810.00/8–248

The Chargé in the Dominican Republic (Burrows) to the Secretary of State

confidential
No. 471

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Embassy’s Airgram no. 193, July 20, 19481 referring to the fact that I had given the Foreign Minister in an informal manner a synthesis of a study prepared in the Department of State with reference to procedures available for conciliation within the inter-American system and to enclose herewith a copy and translation of a study prepared in the Dominican Foreign Office entitled “Motives and Object of Granting Authority to the-Permanent Peace Commission”. The Foreign Minister handed me this study on the same informal basis that I had given him my memorandum some three weeks ago; he referred in terms of appreciation to the aid which the memorandum had been in the study of this question within the foreign office.

The Foreign Minister said that his Government had given this matter very considerable and detailed attention and that it is now prepared to press for a consideration of the “Caribbean question” by the “Permanent Peace Commission” which both he and I took to mean the “Committee of Five”. He said that very careful consideration had been given the point of view that the Gondra Treaty offered a more promising avenue of approach to the matter but he said again (see the Embassy’s Airgram no. 193) that the Dominican Government feels it would be better to present the matter for consideration in a more informal manner than that provided under the Gondra Treaty. When I asked with regard to the object of the trip being made to the United States by Ambassadors Arturo Despradel and Jose Ortega Frier, together with Minister Jose Ramon Rodriguez, he said that they “might” [Page 177]be travelling in connection with this same matter of conciliation within the Caribbean (see the Embassy’s telegram no. 234, July 29, 1948).2

It will be noted that this informal exposition of the Dominican Republic’s position with regard to the Permanent Peace Commission speaks only of misunderstandings between the Dominican and Cuban Governments and more specifically of “Dominican claims” resulting from Cayo Confites; there is no indication that the Dominican Republic anticipates any widening of the subject to include anything else in the way of Caribbean conflicts. In this connection a memorandum of conversation with Cuban Chargé Miguel Figueroa, which is being forwarded under separate cover (Despatch no. 473, August 2, 1948)3 will be of interest to the Department.

Respectfully yours,

Charles R. Burrows
  1. Not printed.
  2. Not printed.
  3. See memorandum of conversation, August 1, supra.