1. The United States and

Latin America: 1945-1950

Comparative stability in postwar Latin

American relations

In the general picture of postwar American foreign policy the Latin American area has taken a somewhat subordinate position. From many angles this is perhaps unfortunate, if inevitable. There is no lack of interest in Latin America on the part of the State Department, and there is no intent to belittle the importance of the 20 republics south of the Rio Grande. It is simply that, in a world troubled by threats of communist expansion and military aggression, the Western Hemisphere has been spared many of the imminent perils present in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Far East. Therefore, it is to the credit of those who have guided the policies of the United States and of its southern good neighbors that a degree of tranquility has prevailed in at least one half of the globe. Following the close and mostly enthusiastic international cooperation among the nations of

events affecting our foreign policy in Latin America.

Shortly before the San Francisco conference which established the United Nations, all the American republics, except Argentina, met Mexico City and signed a resolution which had the effect of making the Monroe Doctrine apply within the hemisphere, even against aggression by an American state. This document was called the Act of Chapultepec after the citadel on the outskirts of the city where the conference assembled.

THE ACT OF CHAPULTEPEC, MEXICO CITY, MARCH 6, 1945: . . . every attack of a State against the integrity or the inviolability of the terri

Mexico City declaration enlarges concept of Monroe Doctrine

tory, or against the sovereignty or political independence of the American State, shall . . . be considered as an act of aggression against the other States which sign this Act. . . . during the war, and until the treaty recommended in Part II hereof is concluded, the signatories of this Act recognize that such threats and acts of aggression . . . constitute an interference with the war effort of the United Nations, calling for such procedures as may be found necessary, including: recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions; breaking of diplomatic relations; breaking of consular relations; breaking of postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radiotelephonic relations; interruption of economic, commercial and financial relations; use of armed force to prevent or repel aggression. [This meeting recommends] That for the purpose of meeting threats or acts of aggression . . . following the establishment of peace, the Governments of the American Republics consider the conclusion . . . of a treaty establishing procedures whereby such threats or acts may be met by the use. . . of any one or more of the [above-suggested] measures.

Argentina

finally joins American republics in

World War II

Perón regime in Argentina reluctant to cooperate with other American states

Although

Argentina was absent from the meeting at Mexico City, a belated declaration of war against Germany and signature of the Chapultepec agreement by the Argentinian government, on March 27, 1945, completed the circle.1

Argentina, in the control of a Fascist-type dictatorship, provided one of the principal Latin American problems of the period just after World War II. Frequently the Argentine government ignored invitations to consult with other American republics on matters of common concern. At other times the regime of Juan Perón defended the means used to settle domestic affairs and professed to see no international implications despite complaints by neighboring states. Moreover, Argentinian policy under Perón grew increasingly hostile toward the United States, although the majority of the irritations were minor in character.

The growing threat of international communism toward all the nations of the Western Hemisphere overshadowed the differences between individual states. To meet this danger the republics of the Americas met at Rio de Janeiro in August 1947 to discuss ways of strengthening the hemispheric cooperation program. Out of this conference came the Rio Pact.2

THE INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE, RIO DE JANEIRO, SEPTEMBER 2, 1947: . . . The High Contracting

The Rio Pact, 1947

Parties formally condemn war and undertake in their international relations not to resort to the threat or the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or of this Treaty. . . . The High Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all the American States and, consequently, each one of the said . . . Parties undertakes to assist in meeting the attack in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. . . . If the inviolability or the

1 Argentina's declaration of war meant that every one of the Latin American republics entered World War II, with declarations of war against one or more of the Axis powers. Eight of the 20 had taken part in World War I.

2 This Pact was entered into under the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter providing for regional arrangements. In a way, the Rio Pact was the pattern for the NATO alliance of 1949.

integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any American State should be affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by an extra-continental or intra-continental conflict, or by any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the Organ of Consultation shall meet immediately in order to agree on the measures which must be taken.

The Monroe Doctrine becomes a multi-lateral guarantee of hemispheric integrity

...

The Rio Pact served as a charter of collective security for the American republics and put the world on notice that the United States and its southern neighbors had extended the Monroe Doctrine into a multilateral guarantee of the integrity of this hemisphere. While this was a defense arrangement it set the stage for a political arrangement to follow. A meeting of the American republics at Bogotá, Colombia, was scheduled for March 30, 1948, to consider the form of such an alliance. Before the conference was well under way a bloody local revolt occurred. Reports indicated that the revolt, which began with the assassination Revolt upsets of the Liberal party leader, Jorge Bogotá Gaitán, on April 9th, was supconference, ported, if not engineered, by communist agents. The Inter-American conference was adjourned and did not resume sessions until April 14th. In spite of the interruption, however, the Bogotá conference accomplished a great deal. Its principal product was the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), the first comprehensive constitution of the Pan-American system of states since its establishment in 1889. The Charter is a long and detailed document, describing the organizational design adopted by the conference. Some of its salient passages are given here.

