STUDY GUIDE III MFA - 1942 TEMAS 9 – Latin America
Directors: Elisa Bertilla de Siqueira Silva
Isabela Bento dos Santos
Assistant Directors: Leonardo Augusto Peres
Jonathan Herneck III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 II. GENERAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 5 II.1. THE SECOND WORLD WAR ...... 6 II.2. PEARL HARBOR ATTACKS ...... 7 II.3. FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...... 8 III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LATIN AMERICA ...... 11 III.1. PAN-AMERICANISM ...... 13 IV. AMERICAN MEETINGS OF CONSULTATION ...... 15 IV.1. THE 1ST MEETING...... 15 IV.2. THE 2ND MEETING ...... 16 IV.3. THE 3RD MEETING ...... 16 V. COUNTRIES‟ POSITIONS ...... 19 V.1. ARGENTINA (ENRIQUE RUIZ-GUIÑAZÚ, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) .... 19 V.2. BOLIVIA (EDUARDO ANZA MATIENZO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)..... 20 V.3. BRAZIL (OSWALDO ARANHA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 20 V.4. CHILE (JUAN BAUTISTA ROSSETTI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 21 V.5. COLOMBIA (GABRIEL TURBAY, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 22 V.6. COSTA RICA (ALBERTO ECHANDI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 23 V.7. CUBA (AURELIO FERNÁNDEZ CONCHESO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF STATE) ...... 24 V.8. EL SALVADOR (HECTOR DAVID CASTRO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 24 V.9. EQUATOR (JULIO TOBAR DONOSO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 25 V.10. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SUMMER WELLES, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE) ...... 25 V.11. GUATEMALA (MANUEL ARROYO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 26 V.12. HAITI (CHARLES FOMBRUN, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 27 V.13. HONDURAS (JULIÁN R. CÁCERES, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 27 V.14. MEXICO (EZEQUIEL PADILLA, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 28
2
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
V.15. NICARAGUA (MARIANO ARGUELLO VARGAS, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 29 V.16. PANAMA (OCTAVIO FÁBREGA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 29 V.17. PARAGUAY (LUIS A. ARGAÑA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 30 V.18. PERU (ALFREDO SOLF Y MURO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)...... 30 V.19. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (ARTURO DESPRADEL, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 31 V.20. URUGUAI (ALBERTO GUANI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 32 V.21. VENEZUELA (CARACCIOLO PARRA PEREZ, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) ...... 33 VI. REFERENCES...... 35
3
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
I. INTRODUCTION
In the year of 1942, during the Second World War, it is convened the Third Meeting of Consultation of the Foreign Affairs Minister of the American Republics, to be held at the Palácio Tiradantes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. After the Pearl Harbor attacks, the American government acknowledged the utter necessity of developing strategies for the defense and protection of the American continent and also strategies for cooperation between the American countries. The policy of neutrality of the continent‟s countries accorded in the previous meetings of consultation was no longer plausible due to the international happenings on course with the Second World War and more effective measures should be taken to deal with the current circumstances.
