Caribbean area, with the understanding that the said conclusions are applicable not merely to the aforesaid situation, but to all American States without exception." i [f] INVITATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA (1949).2 On December 6, 1949, the Cuban Ambassador to the Organization sent a note to the Chairman of the Committee, in which he stated that the Government of Cuba "would be pleased to receive a visit from the Committee so that it can determine for itself that there are no movements or preparations on Cuban territory" intended for the purpose of launching an aggression against the Dominican regime, as was alleged in news reports emanating from official agencies of the Dominican Republic. After considering all the factors in the case, the Committee decided not to take advantage of the suggestion of the Cuban Government that it go to the place where it was alleged that the incidents had occurred (Appendix F).3 [g] NOTE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (1949).* In December 1949 serious concern was expressed in the Committee with respect to the granting of special powers for the declaration of war requested by the President of the Dominican Republic and later authorized by its national Congress. Through its Representative on the Council of the Organization of American States, the Dominican Republic was informed that this concern had been expressed (Appendix G).5 [h] SITUATION BETWEEN CUBA AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (1951). On November 26, 1951, the Government of Cuba requested the services of the Committee to aid in the solution of a problem that had arisen in connection with the seizure, by authorities of the latter Government, of five Cuban sailors of the vessel "Quetzal". With Ambassador Luis Quintanilla, the Representative of Mexico, serving as Acting Chairman, the Committee met to study the note received from the Cuban Government, and it informed the Government of the Dominican Republic of the aforesaid request. In a note dated December 7, the Dominican Government, on its part, requested the Committee to suggest a method for settling the controversy mentioned in the minutes of the September 9, 1948 meeting of the Inter-American Peace Committee and Resolution II (5) approved on April 8, 1950, by the Council of the Organization of American States acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation. The Foreign Ministers of both For the texts of the Apr. 8, 1950, Resolutions of the Council, see supra, doc. 3. 2 Second Report ., pp. 9-10. 3 Not reprinted here. Second Report Not reprinted here. p. 10. Second Report . . ., pp. 10-11. ? For text of minutes, see ibid., Appendix C, pp. 24–26. For text of the resolutions, see supra, doc. 3. Governments, accompanied by high diplomatic officials, attended the meetings that the Committee held in Washington to study the problems that had arisen. The Committee terminated its activities on the night of December 25, 1951 with the signing of the Declaration that appears in the minutes of the Committee meeting of that date (Appendix H).' [i] SITUATION BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND PERU (1953-1954).2 On November 18, 1953, His Excellency Evaristo Sourdis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, presented to the Inter-American Peace Committee a note, dated November 17, in which his Government requested the services of the Committee in finding a procedure that would be conducive to the settlement of a dispute existing between the Republics of Colombia and Peru by reason of the asylum of Mr. Victor Raul Haya de la Torre in the Embassy of Colombia in Lima. The Government of Colombia accredited a special Delegation to represent it before the Committee. The Inter-American Peace Committee immediately sent the Government of Peru a copy of the Note of the Government of Colombia and offered its good services to aid in settling the dispute. The Government of Peru declined the offer of the Committee and invoked its Reservation to Resolution XIV of the Second Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs-according to which "the Committee shall function only at the request of the interested Parties"-and Article 7 of the Statutes of the Committee.3 After a thorough study of the case, the Committee unanimously approved the Conclusions that are appended to this Report (Appendix I).* On the same date, January 21, the Committee officially informed the Government of Colombia of the aforesaid Conclusions with regard to the latter's note of November 17, 1953, to the Committee and also called them to the attention of the Government of Peru. The Committee is hopeful that, as a result of the bilateral negotiations it has suggested, the interested Parties will be able to reach a practical and satisfactory settlement. This Report will therefore have to be completed at a later date." 1 Not reprinted here. 2 Second Report ., pp. 11-12. 3 For texts of the resolutions and statutes, see ibid., Appendices A and B, pp. 18-23. 4 Not reprinted here. 5 As a result of subsequent bilateral negotiations between the two governments, Haya de la Torre was "expelled" from Peru on Apr. 6, 1954. 7. REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE ON THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, AND NICARAGUA, JULY 8, 1954 (Excerpts)1 This chronological and strictly objective report of the activities of the Committee in the period during which . . . the controversy between Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua was submitted to it, makes it possible to reach the following conclusions: (1) Although Guatemala after submitting its case to the InterAmerican Peace Committee, suspended and then withdrew it, the original Note from the Government of Guatemala gave rise to the subsequent requests from Honduras and Nicaragua.* (2) When, a week after having sought the help of the Committee, Guatemala permitted the latter to carry out its trip, and when, as a result of this, the Committee was able to start on its trip on June 29,6 1 Report of the Inter-American Peace Committee on the Controversy Between Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (PAU doc. CIP-131/54, July 8, 1954), pp. 15-16. The texts of the communications referred to are reproduced as appendices to the report. Note of June 19, 1954, which claimed ". . . violations both of the principle of non-intervention and of the sovereignty of Guatemala (Report of the Inter-American Peace Committee p. 1), and accused Honduras and Nicaragua of aggression. Guatemala requested the Peace Committee to suspend all action on June 20, and withdrew the case on June 21, 1954. Guatemala had also requested action by the Security Council on June 19 under articles 34, 35 and 39 of the U.N. Charter. In the Security Council meeting on June 20, 1954, a resolution to refer the case back to the OAS (U.N. doc. S/3236) was vetoed by the Soviet Union; instead a resolution making an appeal for the immediate cessation of any action which could lead to bloodshed and calling upon the members of the United Nations to abstain from giving aid to such action was unanimously adopted (U.N. doc. S/3237). Later, Honduras and Nicaragua opposed consideration of the case by the Security Council, preferring action by the regional organization first, and the Peace Committee informed the Security Council of the committee's activities in the case, stating that it needed only Guatemala's consent for an immediate departure of a fact-finding commission. At the insistence of Guatemala and the Soviet Union, a meeting of the Security Council was held on June 25; however, the proposed agenda (consideration of the Guatemalan case) was rejected (5 votes to 4, 2 abstentions), thus postponing consideration of the case (and thereby affirming the majority view of the Council that the Peace Committee should investigate and report). 