711.372/8–949

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Eugene Desvernine of the Division of Caribbean Affairs

confidential
Participants: Señor Dr. Oscar Gans, Ambassador of Cuba
Ambassador Albert F. Nufer1
Dr. José Antonio Guerra, Director of Currency Stabilization Fund
CRB—Mr. Desvernine

In the course of a luncheon tendered today by the Ambassador of Cuba, the subject of the proposed Treaty of Economic Development came up in the conversation. Ambassador Nufer referred to recent press reports of a statement made in Habana by Foreign Minister Hevía to the effect that the proposed treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between Cuba and the United States was a dead issue, and inquired regarding the significance of this statement.

Ambassador Gans replied that the term “treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation” had a very bad connotation in Cuba and in the rest of Latin America as a carryover from the days of British imperialist expansion when the British used to impose such treaties on other countries as a means of effecting their imperialist designs. There had, consequently, been a great deal of opposition in Cuba to the negotiation of such a treaty with the United States, and the communists had taken the lead in exploiting this issue. Recently the communist newspaper in Habana, “Hoy”, had carried a sensational article quoting almost verbatim many of the clauses of the proposed treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation which had been submitted by the United States Government to the Cuban Government in 1939.2 The Ambassador commented in passing that he had a pretty good idea as to how the communists had been able to obtain this information and that he would investigate this further during his forthcoming visit to Habana. In publicising this subject, the communist newspaper “Hoy” had now charged the Cuban Government and Ambassador Gans with the intention of “betraying” the Cuban people by agreeing to the same kind of treaty which had been rejected [Page 638] by previous administrations in Cuba. Under these circumstances, Minister Hevía had found it necessary to counteract this highly unfavorable publicity by issuing a statement categorically denying any intention to negotiate a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation with the United States. The Ambassador stated that this was the sole reason for the Minister’s statement and that such a statement should not be interpreted in any way as interfering with contemplated negotiations looking to the conclusion of a treaty of economic development between Cuba and the United States within the general lines of President Truman’s Point IV program. He added that the Cuban Government was prepared to initiate these negotiations in Washington immediately.

Ambassador Gans went on to state that one of Cuba’s main points of interest in such a treaty centered on the inclusion of a provision which would “stabilize” the market for Cuban sugar in the United States. He said that he had recently discussed this matter with Mr. Shields, representative of the domestic beet growers,3 and that Mr. Shields’ reaction had been very favorable. Mr. Shields is reported to have said that, since Cuba was the largest supplier of sugar to the United States market, the domestic interests would feel that their position would be protected by a treaty between Cuba and the United States containing guarantees of a fixed percentage participation for Cuban sugar in the United States market (presumably no greater, albeit no less, than that enjoyed now under the Sugar Act4) over a period of years, thus eliminating the possible danger to the interests of the domestic producers which arises periodically when the Sugar Act comes up for renewal.

Ambassador Gans felt that this attitude on the part of a representative of domestic sugar producers was an encouraging indication of the feasibility of incorporating a provision on Cuban sugar in a bilateral treaty. Further dwelling on the subject of the treaty, the Ambassador stated that it would be very helpful to the Cuban Government in selling the treaty to the Cuban people, and particularly to the Cuban workers, if some provision could be included which would permit Cuban workers to be trained for special skills in the United States during a temporary period. He said that opposition on the part of Cuban labor to the increased employment of American technicians in Cuba under the terms of the treaty would be weakened if it could be shown to them that facilities were being provided for Cuban workers to be trained in those same technical lines for later employment in Cuba. He said that he realized that since public training and [Page 639] educational facilities in the United States are a function of the states it might be difficult for the Federal Government to agree to such a provision in a treaty, but that he would like us to consider this point in the thought that perhaps some arrangement might be worked out.

The Ambassador stated further that, in studying the specific treaty proposals submitted by us to the Cuban Government, he had found that many provisions fell within the sphere of human rights, as distinguished from purely economic rights. He mentioned among these the right of transit, the right of access to the courts and to prompt trial, the right of protection against unlawful searches and seizure, etc. He stated that in line with the resolution on human rights issued at the Bogotá Conference5 and with the efforts now being contemplated by the United Nations to conclude a convention on human rights,6 he thought that it would be especially appropriate if the United States and Cuba could extract the aforesaid provisions from an economic treaty and conclude a separate convention on the subject, which would serve as a sort of pace-setter to similar action on a bilateral or multilateral scale among other nations of the world. He emphasized that this suggestion was without prejudice to immediate and simultaneous negotiation of an economic convention between our two countries. At the suggestion of Ambassador Nufer and myself, Ambassador Gans agreed to send us a memorandum embodying his views on the subject.

Ambassador Gans also stated that the Cuban Government was interested in the inclusion in an economic treaty of appropriate provisions relating to exchange control and that the Cuban Government was ready to offer guarantees of the availability of dollar exchange to the extent that we would permit dollars to flow into Cuba through the purchase of Cuban products, etc.

While on the subject of exchange, Dr. Guerra, who is the director of the new Cuban currency stabilization fund, stated that he had had an interview yesterday, in the company of Ambassador Gans, with Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Martin, and that he had broached the subject of an exchange stabilization credit to Cuba by the Treasury Department. He said that the necessity for such a credit was based [Page 640] mainly on psychological considerations in order to avoid a possible flight from the peso when the new Cuban national bank begins operations in November. Dr. Guerra stated further that it was also in the interest of the United States to avoid any possible devaluation of the peso and that the credit would imply no risk at all to us since in the first place the very announcement of the credit would probably prevent the necessity of using it and in the second place the credit would be amply guaranteed by Cuba’s gold reserves in the United States. He said that Assistant Secretary Martin had mentioned the existence of the International Monetary Fund in this connection and that he (Guerra) had agreed that Cuba would avail itself of the facilities of the Fund before actually using any of the United States credit. He had mentioned to Mr. Martin also that the existence of the International Fund had not prevented the United States from extending the stabilization agreement with Mexico. Dr. Guerra said finally that, while Mr. Martin had been noncommittal, he had gathered the impression that Cuba’s request would be given sympathetic consideration.

  1. Mr. Nufer, formerly Ambassador to El Salvador, was at this time assigned to the Office of American Republic Affairs.
  2. Not printed; see Foreign Relations, 1939, vol. v, p. 531, footnote 23.
  3. Robert H. Shields, President and General Counsel of the U.S. Beet Sugar Association.
  4. Approved August 8, 1947; 61 Stat. 922.
  5. The text of Resolution XXX of the Bogotá Conference, entitled the “American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man”, is printed in Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, Colombia, March 30–May 2, 1948: Report of the Delegation of the United States of America With Related Documents (Department of State Publication No. 3263, November 1948), p. 260.
  6. In June 1952, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights approved the Draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Draft Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; the texts are printed in American Foreign Policy, 1950–1955: Basic Documents (Department of State Publication No. 6446), vol. i, pp. 204 and 219.