838.51/2677½
Memorandum Prepared by the Division of Latin
American Affairs
[Washington,] April 3, 1933.
General Principles Underlying the
Administration’s Policy Towards Haiti
This Government desires to put an end to the special relations between
Haiti and the United States at the earliest possible moment consistent
with carrying out the obligations which both Governments have assumed
towards third parties.
These special relations in general come under two heads:
- First, the training of a Haitian police force (Garde) by
American marine officers. In order to give moral support to
these American officers a Brigade of 850 marines is stationed in
Haiti. It has been the policy of the Navy Department that this
force could not be withdrawn or reduced so long as American
officers remained in the Garde;
- Second, third parties purchased bonds of the Haitian
Government in reliance on the treaty obligation assumed by both
Haiti and the United States to provide efficient financial
control in Haiti during the life of the bonds. In good faith
neither Government would be warranted in weakening or setting
aside these treaty obligations.
Under the first point we intend to withdraw all American forces from
Haiti six months after the entrance into force of the new treaty. This
includes American officers serving with the Haitian police force as well
as the entire Marine Brigade. Under point two we wish to reach an
agreement with the Haitians, as required by the Protocol of 1919 which
was signed by both Governments, in order to provide satisfactory
measures of financial control after the expiration of the present
treaty, so that adequate provision be made for the servicing of the
bonds. This control will automatically come to an end when the bonds
have been redeemed, about 1944.
A memorandum is attached entitled “Policy in Haiti” which gives in more
detail the manner in which the foregoing principles would be applied in
connection with the treaty now under negotiation with Haiti revising in
certain respects the Treaty of September 3, 1932, which failed of
ratification by the Haitian Legislature last September.
[Page 736]
[Annex]
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin
American Affairs (Wilson)46
[Washington,] March 31,
1933.
Policy in Haiti
After conversations with Minister Armour, the following has been
agreed upon as an outline of policy in Haiti:
- 1)
- We will continue on the general lines of policy laid down
in the unratified treaty of September 3, 1932, for the
orderly liquidation of our commitments in Haiti. This
Government does not desire to extend in any way the period
of its financial stewardship. This principle must be borne
in mind in connection with any attempts on Haiti’s part to
obtain further foreign financing. Any proposed increase in
the Haitian public debt will, in accordance with Article 8
of the Treaty of 1915, be referred to the Department for
consideration.
- 2)
- Various modifications can be made in the terms of the
treaty of September 3 which might make it more acceptable to
the Haitian legislature and would not disturb questions
regarded as of fundamental importance from our point of
view. A detailed memorandum regarding such modifications is
being prepared. The general principles to cover such
modifications are noted hereinafter:
- (a)
- Regarding the covering treaty itself the Haitians
have proposed certain clauses covering such matters
as the exercise of professions, et cetera. These
clauses could in general follow the provisions in
the treaties of commerce negotiated by this
Government in recent years. No objection is
perceived to this being done.
- (b)
- Regarding Protocol A, it is felt that total
Haitianization of the Garde and withdrawal of the
Marine Brigade could be effected six months after
the entrance into force of the treaty. Mr. Armour
believes that advancing the date, as this would
presumably do by some months, would be feasible and
that it would not materially weaken the Garde. The
proposal for a military mission was originally made
by the Haitian Government. There was, however,
criticism of this subsequently in Haiti. We should
be willing to omit this provision if the Haitian
Government now desires to do so. If, however, Haiti
still wants the mission, it should be made clear
that it is at the request of the Haitian Government
that the mission is provided.
- (c)
- As regards Protocol B, which provides for
financial administration, it is not seen how this
could be modified in any substantial way. The
obligations of both Governments as set forth in
existing agreements and which furnish the basis on
which people bought the bonds would seem not to
warrant this Government in relaxing the measures of
financial control. One modification which might be
made, however,
[Page 737]
in case the Haitians wanted it,
would be to provide that Protocol B would enter into
effect six months after the entrance into force of
the treaty. This would turn over the administration
of the internal revenues to Haiti at this earlier
date rather than in December, 1934, as provided in
the September 3 treaty.
- 3)
- Reports from the Financial Adviser indicate a probable
surplus of about $400,000 over expenditures for this fiscal
year. With approval of the Department, the use of $100,000
from the surplus has been authorized to begin the irrigation
of the Artibonite plain. The question of the use to be made
of the surplus funds is one which should be decided in Haiti
and we should leave with the Minister power to determine
this. It seems likely that in addition to work on the
Artibonite President Vincent will want some $50,000 for
drainage work and road building, and also about $25,000 for
development of the growing of cotton, $5,000 of which has
already been authorized. Such expenditures would seem
advisable in Haiti’s own interests, they would be made from
surplus Haitian funds, and, as stated above, control over
the use to be made of the surplus revenues should; be left
to the Minister to determine after getting the advice of the
Financial Adviser. This has been the policy followed in the
past in our relations with Haiti. Of course, if revenues
indicate a failure to come up to estimates at any time,
authorization for use of surplus may have to be revised by
the Minister.
- 4)
- The Legation has been informed indirectly by members of
the Government that President Vincent is very much agitated
as to what may be the attitude of the legislature during the
present session which opens April 3 next. He considers it
possible that if the legislature proceeds to vote a budget
which is unacceptable to the Haitian Government or to
American officials, his veto may be overridden by the
legislature and he may then be faced with the necessity of
either allowing the legislature to assume control and pass
various bills of an unsatisfactory nature, or resort to the
dissolution of the legislature. The President has indicated
that he would like to know what would be the American
Government’s attitude were he forced into a position of
taking such action. He feels it essential to know what our
attitude would be in advance as he does not wish to make a
threat to the legislature and later be unable to back it up.
The position that has hitherto been taken by both Dr. Munro
and Mr. Armour has been that the American Government cannot
commit itself in advance as to what would be its attitude in
such cases. In other words, that it cannot deal with
hypothetical cases but must wait until confronted with all
the facts in a situation. The Department feels that this
policy is the correct one and should be continued. It should
be the aim of the Legation to induce the President to keep
within constitutional
[Page 738]
limits. It is felt that the beginning
of construction of public works, which in the President’s
opinion are needed in the country, will alleviate distress
and perhaps have the ultimate effect of smoothing over the
President’s difficulties with the legislature, but in any
case the Department would be reluctant to envisage the
necessity of having to support the President in resort to
unconstitutional methods of dealing with the matter.
