361/4–650
Memorandum of Conversation, by the United States Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States (Daniels)
Subject: Report of OAS Investigating Committee
| Participants: | Ambassador Joseph L. Déjean, Representative of Haiti on the COAS. |
| Ambassador Paul C. Daniels, U.S. Representative on the COAS. |
Ambassador Déjean called at his initiative and, among many other things, said that the Haitian Foreign Minister, M. Beauvoir, had returned to Haiti yesterday very upset because of the amendments to Resolution I proposed by Panama.1 He said that to generalize that Resolution and to eliminate the specific reference to the Dominican Republic would be considered in Haiti as a great injustice, since Haiti sought protection and vindication in regard to the case it had presented before the OAS.
I said that I was entirely in accord with the Haitian point of view in this regard, and that I too did not favor any weakening of Resolution I in regard to the Haitian-Dominican matter. At the same time, I added, if Resolution II were weakened for the benefit of what Ambassador Guell considered to be the interests of Cuba, it seemed quite apparent that out of justice to the Dominican Republic, there should be a corresponding weakening of Resolution I. I said that the Organ of Consultation could not very well put itself in the position of discriminating against one country or another in circumstances roughly equivalent; and that, if the obvious threats to the Dominican Republic from Cuba and Guatemala were to be minimized, out of justice to the Dominican Government the equally obvious threats to the Haitian Government would have to be minimized for the sake of justice. Accordingly, I said to Ambasador Déjean that if Ambassador Guell of Cuba were to meet with any success in taking the teeth from Resolution II; and if, at the same time, out of a spirit of justice, the Organ of Consultation were to feel it equally necessary to remove some teeth from Resolution I, obviously only Haiti would be the loser. In sum, Ambassador Déjean and I were in complete agreement that the amendments presented by the Representative of Panama,2 if approved, would so change the character of the recommendations of the Investigating Committee as to constitute an injustice towards [Page 656] Haiti, and at the same time, somewhat less than circumstances require in regard to the Cuban and Guatemalan phase of the matter.
I suggested to Ambassador Déjean that he discuss this matter fully with Ambassador Quintanilla, who seemed disposed to follow what he considered a “conciliatory” policy. Ambassador Déjean, on his part, asked me to express my views the first thing Saturday morning at our next session, which I said I should be glad to do.
In the course of the conversation, I took advantage of the occasion to suggest to Ambassador Déjean that it would be well received if the Haitians withdrew their proposals regarding Trujillo’s war powers, the; expulsion of Roland and Viau, and an arms limitation agreement between Haiti and Santo Domingo,3 on the grounds that such motions would be defeated now, and it might be smarter to withdraw them on Haiti’s own initiative as a gesture of cooperation. I recommended a broad-minded and conciliatory attitude rather than an aggressive one on the part of Haiti, and, while I think Ambassador Déjean understood this, he made no comment in that regard.4
- At the meeting of the Council acting as Organ of Consultation on April 3, 1950. For text of the Panamanian amendments, see Organizacion, Acta, vol. v, OEA/ser. G/II, C–a–53–64, pp. 709–711.↩
- Ambassador Rodolfo Herbruger.↩
- For text see Organizacion, Acta, vol. v. OEA/ser. G/II, C–a–53–65, pp. 702–704.↩
- Further documentation on U.S. efforts to encourage prompt passage of the resolutions without amendment is in files 720.00 and 638.39 for March and April 1950.↩