Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 2

560.AL/1548

Draft Telegram Prepared by the United States Delegation at Habana¹

secret

January 14, 1948.

USDel at Habana ITO Conference has submitted regular reports to effect that Latin American Dels have been most consistent and difficult source of opposition to negotiation of Charter approximating Geneva Draft and acceptable to US. On the other hand and despite tendency to support each other’s amendments, Latin American “bloc”, as such, does not appear to exist for attitudes and tactics of individual Dels cover wide area from general support Geneva Draft (e.g., Cuba and Brazil) to irreconcilable opposition (Argentina). On basis Del judgment and Dept’s review situation appears that at discretion of Chief of Mission informal approach responsible officials Govt to which you are accredited might result in more flexible and possibly constructive attitudes on part (Bolivian) (Venezuelan) (Uruguayan) Del at Habana. Dept emphasizes, however, nature of your personal relations appropriate officials determining factor decision whether or not useful to approach Govt and line of most effective argument. Dept’s view that approach, if made, should be general rather than specific. Following paragraphs are for Embassy’s background information not necessarily for discussion:

I. General

a. There has been disconcerting absence interest in supporting US positions or suggestions. Absence particularly noticeable in view practice Latin American Dels rushing to support one another even where issue is of no importance whatsoever country giving support. Out of meetings certain Delegates have indicated instructions from their Govts to support Latin American positions generally.

b. Accusations have been made that US has aligned itself with powerful industrialized and European nations against undeveloped: Latin America. Support by US given Geneva Draft, along with majority other Prep Com countries, submitted as justification for this accusation. Difficult to see how US could take any line other than support of Geneva text for all Prep Com countries have reasonable obligation to do so (which Brazil and Cuba have done).

c. US disturbed by effect failure at Havana, or residue negotiating bitterness, might have on coming Bogotá Conference. Difficult to envision success at Bogotá if unable to reach agreement on rules for trade under ITO. Indeed, Bogotá agenda item on trade left open pending conclusion Habana meeting.

d. Habana haunted by resurgence extravagant claims ITO “violation national sovereignty” and insistence maintenance complete freedom national economic determination. US view that ITO without general principles with respect to proper trade practices, including, of course, reasonable escape clauses, would imply an international organization without authority which would not only be unacceptable to US Congress but unworthy of submission by Conference to world referendum.

e. Clear that many Latin American Dels want a Charter obligating US and industrialized countries but discriminatory in favor of economically undeveloped countries, permitting latter complete freedom of action. They have argued that Organization should look to equalizing of all economies.

f. It is evident that inadequate time was available to permit necessary governmental preparation between conclusion Geneva meeting and convening Conference at Habana. This unfortunately tight calendar due in part general realization ITO long delayed. To minimize difficulties thus caused non-Prep Com countries, US has constantly pressed for full consideration all amendments and thorough exposition all sections Charter.

g. Argentine tactics at the meeting relevant for background or use. Amendments submitted by Argentina substantially at variance basic concept of ITO and if accepted would imply international body which could only be termed “debating society”. Argentine Del’s committee work and official statements demonstrate little knowledge of content Geneva Charter. However, impact on meeting has been slight and support Argentine views from other Latin American Dels steadily diminishing. Generally accepted by most Dels Argentine goal is to prevent success Conf and organization ITO.

II. Specific Points

(Note to Department. Following sections would be sent only to appropriate Embassy.)

a. Bolivia

Following line of specific argument can be used if relations with appropriate Government official close and if climate proper. Dept does not necessarily recommend use of all these points and certainly not direct language.

Bolivia is represented by Ambassador to Cuba. There is no evidence any study of draft Charter prepared by the 18-nation Prep Com which included Cuba, Brazil and Chile. Utterly impossible one official, with other duties, to represent adequately interests his country at international Conf. US recognizes financial difficulties small countries in sending out Delegations to many international conferences. But beyond not having special representation, local Ambassador has appeared at meetings and has made violent speeches generally irrelevant to substance of Charter. When he occasionally speaks to issues it is in support of extreme Chilean or Argentine amendments (see g above).

Question posed is whether Bolivian interests actually served by their support of Argentina whose apparent objective is opposition to ITO project. Might be pointed out for Bolivian consideration that draft Geneva Charter generally supported by widely representative Prep Com. Considering that this Com included appropriate representation underdeveloped countries in situations similar to that of Bolivia it would seem to follow that Geneva Charter must contain substance beneficial to her.²

b. Uruguay

Following line of specific argument can be used if relations with appropriate Government officials are close and climate proper. Dept does not necessarily recommend use of all these points and certainly not direct language.

Amendments submitted by Uruguay and her committee tactics, if successful, would result in ITO Charter entirely unacceptable to majority Prep Com countries and unrelated to organization contemplated when ITO program was launched years ago. While Uruguay has not followed docilely Argentine lead at Conf (see point g above) and Uruguayan amendments show independent analysis, net effect of her approach would be identical to apparent Argentine objective: opposition to whole ITO project.

US sincerely at loss to understand motives guiding Uruguayan Del. US, having in mind traditional friendship US–Uruguay, latter’s competitive position vis-à-vis Argentina, would assume that Uruguayan interests lie in creation of ITO not dissimilar in its broad aspects from Geneva Draft laboriously produced after one year’s detailed inter-governmental consideration. Brazil, Chile, Cuba, as well as other underdeveloped countries in economic condition similar to that of Uruguay, participated in the Prep meetings. It would be logical to suppose that, unless overriding reasons to the contrary, Uruguay would tend to support Prep Com draft. US most interested in learning, therefore, objectives towards which Uruguayan Del at Habana is working.

For your personal information, Acting Chairman Farina has stated publicly ITO has little or nothing to offer Uruguay. There is also question whether Charlone’s³ attacks on Charter actually represent Government or only the industrialists. Julio Lacarte, formerly Uruguayan ForOff now Deputy UN Executive Secretary at Conf, has reiterated to US Del belief Uruguay will come around.⁴

c. Venezuela

Following line of specific argument can be used if relations with appropriate Government official are close and if climate proper. Dept does not necessarily recommend use of all these points and certainly not direct language.

Venezuelan Del tactics have been marked by steady though restrained opposition to draft Charter submitted by Prep Com. This Com of 18 nations spent approximately twelve months of continuous session in London, New York and Geneva preparing text now being debated at Habana. Prep Com was representative group including countries in economic position similar to that of Venezuela. At Habana, however, Venezuelan Del has generally supported extreme amendments which, if accepted, would result in ITO without body or substance and unrelated to organization contemplated in Geneva draft.

US Del sincerely interested in understanding reasoning behind position Venezuelan Del. Any information of background nature would be useful to US in working with Venezuela.⁵

1. Submitted under a covering letter by Albert Nufer, the Delegation’s Political Adviser, to Assistant Secretary for Political Affairs, Armour. The draft telegram was a response to a suggestion made by Mr. Clayton, head of the delegation, that a circular telegram be sent to United States missions in Latin America to encourage those governments to take a more constructive attitude toward United States proposals at Habana.
2. The above telegram was sent with no substantial change to Bolivia, as telegram 21 to La Paz, January 23, 1948. (560.AL/1–2348)
3. César Charlone, President of the Uruguayan Senate and head of the Uruguayan Delegation.
4. The above telegram was sent with no substantial change to Uruguay, as telegram 10 to Montevideo, January 23; a copy was also sent to Argentina for information (560.AL/1–2348).
5. The above telegram was sent to the Embassy in Venezuela, with no substantial changers telegram 43 to Caracas, January 23, 1948. (560.AL/1–2348)