who would attend for Cuba but conceded that “Minister State” (himself) and “four or five advisors” would possibly compose delegation. I mentioned rumored desire of General Pérez33 to attend but he offered no comment. He was curious re size and composition of American delegation and “spirit by which it would be guided”. I impressed upon him our feeling conference should be limited to conversion into treaty of temporary Act of Chapultepec. I should like to repeat that I came away with impression our initiative caught him quite unprepared but that after long cogitation he found himself substantially in agreement with us.
Although I gave him several opportunities he did not bring up subject of sugar bill34 nor mention whether Belt’s recent visit here was in any way connected with it.