4
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
II. GENERAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
With the end of the World War I, in 1919, it took place in Paris in January of the same year La conference de Paix de Paris (Paris Peace Conference). This meeting had as its main objective the discussions about the peace terms with the defeated countries, being Germany the main one. The central document produced in the conference was the Treaty of Versailles, upon which would depend the political stability of the European continent. Nevertheless, the Treaty imposed severe sanctions against Germany, mainly concerning territorial and military losses. Considering this scenario, it was quite clear what would happen next. Germany was extremely affected by the impositions of the Treaty of Versailles and for this reason the country lost much of its power, what led to an internal crisis in the country in the years that followed the ending of The First World War. However, this context had also favored the growth of political forces within Germany and also Italy – affected by the Treaty of Versailles as well -, which resulted in the rise of movements known as Nazism and Fascism, whose main characteristics were nationalism and authoritarianism. With the trends of these movements spreading through Germany and Italy, these countries were expecting to project its power internationally, promoting competition amongst countries what started compromising the balance once achieved through the Treaty of Versailles. Even the League of Nations which was established after World War I wasn‟t being capable of dealing with this current issue in Europe. Adolf Hitler, the Führer of Germany, disobeyed the Treaty of Versailles in order to foster the Nazi ideology. The crisis in Germany, supposedly result of impositions created by the Treaty and also a consequence of the Great Depression of 1929 which started in the USA, provided a belief that some savior would arise and take Germany from chaos. Thus, the German National Socialist party came with a bold proposal to take Germany and its „„selected and superior‟‟ people (the so- called Aryan race) from the arduous situation they were submitted. As part of the Nazi ideology was the Pan-Germanism, the project led by Hitler that intended to unite all Germanic people, within and outside the current German borders. With the purpose of starting the annexation of territories inhabited by ethnic Germans, the Munich Conference, held in Munich in 1938, agreed that Germany could attach the Sudet region or Sudetenland, in Czechoslovakia. The region was of strategic importance for Germany and the agreement was supported by France, United Kingdom and Italy. However, by 1939, all Czech territory - not only the Sudetenland - was taken over by Germany. Besides German forays, Japan attempted to occupy territories in China, precisely the Manchuria region, and Italy – led by Benito
5
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
Mussolini – tried to occupy the region of Abyssinia in Ethiopia. Later, the alliance between these countries would be called the Axis. In this sense, Germany with its aggressive actions and its supporters started to be seen, by France and the UK, as a menace for peace and stability not only to Europe but also to the world. The situation had worsened after Germany, launching offensive troops in Poland, claimed for the Polish Corridor, which formerly was a German territory before the end of World War I. The invasion of Polish territory by the German army happened in September 1st 1939 and, supporting Poland, United Kingdom and France declared war upon Germany, which clearly had no intention of leaving Polish lands. The consequence of that outbreak was the officially start of World War II.
II.1. THE SECOND WORLD WAR
With the invasion of Poland by Germany, and other previous annexations, the war was declared against Germany by France and the UK. Following this happening, Germany kept occupying other territories such as Norway and Denmark, after the complete annexation of Poland. Moreover, Germany launched invasions directed to the Netherlands and Belgium, in order to strike France. Continuing the offensives, Hitler troops attacked the United Kingdom, battle known as Battle of Britain, in 1940, commanding an air attack which intended to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force. With the wanted defeat of British Air Force, Hitler‟s intention was to launch Operation Sea Lion which would consist on the invasion of Britain. However, this battle was a turning point in the war, since Germany got out as the defeated country. Back in June 1940, an armistice was signed between Germany and France, but the British government did not respect it, fighting back against German and Italian troops, mainly through its powerful Navy. It is from this moment on that the United States started participating of the Second World War, sending support and aid to the United Kingdom. In 1941 it is the turn of the Soviet Union to enter World War II, once Hitler broke down the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of neutrality and non-aggression between Germany and the USSR, signed in 1939. Considering this fact, the USSR became allied to the United States, France and the United Kingdom. Concerning the participation of the United States in the war and its previous declaration of neutrality, it is important to highlight that it happened also due to the political, economic and military proximity with the United Kingdom and also as a mean of condemning the Nazi-fascist attitudes. Moreover, Washington pressured Japan to withdraw its troops from China and interrupt its expansionist politics – demands that were not taken well by Japan, what led to its even closer
6
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
proximity with German ambitions. However, the time to the United States entered actively in World War II was about to come, right after the attacks against its military basis in the Pacific – Pearl Harbor.
