Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1937, General, Volume I

852.00/6314

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of American Republics (Duggan) of a Conversation With the First Secretary of the Chilean Embassy (Huneeus)

[Washington,] September 2, 1937.

Mr. Huneeus stated that following my conversation with him yesterday⁴³ with respect to the probable scope of this Government’s reply to the Uruguayan proposal for the recognition of belligerent rights, he had sent a telegram to his Government. He now has a telegram in reply which covers the following points:

1. That in all probability it would not be possible to get a favorable response on the part of all countries to the Uruguayan proposal, either because of internal considerations or because of the policy of some countries not to intervene or become involved in European affairs;

2. That a negative reply to the Uruguayan proposal might do an injustice to one of the parties;

3. That a negative reply might throw the matter into the next League assembly, and

4. That the Chilean Government suggests the desirability of convening a consultation of the American Republics under the consultative provisions of the conventions adopted at Buenos Aires.⁴⁴

I expressed my interest in the information conveyed by Mr. Huneeus with regard to the views of his Government, and said that I would see that it was placed before the proper officers in the Department at once.

It is obvious from the nature of this reply that the Chilean Government is not unfavorable to the Uruguayan proposal. From the beginning of the Spanish civil strife the Chilean Government has been one of the countries most favorably disposed toward the rebels. Its Embassy in Madrid has served as a haven of refuge for rebel sympathizers, and Chilean diplomatic and consular officers have been involved in a number of incidents that have shown a marked prejudice in favor of the rebels. Eu⁴⁵ is in a better position than this Division to comment on the activities in Spain of Chilean Government officials.

Action under any of the conventions adopted at Buenos Aires would seem rather far-fetched. In the first place, the only countries which have ratified the appropriate conventions are, besides the United States, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and El Salvador. In the second place it is open to considerable question whether any of the provisions of the Buenos Aires conventions, even were they in effect, would cover the type of question raised by the Uruguayan Government. A copy of the principal provisions with respect to consultation in the Buenos Aires Treaty is attached hereto.⁴⁶

It would appear, therefore, that if consultation is to be held it would have to flow from the spirit of the Buenos Aires conference and conventions adopted there, rather than from any treaty now in effect. It is my own preliminary view that the present matter is not of the character contemplated for consultation under the Buenos Aires convention, and that in so far as inter-American relations are concerned, it would be a misfortune for the first consultation to concern itself with a matter of this character.

Laurence Duggan

43. Memorandum of conversation, August 31, not printed.
44. See Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. v, pp. 3 ff.
45. Division of European Affairs.
46. Enclosure not printed.