361/3–1650
Memorandum of Conversation, by the United States Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States (Daniels)1
Subject: Report of OAS Investigating Committee
| Participants: | Ambassador Joseph L. Déjean, Representative of Haiti on the COAS. |
| Ambassador Paul C. Daniels, U.S. Representative on the COAS. |
Ambassador Déjean called at my office by appointment and we discussed the report of the OAS Investigating Committee on the Caribbean situation.2 While he expressed no objection to the report, his enthusiasm seemed to me to be somewhat less than was to have [Page 654] been expected. As in the case of other Ambassadors, perhaps Ambassador Déjean felt he should be cautious in making comments before his Government had given the report thorough consideration. I expressed certain views to Ambassador Déjean as follows:
- 1)
- That I felt it highly important that the resolution on Case B, as well as Case A,3 be approved by the Organ of Consultation, since if only Case A were approved but not Case B, the effect on the OAS would be most unfortunate. To my gratification, Ambassador Déjean expressed agreement, saying that failure to approve them both would be “desastreux”.
- 2)
- That I hoped prolonged debate on the substance of the report could be avoided at the April 3 meeting;4 even though possibly the interested parties might wish to express unilaterally their comments in regard to the report. I said that this might well be the subject of prior accord among the interested parties, in agreement with Ambassador Quintanilla, as was done prior to the meeting on March 13. Ambassador Déjean expressed agreement.
- 3)
- I said I attached importance to the watch-dog committee of five to be set up pursuant to resolution 3, as constituting a means for giving continuity to the recommendations to be approved by the Organ of Consultation. Ambassador Déjean said he likewise thought that was a very good idea.
- 4)
- When Ambassador Déjean referred to the possibility of voting the “conclusions”5 of Case A and Case B, as well as the resolutions, I said that was a new idea to me and that I did not believe the Committee contemplated that the conclusions or any part of the report be submitted to vote—but only the draft resolutions. I gathered the impression that Ambassador Déjean saw some advantage in having the “conclusions” voted, and I attempted to dissuade him from this view on grounds that it would conceivably put representatives from such countries as Paraguay and Chile in an unnecessarily awkward situation, having no direct knowledge of the facts; and that in any event the resolutions for Case A and Case B seemed to cover the matter adequately. I am not sure whether Ambassador Déjean will bring up this point again.
Ambassador Déjean said he planned to return to Port-au-Prince for a few days to consult with his Government. I said that I should like very much to have a further conversation with him upon his return, to which he readily agreed.
- Ambassador Daniels was also the U.S. member of the OAS Special Investigating Committee.↩
- The report of the Special Investigating Committee was presented to the Council of the OAS, acting as Organ of Consultation, on March 13. For text, see Annals, 1950, pp. 231–252.↩
- “Case A” refers to the Haitian charges against the Dominican Republic; “Case B,” to the Dominican complaints against Cuba, Haiti, and Guatemala. Texts of the resolutions in both cases, as originally drafted by the Special Investigating Committee, are in Organizacion de los Estados Americanos, Acta del Consejo, vol. v, OEA/ser. G/II, C–a–53–64 (Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., 1950), pp. 879–888.↩
- The resolutions did not come to a vote at this meeting. For minutes, see Consejo, Acta, OEA/ser. G/II, C–a–40–52, pp. 526–812.↩
- These were contained in the body of the Special Investigating Committee’s report and were never moved as resolutions. For text cited, see footnote 2, above.↩