740.24112A/10–947
The Ambassador in Bolivia ( Flack ) to the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship ( Elío )77
No. 444
Excellency: I have the honor, under instructions of my Government, to invite Your Excellency’s kind attention to the reported plan of the Bolivian Government which would lift altogether the restrictions imposed on the nine spearhead firms which were included in the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals.
I have informed my Government of this proposed action and in [Page 379] reply I have been instructed to convey to Your Excellency’s Government my Government’s open disappointment in this proposed measure which it feels ignores the activities of these firms during the recent war.
Furthermore, it is the view of my Government that the present Bolivian Government is bound by the obligations undertaken by Bolivia’s acceptance of the Chapultepec resolutions on enemy property.78 Bolivia has in the past itself invoked the Resolutions adopted there in notes addressed to other American Governments in the protection of its own interests.
As Your Excellency will recall, members of this Embassy have been collaborating with officials of the Bolivian Government for a number of years in an attempt to resolve the Replacement Program. Following the Bolivian revolution of July 21, 1946, the new Bolivian Government was again approached under instructions of the Department of State with the hope that it would be possible to institute an effective Replacement Program to be applied against firms and persons whose actions during the recent World War were prejudicial to the United Nations’ cause. At that time the Embassy was again assured that the Bolivian Government would implement its various international obligations on this matter. After a further series of discussions between representatives of this Embassy, the Foreign Office, and the Minister of National Economy, a satisfactory program was agreed upon; namely that the Bolivian Government for economic reasons should lift her restrictions imposed on all Axis firms with the exception of the following nine:
- Juan Eisner y Cia. (Velasco y Cia.)
- Ferretería Findel
- Kyllman, Bauer y Cia. (Gumucio y Cia.)
- Quidde y Cia.
- Gustavo Schomann y Cia.
- Sickinger y Cia.
- Schweitzer y Cia.
- Zeller, Mozer y Cia.
- Fábrica de Conservas de Jorge Stege
It was further agreed that definite action would be taken regarding these remaining nine firms in order to eliminate the influences whose activities had been detrimental to the interests of the United Nations.
Upon the publication of the regulatory resolution of the Economic Defense Board to be applied to the decree of February 12, 1947, which lifted the restrictions on Axis firms in general, it was noted that the [Page 380] resolution had been modified in a way which emasculated it by providing no time limit within which the above listed nine firms should present their cases to the Bolivian Economic Defense Board. This omission was pointed out to Dr. Luís Fernando Guachalla, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Germán Costas, then Minister of Economy. These officials of the Bolivian Government agreed in principle that the Minister of Economy would advise the Embassy of the action recommended by the Economic Defense Board in each case concerning the nine spearhead firms and that, if the action to be taken by the Economic Defense Board was satisfactory to this Embassy, a supplementary decree concerning them would be published. According to the Embassy’s present information, the Economic Defense Board apparently has never formally met to consider the claims of these firms, nor has this Embassy received from the Bolivian Government any recommendations of the Economic Defense Board concerning their petitions. The proposal to publish a decree categorically stating that the nine firms be cleared of all charges against them thus comes as a complete surprise and a marked disappointment to the United States Government.
The position of the United States Government, in brief, is that the Bolivian Government undertook certain obligations regarding Axis dominated firms and persons within its borders. The requirements envisaged by the United States Government concerning the elimination of these Axis influences are known in a general way. The specific details of the elimination of such influences is, of course, a matter for the Bolivian Government to determine, bearing in mind its international obligations. However, in the eyes of the United States Government, the nine firms above named are dominated and controlled by influences which opposed the Allied cause during the recent war.
The United States is particularly interested in Juan Eisner y Cia., Kyllman, Bauer y Cia., and Zeller, Mozer y Cia., since these three firms are partially owned from Germany. The United States regards Enrique Eisner, Guillermo Bauer, and Germán Mozer, German nationals resident in Germany, as beneficial part-owners of the three firms. It is presumed that no matter what action the Bolivian Government may take concerning the other firms, these enemy interests will be eliminated even though they may now be held nominally by Bolivian nationals in trust for these German owners.
In conclusion I should like to point out to Your Excellency that the policy of the United States and the other members of the United Nations, despite the termination of the war and the legal abolishment of the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals, is to continue to view firms and individuals such as the above named nine with apprehension, unless Axis influences have been removed.
[Page 381]My Government has asked me to request that Your Excellency be so kind as to furnish me with copies of the documents presented by these nine firms to the Economic Defense Board in order that they may be available for the records of the Department of State and of the Embassy.
Please accept [etc.]
- Copy transmitted to the Department in despatch 1787, October 9, from La Paz, not printed.↩
- For texts of resolutions, see Pan American Union, Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (Washington, 1945); for documentation on the Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ix, pp. 1 ff.↩