1948

Creation of the OAS

There are some stories that the backers of the revolt hoped the violence would drive the conferees away from Bogotá, or might even cause casualties among the delegates. Some of the delegates were in danger and about 1,200 citizens of Bogotá were killed in the fighting.

• The Bogotá meeting also produced the Pact of Bogotá, a consolidation of previous treaties on procedures for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There was also an agreement on economic cooperation; a resolution condemning international communism and other forms of totalitarianism; a resolution expressing hopes that occupation of American colonial territories by non-American powers would someday end; and several declarations on social matters. The United States delegation opposed the resolution on colonialism as originally introduced,_ believing that it was not timely. An American Committee on Dependent Territories, authorized by this resolution, met on March 15, 1949.

CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, BOGOTÁ, APRIL 30, 1948: ... Article 1 The American States established by this Charter the international organization that they have developed to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and their independence. Within the United Nations, the Organization of American States is a regional agency. . . . The Organization of American States proclaims the following essential purposes: a) To strengthen the peace and security of the continent; b) to prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the Member States; c) to provide for common action on the part of those States in the event of aggression; d) to seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise among them; and e) to promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social and cultural development.

...

Article 5 The American

or

States reaffirm the following principles: a) International law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations; b) International order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law; c) Good faith shall govern the relations between States; d) The solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought through it require the political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of representative democracy; e) The American States condemn war of aggression; victory does not give rights; f) An act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression against all the other American States; g) Controversies of an international character arising between two more American States shall be settled by peaceful procedures; h) Social justice and social security are bases of lasting peace; i) Economic cooperation is essential to the common welfare and prosperity of the peoples of the continent; j) The American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without distinction as to race, nationality, creed or sex; k) The spiritual unity of the continent is based on respect for the cultural values of the American countries and requires their close cooperation for the high purposes of civilization; 1) The education of peoples should be directed toward justice, freedom and peace. .. Article 6 States are juridically equal. The rights of each state depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law. ... Article 9 The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. . . . Article 10 Recognition implies that the

...

...

...

State granting it accepts the personality of the new State. Article 15 No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly . . . in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Article 16 No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind. Article 17 The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force. ... No territorial acquisition or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized. . . Article 20 All international disputes that may arise between American States shall be submitted to the peaceful procedures set forth in this Charter, before being submitted to the Security Council of the United Nations. . . . Article 24 Every act of aggression by a State against the territorial integrity or the inviolability of the territory or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American State shall be considered an act of aggression against the other American States. Article 25 If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of an American State should be affected . . . the American States, in furtherance of the principles of continental solidarity or collective self-defense, shall apply the measures and procedures established in the special treaties on the subject. . . .5 Article 32 The Organization of American States accomplishes its purposes by means of: a) The Inter-American Conference; b) The meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; c) The Council; d) The Pan American Union; e) The Specialized Conferences; and f) The Specialized Organizations. . . .6 Article 102 None of the provisions of this Charter shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations. . . Article 109 The present Charter shall enter into force among the ratifying states when two-thirds of the signatory states have deposited their ratifications. . . Article 112 The present Charter shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced by any Member State upon written notification to the Pan American Union. . . After two years from the date . . . of denunciation, the present charter shall cease to be in force with respect to the denouncing State.. The Inter-American Conference (Articles 3338) was to meet every five years, or oftener if deemed necessary, while the meeting of Consulta

7

...

tion of Ministers of Foreign Affairs Functioning of (Articles 39-47) would convene at the OAS the request of a member state if that request was approved by a majority of the members of the Council. In case of an armed attack the Chairman of the Council is empowered to call a meeting of consultation immediately. The meeting of consultation is provided with an Advisory Defense Committee, composed of the highest military authorities of the respective states, each state having one vote on the Committee. The Council (Articles 48-77) is the most important agency of the OAS. Each state has one representative on the Council and the Council elects its own chairman and vice-chairman for one-year non-renewable terms. The Council, furthermore, is empowered to establish and to direct three subordinate bodies: a) The Inter-American Economic and Social Council; b) The Inter-American Council of Jurists; and c) The Inter-American Cultural Council.

Place of the Pan-American Union in the OAS

The Pan-American Union is named as the central and permanent organ of the OAS (i.e. the Secretariat) and the Secretary General of the OAS is the director of the Union. Washington, D. C., is designated as the seat of the Pan-American Union. The elaborate design of the OAS has been criticized as being too complex and the Charter as too all-inclusive. In fact, the American delegation at Bogotá, headed by Secretary Marshall, was unsuccessful in its efforts to limit the Charter to a definition of the form of the Organization and an enumeration of its constituent bodies. Later, when the American Senate finally ratified the Charter on August 28, 1950, almost 52 months after it was framed, the American acceptance was hedged with reservations designed to remove the Charter provisions on economic, social, and cultural standards from fields of controversy involved in American federal-state relations. The Charter became effective December 13, 1951, when Colombia ratified the Bogotá document.

