Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

710 Peace/9–549

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Special Inter-American Affairs (Jamison)

confidential

[Washington, September 5, 1949.]

An informal meeting of the Inter-American Peace Committee was held on September 5, 1949 at the home of Ambassador Accioly. All of the members of the Peace Committee were present, together with Ambassador Gonzalez Arévalo of Guatemala, who will leave soon to become the Foreign Minister of that country. The discussion covered a wide range of topics in connection with the Peace Committee’s examination of the Caribbean situation, but the following stand out as significant aspects of the meeting:

(1) Gonzalez Arévalo ventured the assurance that he would not condone or support activities of revolutionary groups.

(2) Gonzalez Arévalo raised again the question of the competence of the Committee to examine into a situation in which there was not a clear conflict between two or more parties. He insisted that since no direct accusation had been made by any government, specifically against the Guatemalan Government, it could not be said that any conflict exists. Furthermore he said that even if the Dominican Government asserted that there was a conflict, Guatemala would not agree.

(3) Ambassador Güell reiterated the Cuban view that the Committee must approach the examination of the problem from the hemispheric viewpoint, and that any of its conclusions must combine clearly the principle of non-intervention and that of democratic government. This produced the most lively discussion, the chief result of which seemed to be that the other four members of the Committee were clearly agreed that it was the Committee’s business to deal with problems arising from a violation of the duty of non-intervention, but that the Committee would be going outside its competence if it attempted to apply standards of democratic government. It was pointed out by Ambassador Daniels that democratic principles were certain to suffer if there continued to be illegal international activities such as those carried on by the revolutionary groups in the Caribbean, with the apparent effort to justify such illegal activities in the name of “democracy”.

It was of interest that the Argentine Representative readily agreed with and emphasized the view that the obligation of non-intervention applies with equal force throughout the hemisphere.

(4) Although possible formulae for achieving an amelioration of the Caribbean tensions, such as the possible simultaneous issuance of a declaration by Guatemala and the Dominican Republic (similar to that issued by, Haiti and the Dominican Republic) were advanced, there was no indication that Gonzalez Arévalo was prepared to accept any formula or follow any clear line beyond his insistence that a conflict does not exist.

In spite of the fact that no progress appears to have been made in arriving at a formula for Peace Committee action, it is believed that the meeting with Gonzalez Arévalo was highly useful, if only because of his becoming more fully informed as to (1) the reasons for the Peace Committee’s dealing with the problem, and (2) the fact that tolerance of the illegal activities of the Caribbean Legion is an important cause of preoccupation among American governments.