363/12–750
The Assistant Officer in Charge of Central America and Panama Affairs (Siracusa) to the Chargé in Guatemala (Wells)
official informal
Dear Milton: I thought it would be worth-while at this point to bring you up to date on the matter of the Guatemalan reservation to the Rio Treaty.1 There have been a number of memoranda written on the subject, some of which originated in other offices and were not sent to you. Part of what I have to say may have already come to your attention but, if so, the repetition here for the sake of chronology is not inappropriate.
Several weeks ago, we handed to Ambassador Goubaud a copy of a draft of a memorandum2 which we were going to submit to the Pan American Union asking for clarification of the Guatemalan position. Specifically, it asked that the United States be informed whether our understanding of the reservation is correct, i.e. “that the Government of Guatemala does not intend in any degree to limit its acceptance of any of the obligations contained in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. This Government has in mind, particularly, the obligations contained in Article 1 of the Treaty, in which the parties to the Treaty ‘undertake in their international relations not to resort to the Treaty or the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or of this Treaty’.”
The draft further reaffirmed the United States position stated at the time of signature of the Final Act of the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace and Security, namely, “… that the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro has no effect upon the sovereignty, national or international, status of any of the territories included in the region defined in Article 4 of the Treaty”. Accordingly, in any action it may take with regard to the proposed Guatemalan reservation, the United States’ memorandum stated that it would not desire in anywise to pass judgment upon the status of any such area.
[Page 926]On November 20, Ambassador Goubaud called to present a formal initialed memorandum,3 which responded to the draft memorandum mentioned above. In essence, it stated that “the Government of Guatemala maintains that said reservation, completely clear and which is explained by itself alone, obeys the imperious necessity of protecting and duly safeguarding the national interests unjustly violated by an extra-continental power”. It went on to state that the Government of Guatemala had no additional comment to make with respect to said reservation, nor in relation to the rest of the content of the Department’s memorandum. It was probably an error to accept this memorandum, since no formal reply was required in view of the fact that no communication had been addressed to the Government of Guatemala. However, the position taken by Guatemala is very disturbing in that the probable failure of some governments to accept its reservation threatens to fragmentize solid adherence to the Rio Treaty and introduce complications arising from the legal effects of such reservation and Guatemala’s intention with respect to it.
Insofar as I know, to this date only 4 countries have indicated to the Pan American Union their views with respect to the reservation; El Salvador and Honduras accepted it without question; Mexico merely stated that it would reserve its rights to Belize, should there be any change in the status of that territory; and Peru indicated a refusal coupled with a qualified acceptance only if the reservation did not mean the use of other than peaceful means with respect to Guatemalan pretentions in Belize.
A meeting was called in the Department4 to consider two alternative courses of action:
- (a)
- Rejection of the reservation.
- (b)
- Acceptance, conditioned by a unilaterally stated understanding that the reservation involves no derogation from Rio Treaty or United Nations Charter obligations.
It was generally agreed that neither of the above courses should be taken for the time being, and that further efforts should be made to work out a satisfactory solution. It was decided that Mr. Mann would discuss the matter with Goubaud, and impress upon him the seriousness with which we view Guatemala’s attitude (this has been done and you will shortly receive a memorandum of that conversation). [Page 927] It was also decided that consideration should be given to withholding our reply for several months with the hope that changes in the domestic situation in Guatemala would make possible a change in her present intransigence, specifically, its unwillingness to undertake to state that the reservation does not imply any limitation of her obligation under the Rio Treaty and the United Nations Charter. It was pointed out that while no domestic change in Guatemala could be counted upon to alter Guatemalan views with respect to Belize, such a change might make it possible for Guatemala to give satisfactory clarification of the meaning of this reservation. It has also been established, lest our silence on the matter be construed by the PAU as acceptance, that we will be consulted and given an opportunity to state our position prior to the deposit of ratification.
In a recent conversation with Ambassador Goubaud, Ambassador Daniels has also taken up this subject and impressed upon him our serious preoccupation and our desire to find some means whereby Guatemalan ratification of the Rio Treaty could be unanimously accepted among the 21 American republics. Ambassador Daniels also made very clear the difficulty in “swallowing” the Guatemalan reservation because of its apparent inconsistency with the requirement of the Treaty not to resort to the use of force in the settlement of disputes.
As you can see, in addition to wanting to get unanimity with respect to the Treaty, we do not wish by wording of the Treaty to indicate, even tacitly, any position with respect to the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of Guatemala’s claim to Belize; nor do we wish to permit the possibility that by operation of the Treaty we might be called upon to support Guatemala militarily in a venture in Belize.
Discussions will continue on this end and, although you need not make a specific point of doing so, or indicate that you are acting under instructions, it might be well for you to take a similar line on that end, and try to induce an atmosphere which would permit an acceptable clarification of Guatemala’s interpretation of the meaning of its reservation.5
Sincerely,
- The Spanish text of a legislative decree of September 22, 1950, which ratified the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, is enclosed with despatch 370 from Guatemala City, October 5, not printed. The reservation mentioned was to the effect that the Treaty did not constitute any hindrance to the exercise by Guatemala of rights over Belize (British Honduras, claimed by Guatemala) by methods and at a time of its own choosing. (710.5/10–550)↩
- Memorandum handed to Ambassador Goubaud October 17, not printed.↩
- Presented November 20 but dated November 16, not printed.↩
- On November 27. Participants included Mr. Mann; Paul C. Daniels, U.S. Representative to the Council of the Organization of American States; William Sanders, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs; George N. Monsma, Officer in Charge of International Organization Affairs in the Office of Regional American Affairs; Edward A. Jamison, Officer in Charge of Special Political Problems in that Office; Marjorie M. Whiteman, Assistant to the Legal Adviser; and Mr. Siracusa. Mr. Jamison’s memorandum of this Conversation is not printed. (710.5/11–2750)↩
- In a letter to Mr. Siracusa of December 15, 1950, Mr. Wells reported in part that in a conversation the preceding day with Sr. José Luís Mendoza, Chief of the Belize Office of the Foreign Ministry, he had obtained no satisfaction or hint that clarification of the reservation would be forthcoming. (363/12–1550)↩