OAS Charter becomes effective, 1951

While on the subject of the Bogotá conference it might be well to say a few words about the Pact

The Pact of Bogotá

of Bogotá, a treaty signed on April 30, 1948. This Treaty of Pacific Settlement, provided for in Article 23 of the OAS Charter, created the machinery to be used in disputes between American states. The most interesting feature of the Treaty is the provision for a Commission of Investigation and Conciliation (Articles XV-XXX) of five members directed by the OAS Council. Furthermore, the Pact recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in specific fields relating to legal questions. The United States inserted a reservation in respect to the jurisdiction of the Court and held out for the right to decide for itself whether a dispute might be submitted to arbitration.8

First major case before the OAS Council

in

The first major decision by the Council of the OAS was reached late in 1948. On December 10, 1948 Costa Rica complained that it had been invaded from Nicaragua by armed forces led by former President Guardia. The OAS Council met Washington on December 14th. It voted to put the Rio treaty provisions into effect and planned to send an inquiry commission to the scene. This commission reported on December 27 that Costa Rican political exiles had fomented the invasion and that the Nicaraguan government had not been involved. The Council thereupon warned Costa

OAS settles conflict between Haiti and Dominican Republic

Rica and Nicaragua to abstain from hostile acts in the area. The dispute was finally ended on February 21, 1949, when the two nations signed a friendship pact in Washington. Two days later the Council met to consider charges by Haiti that the Dominican Republic was implicated in a plot to overthrow the Haitian president. This conflict between the two states occupying the island known to the Spaniards as Hispaniola was settled amicably by the OAS on June 9, 1949 by the signing of a joint pledge of friendly relations.

During August and September 1949 the InterAmerican Peace Committee held a series of meet

The text of the Pact of Bogotá, and of the U. S. reservations, will be found in Dennett and Turner, op. cit., pp. 503515.

We

we

ADDRESS BY SECRETARY ACHESON ON "WAGING PEACE IN THE AmericaS," NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 19, 1949: ... the security system which has culminated in the Rio treaty is now facing a crucial test. For more than 2 years the Caribbean area has been disturbed by plots and counterplots. These plots in themselves have been inconsistent with our common commitments not to intervene in each other's affairs. . . . at times the entire area has approached a state of political turmoil. This situation is repugnant to the entire fabric of the inter-American system. .. Aggression or plotting against any nation of this hemisphere is of concern to us. Wherever it occurs we shall use our strongest efforts ... to oppose it and to defend the peace of the hemisphere. oppose aggression; we do not oppose change. welcome and encourage change where it is in the direction of liberty and democracy. our act of recognition [of a new government] need not be taken to imply approval of it or its policies. . . . our longrange objectives in the promotion of democratic institutions may, in fact, be best served by recognizing it and thus maintaining a channel of communication with the country involved. . . . Since recognition is not synonymous with approval. . . our act of recognition need not necessarily be understood as the forerunner of a policy of intimate cooperation with the government concerned. The economic field offers the greatest opportunity for constructive action. We believe that . . [our] general program [of economic aid by both public and private capital] can best be developed in full consideration of the special needs of individual countries. . . . The United States is prepared to lend its assistance, both directly and through international bodies, to working out specific programs with individual countries. . . progress will come most rapidly in countries that help themselves vigorously. Economic development, like democracy, cannot be imposed from outside. . . . The good-neighbor policy as we practice it today is, for us, an historic, bipartisan, national policy. . . . We seek

...

...

by positive good will and effort to strengthen the Organization of American States, within the more extensive design of the United Nations, as the most effective expression of law and order in this hemisphere. . . .

It is notable that Secretary Acheson, even in the midst of an address on the political turmoil in the Caribbean area saw fit to emphasize the

Economic problems

at the base of most Latin American questions

economic needs of the region. For, whatever the politics of the Latin American countries might be, their economic problems remained as the basic difficulties they and the United States had to face. Until the adjustment from the rapid expansion and encouragement of production which characterized the war years to the shrunken economy of the postwar period could be made with more equity and more balanced effect, social conditions in the Latin American republics would continue to make political progress slow, if not impossible. However, as Secretary Acheson indicated in his September 1949 speech, economic cooperation alone could not solve the unrest in the area. There had to be, at the same time, national and hemispheric security and the encouragement of democratic representative institutions.

As a result of the Peace Committee's recommendations, the OAS Council, on January 6, 1950 appointed a fact-finding committee to study the

OAS studies the Caribbean area

Caribbean situation. This committee made a report which was published by the Council on March 19, 1950. This report accused Cuba, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic of actions which endangered the peace of the Caribbean and recommended sanctions against the offending nations if they continued to break the peace. The OAS Council on April 8, agreed unanimously to prevent further trouble in the Caribbean. Shortly thereafter the attention of the State Department and American policy makers was turned, by the force of events, to Korea, and Latin America became a valued, if somewhat neglected, ally.

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council at a conference in Washington, March 20 - April 10, 1950, prepared a program for hemispheric technical cooperation.