710 Consultation 4/7–947

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Special Inter-American Affairs (Halle) to the Director of the Office of American Republic Affairs (Briggs)

We have now heard from our embassies in Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay on the preliminary consultations for the Rio Conference. The information from Chile, Haiti, Paraguay* and Peru does not bear directly on the specific points of the consultation.

In Chile, the absence of the President and Foreign Minister has prevented the Government from formulating its views. A minor official said Chile has an eye on the problem of “aggression against its Antarctic Territory.”

Paraguay is actively studying the proposals in spite of other preoccupations.

The Peruvian Foreign Minister implied that the Peruvian attitude would be favorable to the US position.

The Haitian Foreign Minister was glad to have, from the Embassy, a correction of his previous belief that the Conference would be occupied principally with military matters.

The positions of the other governments on the points of consultation are as follows:

Point I, Question 1: Should the treaty state an obligation to assist? No dissent from US position.

Point I, Question 2: Should assistance remain undefined? Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama agree with US. Mexico thinks measures of assistance should be defined. Uruguay thinks treaty should specify definitely military and other measures of assistance.

Point II, Question 1: Voting in consultation? Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Panama favor two-thirds. Guatemala is reluctant to abandon principle of unanimity but feels two-thirds may be only workable solution. Uruguay is silent.

Point II, Question 2: Shall the minority be bound? Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay believe the minority should be bound. Guatemala would like to see it bound but feels this may not be practicable. Mexico feels it should be bound with respect to other than military measures (those not taking military measures agreed upon by majority would be reported to the Security Council). Uruguay seems to share Mexico’s general view. Panama agrees with US position that minority should not be bound.

[Page 18]

Point III: Establishment of military agency at Rio? Bolivia favors some action at Rio. Panama opposes such action.

Louis J. Halle, Jr.
  1. Except for Point II, Question 2. [Footnote in the original.]