II.2. PEARL HARBOR ATTACKS
After the Meiji restoration, the Empire of Japan began an expansion process which dealt with politics, economic and military aspects. Thus, aggressive methods were excruciatingly important for its objectives to be reached. As a result of the Japanese offensives and expansionist process, some major powers at that time such as the USA and the UK decided to impose an economic embargo of strategic materials to Japan with the objective of threatening the Japanese economy in order to force the country to reconsider its offensives or even to negotiate. Nevertheless, American and British strategy had the opposite effect. Japan did not take well the American exigencies for vacating Chinese territory, and the Empire then saw a bigger incentive to conquer and exploit areas, mainly in southeast Asia, where happened to have the resources threatened by the embargo. In this sense, the Japanese government realized that in order to have its plans functioning, it would be necessary to neutralize American power in the Pacific. In December 7th 1941, Japanese planes carried out, suddenly and deliberately, an aerial attack to the American Navy base and Army air field at Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. All the US military air bases on the island were bombed and also the navy battleships anchored at Pearl, which sunk with lots of men. 188 aircraft were destroyed, and 2.403 Americans lost their lives. As a consequence of the demonstration of hostility made by Japan, the American society expressed deep dudgeon for their compatriots killed during the attacks and manifested strong wish of revenge, which fostered the president of United States, Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to request for a declaration of war between Japan and United States to the National Congress, as noted below: Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so God help us. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, 7 December, a state of war had existed between the United Stated and the Japanese Empire
7
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
(Petition to Congress from President Franklin D. Roosevelt concerning the Japanese attack on the United States).
The damages suffered by the USA in the attacks were extremely heavy and after that the country‟s response was very fast. The American Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 and already started intensifying its military mobilization and converting to a war economy. On December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States what led the USA to reinforce its support to the Allied countries – United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union.
II.3. FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
From the 1820s until the 1930s, the United States foreign policy was guided by the philosophy of the Monroe Doctrine. Globally, this Doctrine reinforced the posture of isolationism which was sought by the United States, stressing the political and geographic distance between America and Europe, which was the center of decision of the international relations at the time. Thus, the Monroe Doctrine stated that, given that distance, no European country should intervene in American affairs, as the United States would not intervene in Europe, its wars and its balance of power (GOLDSTEIN, 1984, p. 115). This meant that there should be no more European colonization in the American continent – in a context of recent independences by the Latin American countries – and that any European attempt to extend its political influence to the Americas would be understood by the United States as a security threat. Even though a declaration of North American isolationism, the Monroe Doctrine carried a substantial potential for interference over Latin America. This potential was amplified when, in 1904, the Roosevelt Corollary was added to the Doctrine. Known as the big stick policy, its idea was that the United States could only maintain its influence over Latin America through action, that is, through the use of force. This thought allowed the United States to intervene in Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua, for example. By the 1930s, however, these interventions have become too costly, because of three main reasons (PECEQUILO, 2005). The first one is the economic crisis following the Great Depression, which reduced the American capability of projecting its power and influence over Latin America, and also diminished the resources available for the United States to act abroad. Secondly, the instability in Europe and the menace of war had a global impact, raising worldwide uncertainty and instability. Finally, the own Latin American countries witness their politics and economy become
8
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
more complex, and consequentially start criticizing and opposing the interventionist posture of the United States. In this new context, during the 1930s, a new posture and foreign policy philosophy by the United States was also necessary. It comes with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His take on foreign policy for Latin America was based on dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation. Roosevelt ordered the withdraw of troops from the Latin countries and the political and economic impositions over the rest of the continent diminished. The new policy actually substituted the (Theodore) Roosevelt Corollary, but the premises of the Monroe Doctrine – not allowing European interference, establishing an America for the Americans – were kept. Its goals, now, shall be achieved through cooperation rather than through the use of force. For this reason, Franklin Roosevelt‟s policy is called Good Neighbor Policy. According to Pecequilo (2005), it represents an abrupt change in American foreign policy, and recognizes Latin America and its nations as sovereign and partners to the United States, as its equals. The need for a new United States posture towards Latin America, even though fully expressed only through the Good Neighbor Policy, has its roots in the end of the First World War. After the conflict, it has been perceived – in truth more amongst the masses than amongst the policy makers – a growing movement for wars to be abolished as means of international relations (DALLEK, 1983). Therefore, an era of search for harmony begun. This should be reflected in the relations with Latin America as well: Washington’s high-handed insistence on order and stability and military interventions to compel them before 1920 now gave way to a more benign approach, emphasizing negotiation, nonintervention, and kinship among equals (DALLEK, 1983, p. 102).
