III-41

UNITED STATES AMENDMENT TO ITS CUBAN SHIPPING POLICY: Statement Issued by the Department of State, December 16, 1963 97

The United States Government has approved an amendment to its Cuban shipping policy which is expected to result in a substantial additional reduction over the next 12 to 15 months of the number of those free-world ships now calling at Cuba.

The present policy provides that United States Government-financed cargoes will not be shipped from United States ports on foreign flag vessels engaged in trade with Cuba. The Commerce Department maintains a list of such ineligible vessels. In its original form the policy provided for the removal of a vessel from this list when its owners gave satisfactory assurance that no ships under their control would from the date of the assurance be employed in the Cuba trade, so long as it remained the policy of the United States Government to discourage such trade.

Under the amendment to the present policy, persons who control vessels which because of charters already entered into have gone or may go to Cuba may give assurance that such vessels will be excluded from calls at Cuba as quickly as the terms of the charter permit, and that all other vessels under their control would be kept from calling at Cuba. If this assurance is satisfactory to the United States, the United States may then agree to remove vessels which have called at Cuba from the Commerce Department list as any such vessel is withdrawn from the Cuba trade.

If any assurance given in accordance with this amendment is determined to be untrue or has not been complied with, all ships owned or controlled by the persons making such an assurance will immediately be declared ineligible for the carriage of United States Governmentfinanced cargoes from United States ports.

III-42

"THE PROHIBITION AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL TO CUBA IS... AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY": Statement Issued by the Department of State, December 21, 1963 98

Department of State press release No. 629 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 6, 1964, p. 10).

Department of State press release No. 640; the Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 6, 1964, pp. 10–11.

III-43

THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND HAITI

APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE OF FIVE MEMBERS TO STUDY "THE NUMEROUS ATTITUDES AND ACTS OF THE HAITIAN GOVERNMENT” DENOUNCED BY THE DOMINICAN GOVERNMENT AND TO SUBMIT A REPORT THEREON: Resolution Approved by the Council of the OAS Acting Provisionally as Organ of Consultation, April 28, 1963 9

III-44

99

PLEA TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY TRAVEL TO HAITI BECAUSE OF THE DISTURBED CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THAT COUNTRY: Statement Issued by the Department of State, May 2, 1963 1

III-45

HAITIAN REQUEST FOR A MEETING OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER "THE SITUATION IN THE CARIBBEAN CAUSED BY THE REPEATED THREATS OF AGGRESSION AND ATTEMPTS AT INTERFERENCE MADE BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC": Telegram From the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Haiti (Chalmers) to the President of the U.N. Security Council (Seydoux), May 5, 1963 2

III-46

UNITED STATES DECISION TO ORDER THE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. CITIZENS FROM HAITI: Announcement Issued by the Department of State, May 7, 1963 3

"OAS doc. OEA/Ser.G/V/C-d-1062. The main Dominican charge alleged that the Dominican Embassy in Port-au-Prince had been violated by Haitian forces. Haiti, in turn, accused the Dominican Republic of plotting aggressive action against Haiti. The Dominican Republic broke diplomatic relations with Haiti on Apr. 28.

1 Department of State press release No. 246; the Department of State Bulletin, May 27, 1963, p. 834.

2 U.N. doc. S/5302.

3

Department of State press release No. 247; the Department of State Bulletin, May 27, 1963, p. 834. Acting on instructions from Washington, the U.S. Ambassador (Thurston) cut off all contact with the government of President François Duvalier, May 15.

III-47

AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE "TO MAKE AN ONTHE-SPOT STUDY OF THE SITUATION EXISTING BETWEEN HAITI AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND TO OFFER THE PARTIES ITS SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING A PROMPT SOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT AND WARDING OFF THE THREATS TO THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE AREA": Resolution Approved by the Council of the OAS Acting Provisionally as Organ of Consultation, May 8, 1963 4

III-48

"THE PROPER AGENCY FOR ACTION IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES": Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Yost) in the U.N. Security Council, May 9, 1963 (Excerpt)5

6

On May 5 the Government of the Republic of Haiti requested that the Security Council be convened urgently to examine the matter before us. It has been the traditional policy of the United States that, except in unusual situations, requests by a member state for meetings of the Security Council on threats to the peace should be honored. For this reason my delegation supported the adoption of the agenda. The attention of the Council has been invited, however, by several previous speakers to the provisions of article 52 of the charter,' and particularly to paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article, which provide that members of the United Nations shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through regional arrangements or regional agencies, and which asks the Security Council to encourage such practice.

