710 Consultation 4/7–2947: Telegram
The Ambassador in Brazil ( Pawley ) to the Secretary of State
984. Department’s circular telegrams July 3; July 3, 4 p.m.; July 8, 8 p.m.52 The following is a translation of a memo from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated July 19 and received by the Embassy July 25, in response to Embassy’s request for views on three general questions on which agreement should be sought through Governing Board Pan American Union prior to Rio Conference. Embassy understands these views already transmitted Brazilian representatives Washington.
“With reference to the memorandum from the Embassy of the United States of America, delivered on July 8, 1947, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs desires to express its agreement with the opinion of the Department of State with respect to the purpose of the Conference of Rio de Janeiro and the nature of the treaty which it is called to consider.
The Conference will take place, in effect, pursuant to the express mandate of Resolution VIII of the Conference of Chapultepec, for the special purpose of discussing and eventually concluding a pact for continental defense. There should be added further that the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, at its extraordinary session of September 26, 1945 approved, unanimously, a recommendation expressing its full agreement with the suggestion of the Brazilian Government, aiming to limit the program of the Conference to the drafting of a treaty of reciprocal assistance designed to give permanent form to the principles incorporated in the Act of Chapultepec.
And since such a treaty is intended to fix the general rules which will regulate the procedure of the American Republics in the matter of mutual assistance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs understands that its content is essentially of a political nature.
With regard to the items of the questionnaire presented to the American [Page 29] Republics by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs adopts the following position:
Item I. The various drafts of the treaty, with the exception of that proposed by the US, speak of collective defense against acts of aggression, an expression the meaning of which they immediately go on to define. The American proposal meanwhile speaks specifically of armed attack, which is the expression used in article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Article 51 of the Charter only authorizes legitimate defense when an ‘armed attack’ is directed against one of the members of the United Nations.
The ‘act of aggression’ spoken of in the drafts of the Inter-American Defense Treaty should, then, be understood, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, in the sense of ‘armed attack’.
And in this case, in which the legitimate right of defense is inherent to the sovereignty of the state, it is understood that, within the principle of inter-American solidarity, the contracting states bind themselves to assist the victim of the attack.
As to knowing if it falls to each of the high contracting parties to determine the nature, extent and timing of the immediate measure which it should take, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already issued the opinion that such measures should be coordinated by means of consultations and, if possible, determined, beforehand, through agreements, by the inter-American military organization, to be created.
It appears that there should not be denied to any of the American Republics the right to determine, itself, the nature and manner of its aid to the state attacked. But this assistance should not be measured hastily, in the case of each conflict, but should be defined, beforehand, through negotiated agreements. In these agreements there will be regulated also the question of the timeliness of the assistance.
Item II. The Brazilian Government also expressed itself with reference to the case of the consultations for application of sanctions against the aggressor state. In its opinion, the application of such measures should be voted by a qualified majority of two-thirds.
But in this case, what cooperation should be required from the countries whose vote is defeated? The Brazilian Government understands that there should be required of them at least a strict neutrality. Nevertheless, within the principle of American solidarity, the Brazilian Government will be disposed to agree that there should be required of them the application of all the measures of sanctions, with the exception of the military measures.
This last opinion seems more in conformity with the principle of Item I, in accordance with which, in the opinion of the Brazilian Government, all the American Republics would oblige themselves to lend assistance to the American state directly attacked.
Item III. Concerning the creation of a permanent military organization, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in agreement that the matter be discussed at the forthcoming Pan American Conference at Bogotá.
The Brazilian Military authorities are currently studying the draft of the Inter-American Defense Committee, on which document the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will express its point of view at the opportune time, trusting that in this matter, as in other topics of the [Page 30] Conference of Bogotá, it will be given the opportunity to compare its ideas with those of the Department of State.”
- Circular telegram dated July 8, 8 p.m., not printed.↩