Even before the 1930s and Roosevelt‟s presidency, thus, a policy of dialogue rather than forceful intervention can be observed: in 1928, for example, Under Secretary of State J. Reuben Clark demised the Roosevelt Corollary deeming it not valid under the Monroe Doctrine. Franklin D. Roosevelt followed, only to confirm – and strengthen – this philosophy by actions such as abrogating the Platt Amendment, ending the United States occupation of Haiti and abolishing the right to control Panamanian territory (DALLEK, 1983). In terms of politics, then, the two principles of the Good Neighbor Policy are recognizing the sovereignty of Latin American nations and adopting a posture of non-interference and non-
9
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
intervention. Economically, it seeks to improve the commerce within the continent given that the worldwide conjuncture is one of protectionism. Also, the private commercial and financial interests are promoted, especially for North America companies in certain fields such as oil, natural resources and raw materials exploration. Investments and loans are also facilitated, and United States foreign aid to these countries is improved (PECEQUILO, 2005). The Good Neighbor Policy can be interpreted, according to Pecequilo (2005), as an answer to the transformations the international system was going through, trying to harmonize them with American foreign policy. It represented not a change in the United States goals towards Latin America, but rather a change in strategy to achieve these goals. The Monroe Doctrine was kept intact – the United States would still be a leader in the continent and try to influence its southern neighbors, only now through less interventionist ways. What led the United States to adopt a more solidary position towards the American countries, mainly during the Second World War, was the objective of decreasing the influence of the Axis power in the continent, especially in countries such as Argentina and Brazil, whose political systems hold some similarities with the philosophy of those from the Axis. American government took this position, recognizing that Latin American countries could be great allies to its actions and purposes.
10
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LATIN AMERICA
In the beginning of the 1940s, Latin America lives an era of recovery after the serious consequences of the economic crisis of the first part of the preceding decade. Since 1930, three short periods of time can be observed in the historical development of Latin America (CERVO, 2007a. The first period, which is comprised of the first half of the decade, is characterized by efforts to try to overcome the effects of the Great Depression. This crisis, which begun in 1929, according to Donghi (2001) exposed and contributed to the exhaustion of the agricultural export economies. The major consequences of the crisis – namely the crash of the global financial system and the significant decrease in international trade – affected the main sources of income for Latin American countries: receiving foreign credit and selling agricultural goods to the countries to their North. A wave of protectionism can be observed in global trade (CERVO, 2007a) and even the existence of a “global market” – so lively in the preceding decades – can be questioned at this point (DONGHI, 2001). The recovery started by 1935, during the second period described by Cervo (2007a). This period, from 1935 to 1939, not only comprises an era of new strategies for development, but also introduces the challenges Latin American countries have to face in a context of growing international tension with an approaching world conflict. Finally, the third period, since 1939, poses the challenge of managing each nation's foreign relations in a time of war. Since the whole Latin American economic system had collapsed, the recovery has to be built upon a new system, rather than on a reconstruction of the previous one. The establishment of a new economic system is, nevertheless, a gradual process. The immediate goal of the states, therefore, in the middle of the 1930s, is to contain the effects of the Depression and keep them from worsening. In order to achieve that, States have to intervene in the economy, sometimes in rather authoritarian ways, by fixating prices or quotas, for example. The economic fear and insecurity are the reasons these policies are largely accepted by the sectors affected by them (DONGHI, 2001). Also, Cervo (2007a) explains that Latin American countries start to adopt bilateral treaties containing the most favored nation clause in order to try to compensate for the diminishing world trade. Still unable to import the industrialized goods they need since their sources of income were vanishing, the Latin American import capacity was reduced, according to Cervo (2007a), to one quarter of what it was before the Great Depression. The countries of the continent come to rely, then, as Cervo (2007a) also points out, on an economic modernization, supported on the expansion
