710 Consultation 4/7–347: Circular telegram

The Secretary of State to the Diplomatic Representatives in the American Republics Except Nicaragua

restricted

ReDepcirtel June 27.17 Separate telegram transmits contents resolution Pan American Union Governing Board at July 2 meeting presenting three general questions on which agreement should be sought through Governing Board prior Rio Conference. All govts requested present their views on three questions to Board by July 9.

Dept anxious eliminate evident widespread confusion on program Rio Conference and nature of treaty to be concluded there, especially since confusion associated with exaggerated expectations. Conference is special ad hoc meeting with only purpose that of converting temporary Act of Chapultepec into permanent treaty in accordance Part II, Resolution VIII, Mex City Conference.18 Such treaty must be consistent with provisions UN Charter concluded after Mex City. Such treaty is essentially political rather than military agreement, establishing terms of inter-American political solidarity for the maintenance of peace and security.

With respect US position on first two points presented by Governing Board resolution consult US draft treaty enclosed circular instruction Dec 13, 1945.19

On point I, in US view principle that armed attack on one is aggression against all imposes common obligation immediately assist in meeting such attack. Measures of immediate assistance not specified or in any way defined and parties consequently left free determine nature immediate assistance, whether military or otherwise. Such assistance would be in accordance right of individual and collective self-defense set forth Article 51 UN Charter. Hence contingency limited to case of “armed attack” referred to in Article 51. Occurrence of [Page 10] armed attack also imposes obligation consult to agree on common measures to meet attack but individual assistance need not await such consultation. In any case, individual and collective self-defense may be continued only until Security Council has taken necessary measures to maintain international peace and security.

On point II US position favors two-thirds majority for decisions of consultations, such decisions binding only on states that concur. Less than two-thirds agreement would not be adequate for solidary inter-American action. Unanimity requirement, on other hand, would enable a single state to frustrate solidary purpose of all other parties to consultation and prevent collective measures of self-defense. In this sense it would introduce principle of veto into Inter-American System. It would not be practicable to attempt to require participation in collective measures by states not concurring.

Unless you perceive objection pls orally explain this Govt’s position and its thinking along above lines to authorities of govt to which accredited, requesting any info they may care to give in return on that govt’s views. US recognizes that each govt should reach position that accords with own best judgment.

US views on point III Governing Board resolution will be sent shortly, but approach to authorities on first two points shld not await their receipt.20

Telegraph any indications local views.

Marshall
  1. Not printed.
  2. Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, p. 40.
  3. See “Proposals by the United States for the Provisions of an Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance” and footnote 26, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol ix, p. 168.
  4. In circular telegram of July 8, 8 p.m., the Secretary indicated that the U.S. position on point III was to defer to the Bogotá Conference the subject of establishing a permanent inter-American military agency (710–Consultation 4/7–847).