Furthermore, article 33 of the charter states that parties to any dispute likely to endanger peace and security shall "first of all" seek a solution by various peaceful means, among which is included "resort to regional agencies or arrangements." Also, consistent with these provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States provides in its article 20, as has been

OAS doc. OEA/Ser.G/V/C-d-1062. This action was taken after hearing the report of the Committee on its visit to Haiti and the Dominican Republic because "it is evident that conditions still persist that may affect the peace and security," ibid. The Committee made several visits to the area and the Council adopted various resolutions designed to facilitate a solution. At the end of the year, the convocation of the Organ of Consultation had not been cancelled.

U.S.-U.N. press release 4204 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, June 17, 1963, pp. 958-959).

7

Ante, title III-45.

* Text in American Foreign Policy, 1950–1955: Basic Documents, vol. I, pp. 134– 161.

Text in A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941–1949,' pp. 427-445.

pointed out, that international disputes that may arise between American states should be submitted to the peaceful procedures of that organization before being referred to the Security Council.

The provisions I have just referred to do not, of course, derogate from the responsibilities of the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations. But they do prescribe the procedures and the priorities under which the authors of the two charters envisaged that local disputes would be normally dealt with.

Pursuant to these procedures envisaged in both charters, we strongly believe that the proper agency for action in this particular situation is the Organization of American States, especially since that organization has promptly and effectively seized itself of the problem."

III-49

UNITED STATES DECISION TO SUSPEND ACTION ON AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION LOAN AGREEMENT WITH HAITI BECAUSE OF LATTER'S DEFAULT: Statement Issued by the Department of State, July 3, 1963 10

III-50

MEXICO

MEXICAN-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT TO CONCLUDE A CONVENTION FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CHAMIZAL BOUNDARY DISPUTE: Statement Issued by the Department of State, July 18, 1963 11

The Presidents of the United States and Mexico announced today their agreement to conclude a convention for the settlement of the Chamizal boundary dispute. The recommended terms of settlement which the Presidents have approved were submitted to them in identical memoranda by the Department of State and the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Relations.12 According to the terms of the recommended settlement, the United States would transfer to Mexico 437 acres in the vicinity of El Paso, Texas. Conclusion of the convention will be a

At the conclusion of the meeting, the President of the Security Council (Seydoux), after observing that no draft resolution had been submitted, concluded that most of the members of the Council "consider it preferable, at the present stage of the matter, to leave the initiative to the regional organization which is endeavoring to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between its two members." U.N. doc. S/PV.1036. The question remained formally on the agenda of the Security Council.

10 Department of State press release No. 353; the Department of State Bulletin, July 22, 1963, p. 144. Haiti's default was on the last quarterly payments due on loans by the Export-Import Bank and the Development Loan Fund.

"Department of State press release No. 375 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 5, 1963, pp. 199–201).

final step in the resolution of this controversy, which has been earnestly sought by every United States administration since 1910.

An international arbitral commission awarded to Mexico in 1911 an undeterminable part of the Chamizal zone in El Paso, Texas.13 The area of the zone then totaled approximately 598 acres. The Mexican claim was based on a shift in the channel of the Rio Grande. The United States Government, which had disputed the claim, rejected the award on several grounds, but in the understanding that the Governments of the two countries could proceed at once to settle their differences through diplomatic channels. Since 1911 the controversy has been a major problem in relations between the two countries. Every United States administration beginning with that of President Taft has attempted to resolve it in a mutually satisfactory manner. Proposals for a settlement have varied, and every practical means of settling the matter is believed to have been explored by the Governments at one time or another. In June 1962 President López Mateos urged that a further attempt be made, and President Kennedy agreed. The two Presidents instructed their respective executive agencies to recommend a complete solution which, without prejudice to the juridical positions of the two Governments, would take into account the entire history of the tract. They recognized that any mutually acceptable settlement would affect many people in the city of El Paso and agreed that respect for the rights and interests of the people affected on both sides of the border should be a principal consideration in reaching a solution. The recommended settlement follows generally the solution set forth in the international arbitral award of 1911.

An important consideration in a settlement is the firm intention of the two Governments, in accordance with the treaties of 1848 15 and 1853,16 to maintain the Rio Grande as the boundary between the two countries. Maintenance of the Rio Grande as the boundary was an objective of the so-called Banco Treaty of 1905,17 under which thousands of acres, formerly on the United States side of the river, have been transferred to Mexican sovereignty as shifts in the channel placed them on the Mexican side of the river, and other thousands of acres, formerly on the Mexican side, have been transferred to United States sovereignty as they were shifted by river movements to the United States side. Under a 1933 treaty is the river just below El Paso was straightened and stabilized. In that process the two countries exchanged over 10,000 acres in order that the river might remain the boundary.

In the recommended Chamizal settlement, similar transfers of territory are involved and the same problem of maintaining the river as

13 For a summary of this action, see Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1911, pp. 565-605.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 477-479. 15 9 Stat. 922.

1 10 Stat. 1031.

17 35 Stat. 1863. 1 48 Stat. 1621.