11
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
of the local demand – an echo of the era of agricultural export economy – and on the action of the State as an economic actor, to start implementing a policy of Import substitution industrialization. Donghi (2001) affirms that the Latin American States proceed from emergency financial policies to new economic measures focusing on establishing a new model for development. The States also become, still according to the author, the commercial agent in each country, managing the foreign trade process, resources and policy. Donghi (2001) also points out that the industrialization substitution process starts by final goods, such as food, textiles, chemicals without much embedded technology and light electronics. The industrial parks and plants are also, just like the local market, heritage from the agricultural export era, which had become idle because of the Depression. There is still need, however, to import capital goods and raw materials. This reflects a dependence the Latin American countries have on the economies of the North, which dates back to the agricultural export era, when the former, importing manufactured goods from the latter, would give in to the influence and the interests of the larger economies (CERVO, 2007a). It seems that the new industrialization efforts affect differently large and small countries within Latin America. Larger countries have a bigger local market, but also more available workforce and a potential administrative class, especially in areas which were historically in greater contact with the former metropolis, as Donghi (2001) points out. Therefore, the Import substitution industrialization can exacerbate the differences between the Latin American countries, rather than diminishing them. But the consequences of the Great Depression were not restricted to the economy. The crisis was one of the factors responsible, since the beginning of the 1930s, for overthrowing most of the Latin American political establishments, according to Donghi (2001). Cervo (2007a), however, points out that the economic crisis and the consequences of the diminishing exports only influenced a context where the new social demands, which came from the growing urban population, from the national bourgeoisies and even from the armed forces are the main reason for the pursue of new leaderships that are more adequate to these emerging social needs and new economic development strategies. What can be noted, in conclusion, is a shift of power from the hands of the agricultural export oligarchies to the new urban elites, as explained by Cervo (2007b). The new distribution of power in the continent is, thus, a result of new social panorama which, allied to the consequences of the Depression present challenges that cannot be addressed by the previous political establishments. This new political architecture of the continent arises, thus, as Donghi (2001) explains, from the rise of ideological alternatives in the politics of the continent. It is also a reflection of the
12
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
new social organization – as well as the rise of new social challenges – of the emerging economic system. The success of such political alternatives, however, are mostly due to the insecurities and uncertainties in a world shaken by such a deep economic crisis – a world whose own structure of power is changing.
III.1. PAN-AMERICANISM
During the period of time comprised between the end of the First World War and the beginning of the 1940s, the structure of power in the world witnesses a change. The nucleus of the world politics, Europe and the global structure of the European Concert, in which the Latin American nations had emerged as independent, crumbles (DONGHI, 2001). This vacuum of power, allied with the Monroe Doctrine, makes the United States, which has ever more influence of Latin America, the natural candidate as the new focus of power, especially in the region. Vizentini (2007) explains that in this context of deteriorating European power, the United States seeks to oppose the Old Continent, building a new world system under its leadership. This process starts, thus, by approaching the Latin American nations. The Good Neighbor Policy, however, stops the United States of intervening by force in Latin America. Rather, the country promotes a policy of dialogue, and in this context the philosophy of Pan-Americanism is renewed. Rémond (1989) reminds that this idea of an American federation dates back to the actions and thoughts of Simón Bolivar, but the own United States made it fail at the time. In this new conjuncture of distribution of power in the world, however, Pan- Americanism can give the western hemisphere nations relative unity (RÉMOND, 1989, p. 86). Pan-Americanism as a political organization, Cervo (2007b) points out, is an alternative found by the American republics to politically organize and unite in substitution to the League of Nations, which had been disappointing to them. In this new form of organization, by a Pan- American league and diplomacy through conferences, these countries could discuss and implement the principles, so dear to the Latin American nations, of non-intervention and of self-determination. On the other hand, however, some Latin Statesmen and political leaders are afraid this regrowth of Pan-Americanism is just a shift from the European imperialism to one by the United States (CERVO, 2007b). As Vizentini (2007) explains, Pan-Americanism is a consequence, inter alia, of the United States strategy – and, at the same time, goal – of building a regional area of influence. The author also points out that, in this strategy, matters of security are used as an excuse for
