97. Record of a Delegation Meeting, Santiago, August 17, 1959, 9:15 a.m.1
The Secretary, Chairman
1. International Development Association
Mr. Rubottom called attention to a major development over the week end, the announcement that Secretary Anderson had sent a report to the Senate recommending the establishment of the International Development Association.2 Mr. Rubottom thought that, although we learned about this only through the press after the event, we could still exploit it to our advantage in Santiago. Mr. Berding queried whether it was desirable to plug the IDA before we get the Inter-American Bank into operation. The Secretary too indicated some reservations. Mr. Rubottom thought that the Secretary might usefully make a statement about the IDA and undertook to find out more precise information.
2. Brazilian Attitude on Batista Case
The Brazilian Foreign Office has informed Embassy Rio that Foreign Minister Lafer may make public our note to the Portuguese regarding asylum for Batista.3 Mr. Rubottom said that he would try to induce Lafer to leave the matter alone. The Secretary observed that Lafer wants to show how good a friend of Cuba he is.
3. Progress of Conference
Most of the work of the working groups was completed yesterday, Mr. Rubottom reported. He called on the US members of the three working groups to report on the activities of their committees.[Page 342]
Working Group I:4
Mr. Knight reported that Working Group I had no problems. Three resolutions had been accepted.5 Regarding the “smoke-filled room” resolution,6 only four members of the Committee voted on it; Venezuela supported it but Roa’s son7 took no action on it.
Working Group II:8
Ambassador Dreier said that we can expect more problems in the General Committee with the report of Working Group II.9 Mr. Krieg continued that the two principal points of the first resolution10 are 1) an instruction to the COAS to ask the Juridical Committee to draw up a definition of human rights and to prepare a convention thereon, and 2) the establishment of an Inter-American Committee on Human Rights. Ambassador Dreier said we should oppose point two, allowing the COAS to study the whole idea first. The Secretary thought that we needed a formal statement on this resolution indicating why we were abstaining or, if we were voting for, to explain that we could not be a party to the convention. He asked Mr. Krieg to write out the statement [Page 343]he made yesterday in the working group on this point.11 There was a consensus that it would be preferable for the US to vote for this resolution reserving its position, however, on ultimate adherence. Mr. Krieg continued that the Declaration of Santiago is not too bad and thought we could accept it. The Venezuelan resolution on “The Effective Exercise of Representative Democracy” is a bad, not just meaningless, resolution, Mr. Krieg continued. He expressed the view, and there was general agreement, that we should vote for it, however, after certain changes have been made. It was suggested, and the Secretary indicated agreement, that this item be handled the same as the one on human rights, namely, that we would vote for it but state after our vote that we would not adhere to any arrangements resulting from this resolution.12
Working Group III:13
Mr. Rubottom said he was pleased with the resolution on the desirability of reducing military expenditures.14 It was generally agreed that this resolution would have a good psychological effect. Mr. Rubottom continued that he had been successful in persuading the group to revise the draft resolution on “Economic Underdevelopment and Political Instability”15 to our satisfaction. The Cubans may, however, try to have a committee of outside experts appointed to make recommendations to the Quito Conference.
Haiti is most anxious to present its case at the plenary session and may be expected to do so. Mr., Rubottom thought that the Haitian charges should be referred immediately after the conference to the Inter-American Peace Committee. The Secretary agreed, cautioning [Page 344]that it would be desirable to have the Latin Americans take the lead in this matter. Mr. Rubottom observed that the Haitian Government is too weak to stand against even a handful of dissidents.
5. Expression of Thanks to Delegation
Mr. Rubottom praised all of the delegation members for their hard work during the conference. These sentiments were warmly endorsed by the Secretary.
- Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1437. Secret. Drafted by James.↩
- Reference is to the report submitted to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on August 14 by the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems, entitled Proposed International Development Association, S. Doc. 45, 86th Cong., 1st sess., August 19, 1959.↩
- Brazil and the United States requested asylum for Batista in Portugal. A copy of the note from Ambassador C. Burke Elbrick to Portuguese Foreign Minister Marcelo Goncalves Nunes Duarte Matias, August 11, is enclosure 1 to despatch 73 from Lisbon, August 11. (Department of State, Central Files, 737.00/8–1159)↩
- Working Group I (also called Subcommittee I) consisted of representatives of Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, and was concerned with nonintervention and the Caribbean situation (Agenda Item No. 1).↩
- The General Committee, consisting of representatives of all delegations, unanimously adopted five draft resolutions recommended by Working Group I. The draft resolutions were on Strengthening Peace and Perfecting American Security; Nonintervention; Study by Inter-American Juridical Committee on Nonintervention; and two resolutions on the Inter-American Peace Committee. (Documents 73–76 and 82 of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1423)↩
In his report on a meeting of Working Group I on August 16, Luboeansky stated: “A resolution, drafted in ‘behind-the-scenes’ meeting with select Foreign Ministers, and presented to the Working Group, would provide that the Inter-American Peace Committee make a study of the matters before the Meeting of Consultation; of the relationship between violations of human rights and representative democracy on the one hand and political tensions affecting international peace on the other; and the relationship between economic underdevelopment and political instability. The Peace Committee would be able to take action on its own initiative or at the request of governments to make investigations, except that activities could not be carried out in the territories of states without express consent.” (ibid., CF 1424)
This draft resolution presumably was the work of the 7-power group which met in Chilean Foreign Minister Vergara’s suite on Sunday, August 16. Herter, Rubottom, and Dreier attended this meeting along with the following Foreign Ministers: Láfer of Brazil, Porras of Peru, Taboada of Argentina, Tello of Mexico, Tobar of Ecuador, and Vergara.↩
- Raúl Roa Kouri, Minister, Cuban Embassy in Chile, and Secretary General of the Cuban delegation.↩
- Working Group II (also called Subcommittee II) consisted of representatives of Argentina, Bolivia, Honduras, and Panama, and was concerned with human rights and representative democracy (Agenda Item No. 2).↩
- Working Group II reported four draft resolutions on: Exercise of Democracy; Observers for Election of Supreme Authorities; Human Rights; and the Declaration of Santiago. (Documents 18, 42, 77, and 81 of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation; Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1422 and CF 1423)↩
- Reference is to the draft resolution on human rights, cited in footnote 9 above.↩
- Any delegation could present its views to a working group even though it was not a member of the group. For text of the U.S. statement reserving its position with respect to participation in the instruments or organisms that may evolve, see Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Santiago, Chile, August 12–18, 1959, Final Act (Washington, 1960), pp. 18–19.↩
- For text of the U.S. statement reserving its position in connection with its favorable vote on this resolution, see ibid., p. 19.↩
- Working Group III (also called Subcommittee III) consisted of representatives of El Salvador, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and was concerned with economic development. It proposed two draft resolutions on Economic Development and the Preservation of Democracy and Reduction of Excessive Military Costs. (Documents 79 and 80 of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation; Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1423)↩
- Adopted unanimously in the General Committee after minor revision proposed by Cuba, August 17.↩
- Adopted by acclamation in the General Committee, August 17.↩