171. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor (Werts)1
Dear Leo: Thank you for your observations and those of Serafino Romualdi about the Buenos Aires Economic Conference as described in your letter of October 3, 1957 and the accompanying memorandum of conversation.
We on the United States Delegation were very pleased to have Mr. Romualdi. He was cooperative and hard working, and he made, I believe, a very constructive contribution to the performance of our Delegation.
I appreciate the kind remarks that Mr. Romualdi made about the members of our Delegation. I agree with him that the performance of our technical people was highly commendable in every way. In Secretary Anderson and Deputy Under Secretary Dillon we had dedicated and outstanding leadership, and to them must go great credit for the successful and harmonious outcome of the Conference.
As you point out, the United States position papers for a Conference like that at Buenos Aires do not entirely depict the actual position, for a great deal depends on how the guidance in those papers is applied to situations arising in the course of the Conference. The position papers for the Buenos Aires Conference were prepared principally on subjects which we anticipated the Latins would bring up. Many of the customary proposals (such as an Inter-American Bank, price stabilization and parities) which the Latin Americans advance at inter-American meetings are requests which the United States cannot meet. Consequently, there was a natural tendency in the position papers to itemize our reasons for not agreeing with the Latins. But one should not, therefore, conclude [Page 579] that the position of the United States at the Buenos Aires Conference was “negative”.
On the contrary, our general position at the Conference was consistently positive: We emphasized that we, too, earnestly desire that the developing countries of the hemisphere attain the maximum possible economic progress. We stressed our willingness to give our blessing to economically sound undertakings that have a reasonable prospect of advancing the well-being of the Latin American peoples. Again and again we demonstrated our willingness to join with the Latin Americans in studies on any specific proposals that they might care to advance. I believe that the affirmative position of the United States Delegation was largely responsible for the notable harmony that prevailed at the Conference. Indicative of the accord prevailing in Buenos Aires is the fact that the United States Delegation voted against only one resolution.
It is, I suppose, possible to say that the United States at Buenos Aires was “negative” because we did not commit ourselves to such undertakings as a new financial institution in the hemisphere, or price stabilization or parity schemes. On the other hand, it would scarcely be “positive” or constructive, from the point of view of either the Latins or ourselves, if we agreed to undesirable or counterproductive projects. Whenever appropriate at Buenos Aires we expressed our views, in a reasoned and impartial manner, on the merits of the customary Latin proposals, in terms of their economic soundness and the likelihood of their making a genuine contribution to Latin America’s economic progress. At inter-American economic meetings the Latin Americans do not customarily present well-thought-out and carefully-documented proposals, but rather general statements in the form of draft resolutions. In terms of making genuine progress toward solution of inter-American economic problems, more studies and careful thought are required than can be given at a relatively short conference, and the Buenos Aires Conference’s determination to refer many of the basic problems to the IA–ECOSOC for study was a very constructive move. In a word, the utility of these conferences is to promote personal contact among high officials of the Governments, to identify key problems, and to determine the further work to be done. To follow up the Buenos Aires Conference I believe that we should give our best support to the IA–ECOSOC studies, and I am confident that these studies, properly carried out, will do a great deal toward providing valuable background data and useful recommendations to the Governments.
I was never aware of and do not understand Mr. Romualdi’s distinction between the earlier and later stages with regard to the United States attitude and general position. I do not believe that our Delegation placed any undesirable or detrimental emphasis on the [Page 580] role of private capital. At Buenos Aires we simply maintained the traditional and thoroughly justifiable view that both foreign and domestic public capital have an important role to play in Latin America’s economic development, but that foreign and domestic private capital, in our opinion, should carry the main burden of financing and promoting economic development, and that the Governments should seek to create investment climates conducive to a high rate of private investment. Except for some sensitivities, such as that of the Brazilians and Argentines on petroleum development, the emphasis on the importance of private capital is certainly not offensive to the Latin Americans. In their economies private enterprise predominates, although generally speaking, the state probably has a more prominent role in their economies than is true in the United States.
Sincerely yours,