13
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
Washington to exercise its influence, subordinating other countries in military, diplomatic and economic matters. However the real motivations to the new rise of Pan-Americanism, this philosophy has been instrumental in the political organization of the continent, especially since the end of the 1920s. The idea of Pan-Americanism has been materialized in several conferences since then: for example, the Havana Conference of American States in 1928, the Montevideo Conference of 1933, the Inter American Conference for Peace Consolidation, Buenos Aires in 1936, the Lima Conference in 1938, as well as the Meetings of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, first held in Panama City, in 1939, and then in Havana, 1940. The conference held in Buenos Aires in 1936 is of utter importance for the matter discussed, once the main topics on the agenda were the question of continental security in case of war in Europe and the principle of non-intervention. The main outcomes of this meeting were the Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation and a paper related to the principle of non-intervention. The main objectives of the conference were to guarantee that peaceful means would always be used in first instance in case of conflict - otherwise the controversies should be submitted to reconciliation commissions; to coordinate belligerent activities between American countries in case of their use; to mediate the implementation of existing obligations for a peaceful solution, within others. In this way, it can be concluded that the core meeting‟s purpose was to turn the own American Republics responsible for the maintenance of peace within the continent‟s territory, and in case of any foreign menace against any American Republic, all of them would act together in order to end this threat.
14
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
IV. AMERICAN MEETINGS OF CONSULTATION
The purpose of a Meeting of Consultation is to discuss issues that the governments consider as of “an urgent nature and of common interest” to the American States (Organization of American States, Permanent Council). It is up to any American Republic to make a formal request convoking a Meeting of Consultation. The idea of the consultation meetings was first proposed in Buenos Aires in 1936 at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, and then developed in Lima in 1938 but at the beginning the meetings were only as an “emergency procedure to meet situations in which prompt and decisive action might have to be taken” (FENWICK, 1942, p. 169). There was no thought that a new form of inter-American conferences was being created, that Foreign Ministers would come to the meetings attended by a corps of experts and assistants, that the range of the discussions would cover not a few restricted topics but practically the whole field of inter-American relations, provided only that the particular problem could be regarded as an "emergency" one in the broadest of that term (FENWICK, 1942, p. 169).
Nevertheless, this ideal of emergency meetings started to gradually change during the I Meeting in Panama in 1939 and by the time of Rio Meeting, in 1942, it was almost vanished (FENWICK, 1942).
IV.1. THE 1ST MEETING
The 1st Meeting was held in Panama City, Panama from September 23 to October 3 in 1939. The reason why the American Countries (Latin American countries plus the USA) decided to convoke the meeting was the hostilities that started in Europe with the Second World War. The American governments were afraid that the war could affect America disrupting the peace in the continent. In this sense, having in mind the ideal of preserving stability in America, they decided to develop a policy of neutrality in the presence of a war by adopting the General Declaration of Neutrality on the Second World War. Also, it was adopted the Declaration of Panama which
15
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
established a security zone as a “logical development of the right of self-defense on the part of the American States” (FENWICK, 1942, p. 169). This zone comprised the whole American continent and, according to the declaration, the nations in war should not take belligerent actions against any American country.
