724.3415/4213: Telegram
The Ambassador in Brazil (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
Rio de
Janeiro, October 1, 1934—2
p.m.
[Received 6:35 p.m.]
[Received 6:35 p.m.]
253. Department’s 139, September 29, 2 p.m., last paragraph.
- 1.
- It is my impression that the Brazilian Government would be extremely reluctant to modify the attitude it has consistently maintained and which was confirmed in a message to Bolivia day before yesterday, reported in my 252, September 29, 3 p.m.,65 in which it stated “We regret that we cannot accept membership on any committee organized by the League.”
- 2.
- As a practical matter it is not anticipated that the situation envisaged in the Department’s telegram will arise. According to reports received from Geneva the subcommittee of American states will not sit in Buenos Aires but in Geneva. It is not charged with the duty of holding a conciliation conference but with making a report to the main committee, and it is felt here that participation in the work of such a subcommittee would be in no real sense different from participation on the committee itself.
- 3.
- In case Department’s inquiry was prompted by exchange with Uruguayan Government, reported in my 247, September 28, 10 a.m.,65 I venture to draw attention to the fact that the Uruguayan proposal was that the League should withdraw in favor of the nine countries we ourselves had proposed to handle the question. The Brazilian Government having assured itself that this was not to be a proposal that the question would be handled by the League but merely a restatement of our own intentions, felt justified in saying that it would offer no objection providing it was understood that the conference would take place in Buenos Aires, this in order to put a stop to Uruguayan maneuvers to secure the conference for Montevideo. I am assured that this implies no modifications of the Brazilian attitude toward League activities.
- 4.
- In conversation with the Secretary General of the Foreign Office this morning, he tells me that the Brazilian Government has gone definitely on record with the League and with the Governments of Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, in the sense of the message to Bolivia referred to in paragraph 1 above, and would find considerable difficulty in any statement which involved a reversal of policy.
- 5.
- I trust Department will withhold a decision in this matter pending a receipt of an important telegram which I hope to get off tonight embodying the views of the Brazilian Government on the whole question of League activity in American conflicts.
Gibson