4 Notes of June 22 and 23, 1954, respectively. The Ambassadors of both countries appeared before the Peace Committee on June 23, during which meeting they proposed that a Subcommittee of Information of the Peace Committee be formed to visit all three countries and obtain the facts. The Security Council postponed consideration of the Guatemalan situation on June 25, 1954, to await the Peace Committee's report, and Guatemala reaccepted the good offices of the Peace Committee on June 26. With the changes of government in Guatemala from June 27 through June 29, 1954, the Peace Committee, in accordance with its procedures, was forced each time to obtain assurances from the new government that the committee would be allowed the proper facilities for operation before the trip began. it was forced to interrupt it in Mexico City because at that time the new authorities in Guatemala did not consider it opportune.1 (3) Before the Committee left Mexico City to return to Washington, the three interested parties recognized, as is indicated in its final declaration, that the controversy because of which the Committee had departed for Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, had ceased to exist. Subsequently, the three Governments concerned confirmed this by telegram to the Committee. The Foundations of Common Defense Against 8. THE UNITY OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Final Act of the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of American States, April 7, 1951 (Excerpts)* I. DECLARATION OF WASHINGTON WHEREAS: The present Meeting was called because of the need for prompt action by the Republics of this Hemisphere for common defense against the aggressive activities of international communism; Such activities, in disregard of the principle of non-intervention, which is deeply rooted in the Americas, disturb the tranquility of the peoples of this Continent and endanger the liberty and democracy on which their institutions are founded; 19 a.m., June 29, 1954-the Peace Committee was assured of the Guatemalan Government's cooperation; upon arrival in Mexico City at 10 p.m. the same day, the committee learned that the Guatemalan decision had been changed. At a special closed meeting of the Council of the OAS held on June 29, 1954, representatives of the United States and of El Salvador informed the Council that their Ambassadors in Guatemala had been approached with a request that the good offices of the United States and El Salvador be lent to help bring about a cessation of the fighting. The representatives told the Council that their governments were willing to do so, and that they were informing the Council before taking any definite action (PAU doc. C-sa-154). On June 30, the Peace Committee received a message from the Guatemalan Government which requested that the committee refrain from intervening, and stating that mediation had been initiated between the government forces and those of Colonel Castillo Armas by the Republic of El Salvador, the U. S. Government, and the Papal Nuncio to El Salvador. 2 Bulletin issued to the press the night of July 2, 1954. The Pact of San Salvador, signed July 2, 1954, established a new "Junta" Government for Guatemala, incorporating representatives of both the "Liberation" forces under Colonel Castillo Armas and the Guatemalan "Junta" Government in authority at the time, headed by Colonel Monzón. Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of American States, Washington, D.C., March 26-April 7, 1951: Report of the Secretary of State (Department of State publication 4928; 1953), pp. 67-75. All the said Republics have stated, in solemn acts and agreements, their will to cooperate against any threat to or aggression against the peace, security, and territorial integrity or independence of any one of them: It will be impossible for such cooperation to be effective unless it is carried out in a true spirit of harmony and conciliation; In view of the common danger, the present moment is deemed propitious for a reaffirmation of inter-American solidarity; That danger is aggravated by certain social and economic factors; In this last connection the need for the adoption of measures designed to improve the living conditions of the peoples of this Continent is now greater than ever; and, Nevertheless, in any action for the defense of the Continent and its institutions, the essential rights of man, solemnly proclaimed by the American Republics, should not be lost sight of, The Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs DECLARES: 1. The firm determination of the American Republics to remain steadfastly united, both spiritually and materially, in the present emergency or in the face of any aggression or threat against any one of them. 2. Once more the faith of the American Republics in the efficacy of the principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and other inter-American agreements to maintain peace and security in the Hemisphere, defend themselves against any aggression, settle their disputes by peaceful means, improve the living conditions of their peoples, promote their cultural and economic progress, and ensure respect for the fundamental freedoms of man and the principles of social justice as the bases of their democratic system. 3. Its conviction that the strengthening of the action of the United Nations is the most effective way to maintain the peace, security, and well-being of the peoples of the world under the rule of law, justice, and international cooperation. II. PREPARATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS AND SUPPORT OF THE ACTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS WHEREAS: The American Republics, as Members of the United Nations, have pledged themselves to unite their efforts with those of other States to maintain international peace and security, to settle international disputes by peaceful means, and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and suppression of acts of aggression; International peace and security have been breached by the acts of aggression in Korea, and the United Nations, despite its efforts to find a peaceful solution, was obliged, pursuant to resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, to take action to restore peace in that area; and In order to ensure that the United Nations has at its disposal means 1 A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 427–445. |