IV.2. THE 2ND MEETING
The II Meeting was held in Havana, Cuba from July 21 to 31, 1940 and it was convened due to the repercussion that the Second World War was having worldwidely. The German invasion in France, more precisely, represented a new problem the American Republics needed to face, once Europe had possessions in the Americas. The main document produced in the conference was the Act of Havana, responsible for condemning Germany, reinforcing and reaffirming the policy of neutrality from the Latin American countries before the Second World War (FENWICK, 1942). Furthermore, the American countries established that the actions they would take ought to be diplomatic in order to promote economic and military cooperation, leaving behind ancient forms of domination and opening the path to reciprocity (D‟ARAUJO, 1997). In 1941, however, with the Pearl Harbor attacks, it was recognized the need of more effective security strategies within the American continent. Also, the governments, mainly the USA, acknowledged the necessity of revising the policy of neutrality established in Panama. In this context it was convened the 3rd Meeting of Consultation of the Foreign Affairs Minister of the American Republics.
IV.3. THE 3RD MEETING
The Third Meeting of Consultation of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the American Republics was proposed in 1941 by the Foreign Minister of Chile, Señor Rossetti, after the Pearl Harbor attacks promoted by Japan against the United States of America, considered as an “unjustified aggression” by the Chilean Minister (FENWICK, 1942). The meeting was supposed to promote a discussion between the American governments concerning this situation which was in course in the continent during the Second World War and later, to encourage the adoption by the American countries of effective measures in order to defend the American continent against possible external threats. The government of Chile then addressed its demand of an American
16
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
meeting to the Chairman of the Pan American Union and, right after, the United States had also sent a similar document reinforcing Chilean‟s demand. The USA in its statement, justifying the need of a Meeting of Consultation of the American Republics, declared that: The American Republics, at the Inter-American Conferences held in Buenos Aires, Lima, Panama, and Habana have jointly recognized that a threat to the peace, security, or territorial integrity of any American Republic is of common concert to all” (…) “In the Fifteenth Resolution adopted by the American Republics at the Consultative Meeting held in Habana in July of 1940, and entitled "Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Nations of the Americas", the American Republics declared that "any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty, or the political independence of an American state shall be considered as an act of aggression against the states which sign(ed) this declaration", and further declared that in case such acts of aggression are committed against an American state by a non-American nation "the nations signatory to the present declaration will consult among themselves in order to agree upon the measure(s) it may be advisable to take." (…) "On December 7, 1941, without warning or notice, and during the course of negotiations entered into in good faith by the Government of the United States for the purpose of maintaining peace, territory of the United States was treacherously attacked by armed forces of the Japanese Empire.”(…) "The course of events since the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 clearly demonstrates that the fate of every free and peace-loving nation of the world hinges upon the outcome of the present struggle against the ruthless efforts of certain Powers, including Japanese Empire, to dominate the entire earth by the sword.”(…) "The wave of aggression has now broken upon the shores of the New World." (…) "In this situation that menaces the peace, the security and the future independence of the Western
17
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
Hemisphere, a consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs appears to be of urgent desirabilit.(Third Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics: Special Handbook Prepared by the Pan American Union, p. 1, 1941.).
Considering this issue, the Governing Board of the Pan American Union prepared a report, approved on December 17, 1941, which included the program of the Meeting of Consultation proposed. To the Section 1 of the program was given the name "The protection of the Western Hemisphere” which dealt with measures that should be taken in case of any foreign activity that represented a menace and happened within the territories of the American Republics and, also, in the section was included procedures to be taken in order to develop common objectives by the American Republics1 (FENWICK, 1942). Section 2, of “Economic Solidarity” was about the need of controlling strategic raw materials production and exports as well as the distribution of essential imported products within the American domestic economies and the guarantee that there would be shipping facilities for exporting and importing procedures2 (FENWICK, 1942). The meeting, therefore, had as its main issue the primacy of the problem of defense concerning the American continent within the context of the Second World War. According to Brazil's president Getúlio Vargas, however, it was needed to be carefully specified what would be the shape of this defense. The countries that were part of the III Meeting of Consultation had previously acknowledged that their governments would be willing to take the necessary actions in order to protect the ideal of "common action" and "continental organization" of America, defending the continent against any alien threat (FENWICK, 1942, p. 172). The statement of the Mexican Foreign Minister, Mr. Padilla, entirely exemplifies this point when he says, referring to the Pearl Harbor attacks that: "the attack upon the United States was not an attack upon one American country only; it was an attack upon the whole of America."
