839.00/12–2446
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Dominican Republic (Butler)
No. 131
Sir: Reference is made to your recent recommendations with respect to possible multilateral action by the American republics to deal with the political situation in the Dominican Republic, which constitutes a flagrant departure in practice from basic principles to which all the American republics have pledged themselves with respect to the protection of human rights. These recommendations were contained, specifically, in the Embassy’s secret despatches nos. 223 of November 22, 1946, and 306 of December 24, 1946, and in the Embassy’s secret telegram no. 380 of December 2, 1946.2
As you know, these recommendations raise the question of the nature of “intervention” within the meaning of the nonintervention commitments assumed by this Government in common with the other governments of the American republics. These commitments are contained in Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo, 1933)3 and the Additional Protocol Relative to Non-intervention (Buenos Aires, 1936).4 It is this Government’s belief that action by the organized community of nations with respect to transgressions by one of their number, in accordance with established principles of [Page 630] the community, does not constitute intervention. On the contrary, the Department believes that such multilateral action is the alternative to, and, in a sense, the antithesis of intervention. Such action by the community would be in substitution for arbitrary intervention by individual nations that have the power to practice it.
The agitation of this problem among the American republics in the past two years has, however, led the Department to believe that, for the most part, the majority of them are not yet prepared to accept this view. You will recall that the response of the majority to the proposal made by the Uruguayan Foreign Minister in November, 19455 (that the protection of human rights within any particular American republic be considered in certain circumstances a proper subject for action by the community of American republics) was not favorable. In fact, that proposal and the support of it by the United States appeared to have the effect of arousing the suspicions of many of them and of putting them on guard against any proposal that would appear to limit their respective sovereignties, whether that limitation was imposed by individual powers or by the organized inter-American community.
The fact that the United States has such preponderant power in the Hemisphere argues the necessity of particular caution on its part in dealing with this problem. The experience of the Department indicates that any move by this Government at this time in support of the principle of action by the community is more likely to arouse resistance among the majority of the other American republics than to win their favor. This may be accounted for by the suspicion that the United States might practice what was, in effect, unilateral intervention under the guise of community action. This kind of suspicion is, perhaps, the penalty of power.
Under the circumstances, the Department believes that the community of American republics is not yet prepared to accept the principle of multilateral action for the protection of human rights. It is also persuaded that any proposal for such action would have less chance of acceptance if it should come from the United States than if it should come from other American republics. Consequently, while the Department looks forward to the time when the authority of the organized community in these matters is generally acknowledged and supported, it believes that for the present that objective is most likely of early attainment if this Government refrains from pressing the other American governments with respect to it.
In this connection, it should be noted that there is at present no [Page 631] provision in the agreements on which the inter-American system is based for action by the community of nations to deal with such a situation as exists in the Dominican Republic.
The Department appreciates, of course, that the situation in the Dominican Republic might become aggravated to such a critical point as to arouse a greater willingness than would now be found among the American republics to take joint action with respect to it. In such case, the United States would undoubtedly support the taking of such action, within the limits imposed by the Charter of the United Nations.
The Department is in full agreement with the following statement in your secret despatch no. 306 of December 24, 1946:
“Again, hope seems to lie in multilateral action based on democratic principles which have been proclaimed, if not observed, by all of the American Republics. If the American Republics wish to handle their affairs under a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the United Nations, then they must make the inter-American system a live force devoted to the attainment of the general welfare, peace and security of the peoples of the Americas. Problems of armament and hemisphere defense, of the duties as well as the rights of states, of the protection of individual rights and civil liberties, and of real freedom of information in all countries must be faced and workable solutions found which will be genuinely supported by a substantial majority of the American nations.”
The difficulty at present would be to obtain the requisite support of “a substantial majority of the American nations”.
The Department is in accord with the further suggestion in your despatch no. 306 of December 24 regarding the desirability of this Government’s issuing a press release concerning the policy of. The United States in inter-American affairs, and it is the Department’s present intention to take steps in this direction as soon as the moment is opportune. Meanwhile, the Department wishes you to know of the appreciation with which it has received your views on this and the other matters discussed in your despatches under reference.
Very truly yours,
- For despatch 306 of December 24, 1946, see ibid., p. 811; despatch 223 and telegram 380 not printed.↩
- For text, see Department of State Treaty Series No. 881, or 49 Stat. (pt. 2) 3097; for documentation concerning the Seventh International Conference of American States, held at Montevideo, December 3–26, 1933, see Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iv, pp. 1 ff.↩
- For text, see Department of State Treaty Series No. 923, or 51 Stat. 41; for documentation concerning the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace held at Buenos Aires, December 1–23, 1936, see Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. v, pp. 3 ff.↩
- For documentation on this subject, see Foreign Relations. 1945, vol. ix, pp. 185 ff.↩
- assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs.↩