Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

638.30/4–1150

The Secretary of State to the United States Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States ( Daniels )

restricted

Washington, April 11, 1950.¹

No. 4

The Secretary of State refers to instruction No. 2 of March 10, 1950,² concerning the work of the Caribbean Investigating Committee of the Organ of Consultation, acting under the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to consider cases brought before it by Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and to the consideration of the Report prepared by that Committee, which will begin in the Organ of Consultation on April 3, 1950. With regard to the draft resolutions proposed by the Committee, the basic objective of the Department is to obtain their approval, particularly the first three, which apply in the most direct way to the cases being considered, with minimum amendment or debate.³ Since it has been pointed out, however, that certain aspects of the resolutions may be open to interpretations contrary to those deemed desirable by this Government, the attached memorandum has been prepared for the guidance of the US Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States, acting provisionally as the Organ of Consultation, for these cases if in his discretion a suitable opportunity arises for expressing the viewpoint of this Government on these matters.

[Annex]

Memorandum

restricted

March 30, 1950.

The following comments with regard to points which may arise in the April 3 meeting of the COAS, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation, have been prepared for your information and for such use as may be appropriate in the circumstances.⁴

It is recognized that the primary objective of this Government in the debate should be to support approval, in the minimum amount of time and with minimum amendment, of the resolutions proposed by the Caribbean Investigating Committee, particularly the first three which apply in the most direct way to the two cases being considered by the Organ of Consultation. The Secretary has made it a matter of public record that “the United States gives full support to the conclusions and recommendations presented by the Caribbean Investigating Committee …”.⁵ The tactical difficulties which may ensue if the resolutions are opened up to large-scale amendment are obvious, and it is believed that the risk of suggesting minor points of amendment, however desirable these may appear, makes it necessary for us to avoid the difficulties involved in precipitating extensive debate. Furthermore, it is recognized that there has already been accomplished a very considerable watering down of proposals of the type originally submitted by Ambassador Zuleta Angel,⁶ which went much further in the direction of unwarranted action by the Organ of Consultation than can be interpreted to result from the wording of the resolutions as they now stand.

In view of the possibility of interpretations of the resolutions such as those suggested in Mr. Sanders’ memorandum of March 22, 1950, however, and the desire that we make it clear for the record that, if so interpreted, the action of the Organ of Consultation would have unfortunate repercussions, it is suggested that in your discretion, if a suitable opportunity should arise in the course of the debate, the position of this Government on the following specific points should be stated:

1. That the language of paragraph 1 of the Declaratory part of Resolution I, and that of paragraph 3 of the Declaratory part of Resolution II, does not, in the opinion of the United States involve a judicial determination that specific treaty obligations have been violated, since the Organ of Consultation is obviously not a court of law and is, therefore, not the appropriate body to make such legal findings. The emphasis should be on the view that the facts were contrary to norms or principles basic to the inter-American system rather than on their constituting violations of specific treaty provisions.

2. That the inclusion of the words “to protect the principle of nonintervention” in paragraph 2 of the Declaratory part of Resolution I and in paragraph 4 of the Declaratory part of Resolution II is in no sense to be interpreted to mean that the Rio Treaty is applicable to all instances in which it may be alleged that the principle of non-intervention has been violated. It is clear that the Rio Treaty is applicable only in those instances when violation of the principle of nonintervention results in a fact or situation within the meaning of Articles 3 or 6 of the treaty.⁷

3. That action by the COAS, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation, of the type provided for in Resolutions IV and V is only warranted if it stems directly from the situations or disputes which, that body has been convoked to deal with. This point might be emphasized by our taking the position on the voting on these two articles that these two resolutions emanate directly from the consultative organ’s handling of the Haitian and Dominican complaints, and therefore that the parties directly interested who would otherwise be entitled to vote—Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba—should be excluded from the voting on these resolutions.⁸

1. This is the date of record. The date of the final draft is March 30. See footnotes 7 and 8 below for indications that Ambassador Daniels was operating under this instruction at meetings of the Council acting as Organ of Consultation held between April 3 and April 8.
2. Ante, p. 650.
3. For citation to texts of these resolutions as originally submitted, see footnote 3 to the memorandum of a conversation held March 16 by Ambassador Daniels, p. 654. For text of the resolutions as amended and adopted at the meetings noted in footnote 1, above, see Annals, 1950, pp. 147–151, or Department of State Bulletin, May 15, 1950, p. 771. An analysis of the actions of the Organ of Consultation by Edward A. Jamison, Officer in Charge of Special Political Problems in the Office of Regional American Affairs, is printed ibid., July 3, 1950, p. 18.
4. This memorandum embodies some of the comments made in an attached memorandum of March 22, 1950, from Mr. William Sanders, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs, to Ambassador Daniels (not printed).
5. For Secretary Acheson’s statement of March 22, see Department of State Bulletin, April 3, 1950, p. 523.
6. Colombian Representative on the Special Investigating Committee. Reference is apparently to proposals submitted by Ambassador Zuleta Angel before the resolutions were reported out by the Committee.
7. Ambassador Daniels’ memorandum of April 8, 1950, not printed, regarding that day’s final meeting of the Council acting as Organ of Consultation, contains his report of statements he then made which conform closely to the sense of the preceding two numbered paragraphs. (638.39/4–850)

8. In his memorandum of April 8, Ambassador Daniels noted these countries were allowed to vote by a ruling of Chairman Quintanilla, but that he had gone on record as approving a statement that these last two resolutions could only be regarded as suitable for action by the Organ of Consultation by virtue of their having emanated directly from the specific cases under consideration.

   For minutes of the meeting of April 8, see Organizacion, Acta, vol. v, OEA/ser. G/II, C–a–53–64, pp. 723–814.