638.39/3–1050
The Secretary of State
to the United States Representative on the Council of the
Organization of American States (Daniels)
confidential
Washington, March 10,
1950.
No. 2
Sir: Your attention is invited to the
position paper enclosed herewith in which the views of the
Department are set forth concerning various subjects under
consideration by the Caribbean Investigating Committee of the Organ
of Consultation acting under the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro to
consider the cases brought before it by Haiti and the Dominican
Republic.
As United States member of the Investigating Committee, and member of
the Council of the Organization of American States, you should be
guided by the position outlined in the enclosure. The Department
will be glad to provide further detailed instructions should you so
request.
Very truly yours,
For the Secretary of State:
Willard F. Barber
[Attachment]
Position Paper
the problem
To determine the position which should be taken by the United
States member of the Caribbean Investigating Committee of the
Council of the Organization of American States, acting
provisionally as Organ of Consultation under the Rio Treaty, in
regard to subjects, being considered in connection with its
report to the Council, March 1950.
[Page 651]
recommendations
The United States Representative should be guided by the
following positions in regard to each subject mentioned.
(Further instructions may be formulated regarding additional
subjects which may be raised in connection with the Committee’s
Report.)
- 1.
-
Conclusions Regarding Facts of Cases A and
B.1 It is the position of the
United States that the Committee should report fully on all
pertinent facts obtained in its investigation, and on
reasonable conclusions to be drawn therefrom. In view of the
nature of the case and the expectations of people and
governments regarding the work of the Committee, a full
exposure of facts is required. The United States should
oppose, in the event it is suggested, any proposal to
withhold evidence on the grounds of avoiding offense to
governments or because of remedial actions taken since the
charges were first placed before the Council. The full
exposure of facts concerning the participation of
governments, groups and individuals involved in the
Caribbean situation under study is considered the most
important single objective of the Committee’s work.
- 2.
-
Machinery for Continuing
Surveillance. The position of the United States is to
support the establishment of some continuing surveillance by
the Organization of American States over the Caribbean area
at least until it shall have become clear that the
activities and allegations giving rise to the two cases
under study have ceased and are not likely to be resumed.
This continuing surveillance might be entrusted to a special
committee of the Council of the Organization of American
States or of the Organ of Consultation. Any such steps
should, however, be entirely separate from any measure to
change the composition or status of the Inter-American Peace
Committee.
- 3.
-
Other Measures to Safeguard Inter-American
Peace and Security in the Caribbean. The United
States should support a recommendation by the committee and
the Council to the Governments concerned that they take such
additional measures as are necessary or desirable to render
unlikely a repetition of acts which caused the situation now
under study. Such measures might include the application of
any recognized international procedures for the peaceful
solution of outstanding or future differences; or the
adoption of internal policies and practices which may be
necessary to correct laxity or failure in the observance of
inter-American treaty obligations respecting nonintervention
and the maintenance of peace.
- 4.
-
General Conclusions. It is the
position of the United States that emphasis in the
Committee’s report should be placed upon the specific
findings and recommendations regarding Cases A and B.
Recommendations which the Committee desires to make on
problems of a more general nature, which have contributed to
the development of the two aforementioned cases, should take
the form of proposals for further study by the appropriate
inter-American agency. The Committee should not attempt to
solve or even suggest the solution to problems of a general
nature. The United States should support the following
viewpoints regarding specific subjects already under
consideration by the Committee for inclusion in its general
conclusions.
- (a)
- It is desirable that the Habana Convention on the
Rights and Duties of States in the Event of Civil
Strife (1928)2 be reviewed to determine whether
improvement can be made in it. Attention might
particularly be given to the possibility of
clarifying the duties of States regarding control of
political exiles within their borders in order to
prevent their carrying out acts forbidden by the
Convention; and agreement on some procedure for the
adjudication of disputes over application or
interpretation of the Convention. No encouragement
should be given to the suggestion that provisions
for sanctions or other enforcement machinery be
included in this Convention,3 however, since adequate
enforcement machinery already exists in the Treaty
of Rio de Janeiro.
- (b)
- It is not desirable to promote a further general
study of the broad subject of non-intervention as
stated in the agreements of Montevideo, Buenos Aires
and Bogotá. The desirable ends in this connection
can be achieved by concentrating attention on the
specific provisions of the Habana Convention
referred to above.
- (c)
- It is desirable for the Committee to point out
that the threat to inter-American peace and
security, which it has studied in the Caribbean, is
in large measure created by the presence of numerous
political exiles, and that so long as democratic
government fails to function in the Americas, this
cause of international difficulties may be expected
to continue in some degree. The United States may
support recommendations that the Organization of
American States give further study to the question
of how the principle of Article 5(d) of the Charter of the Organization of
American States (that effective representative
democracy is necessary to the aims of inter-American
solidarity) may be more fully realized.
-
- The United States should not oppose inclusion in
the Report of a recommendation that the Organ of
Consultation express the view that the democratic
principle does not authorize individual governments
to violate legal commitments on non-intervention,
provided the phraseology of the recommendation does
not imply that action through [Page 653] the inter-American
system to strengthen democracy is under all
circumstances forbidden.4
- (d)
- The United States should not oppose a suggestion
for the further study of the problem of political
asylum, if proposed by others, but in that event
should make clear that it does not subscribe to the
doctrine of asylum as part of international
law.
- (e)
- It is desirable for the Committee to point out
that excessive armament on the part of some
governments have had a part in augmenting
international tensions in the Caribbean area. This
subject may be posed as one which might merit
further consideration at some time. The Committee
should be particularly careful, however, to avoid
specifying the time or the terms of reference of any
such study, or suggesting that an inter-American
arms regulation agreement is desirable under present
circumstances.
- (f)
- The relationship of the Inter-American Peace
Committee to the Organization of American States
should be clarified at the next Inter-American
Conference. It is premature, however, for the
Committee or Council at this time to suggest what
that relationship should be.
