710. Consultation 4/10–647
The Chargé in Brazil (Key) to the Secretary of State
The Chargé d’Affaires ad interim has the honor to report that the Jornal do Commercio of Rio de Janeiro under date of October 5, 1947, carried an article signed by Hildebrando Accioly regarding the treaty recently signed at the conference held at Petrópolis, Brazil. The article is considered of interest as Accioly was one of the outstanding Brazilian delegates to the conference and holds a high position in the Brazilian Foreign Office. Five copies of the article are enclosed.
In general the article regards most favorably the agreement reached at Petrópolis and the author concludes that although it may contain some faults this is only the natural result of the consensus of nineteen different wills and sovereignties. Two matters were singled out for criticism. The limitation by Article Three of immediate defense measures to those attacks which occur within a definite zone is characterized as illogical, Accioly adding that an act of aggression does not depend on its geographical location for its nature. The other matter wherein he felt the agreement was lacking, was in the restrictions contained in Article Seven relating to the action to be taken when one American state suffered aggression at the hands of another American power. Accioly feels these provisions to be impracticable both by their nature and because of the delay they might involve. He contends that this decision was a backward step from the Act of Chapultepec. The body of the article, aside from these criticisms, consists of a historical review of the Pan-American movement and a close examination of the provisions of the treaty, after which Accioly concludes:
“It (the Treaty) constitutes a great step along the road of Pan-American solidarity and represents a document of high importance in [Page 90] international life. … In it are represented principles of elevated political achievement, such as the proscription of war among the contracting parties and the obligation of reciprocal assistance to prevent or repel aggression against any of them. It equally constitutes a great conquest for juridical order, i.e. the abandonment of the doctrine of absolute State sovereignty, such abandonment being verified by the repudiation of the right of veto and the admission that sanctions adopted by a two-thirds majority of the signatory states that have ratified the treaty will be binding on all, reserving only the case of employment of armed force … In our view, not its smallest benefit will be the influence it may exercise on the organization of the United Nations in the sense of making it into a truly efficient instrument for the preservation of peace and justice in the world.”