1 “(…) (A) examination of measures to curb alien activities carried on within the jurisdiction of any American Republic that tend to endanger the peace and security of any American Republic and (B) the consideration of measures which might be undertaken by the American Republics now for the development of certain common objectives and plans which would contribute to the reconstruction of world order” (FENWICK, 1942, p. 171). 2 “(...) (1) to control over exports of strategic raw materials; (2) the increased production of such materials; (3) the allocation of imports essential to the domestic economy of each country; (4) the maintenance of adequate shipping facilities; and (5) the control of alien financial and commercial activities” (FENWICK, 1942, p. 171).
18
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
V. COUNTRIES’ POSITIONS
V.1. ARGENTINA (ENRIQUE RUIZ-GUIÑAZÚ, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
The Argentinean society is divided towards which posture the country should adopt in face of the world conflict. Several minor – but powerful – groups defend the country‟s neutrality. It is the case of the Argentinean army, who use history to justify their position – it is the tradition of Argentina‟s foreign policy to remain neutral, such as it happened in World War I, given that these great conflicts were seen as fights for markets, thus not representing any Argentinean national interest. It is also true that these officers nurture sympathy for Germany – not, in general (even though there are some cases), because of a particular sympathy to Nazism of fascism, but rather as an acknowledgement of the German military prowess. At the same time, the Argentinean general posture towards Great Britain was a negative one. The Argentinean position of dependence of the European power in its imperialist endeavors was criticized. The Great Depression, however, diminished British power with Argentina, with its foreign trade shaken because of the decrease of commerce with the Great Britain. This promoted the import substitution industrialization in Argentina, causing major economic and social transformation in the country since the early 1930s. However, the majority of Argentineans – represented by the large newspapers, the traditional political parties and the intellectuals – claim for liberty and democracy, thus siding with the Allies. Vice-president Castillo, acting as president in the account of President Ortiz‟s illness, is oblivious to the pressure from these political and intellectual groups, and insists on his defense of the neutral position. Several are the reasons for Castillo‟s stance: his perception of the tradition of Argentinean neutral foreign policy towards conflicts, his nationalism, the influence of the Argentinean army and the consequent fear of a pro-German military coup which would deprive Castillo of power in case of rupture with the Axis, and the influence of the British diplomacy, which prefers Argentina to stay neutral and guarantee the supply of food to Great Britain than risking this supply because of an Argentinean hostile act towards Germany, which could cause retaliations such as the attack of Argentinean ships in the Atlantic. Since the attacks on Pearl Harbor, however, this situation has become more complex, given American pressure for Latin America to join the war against the Axis powers (GALASSO, 2006).
19
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
V.2. BOLIVIA (EDUARDO ANZA MATIENZO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Bolivia still feels the echoes of its defeat to Paraguay in the Chaco War (1932-5). Politically, it is one of the countries which witnesses more coups d‟état and changes of power control in the last couple of years worldwide. Economically, Bolivia is devastated by a crisis since the beginning of the 1930s, which was aggravated at the end of the war in 1935. In the end of the 1930s, Bolivian relations with the United States were shaken: in the government of Toro Ruilova, between 1936 and 1937, Bolivia nationalized its oil and the properties of the American-owned Standard Oil. Sympathy for Germany, which had been elevated in the country throughout the 1930s, due to the German control of the Bolivian airlines and their presence in the trade and financial areas, reaches its peak with the following president, Germán Busch. Busch saw in the Nazi model a possibility for overcoming corruption and inertia in the Bolivian government. This position of the Bolivian government until 1939 drew the attention of the United States and of Great Britain, given that Bolivia was an important source of oil (thus, the presence of Standard Oil), but mostly of tin from its mines. Bolivia is seen, therefore, by the Allied powers, as an important source of raw materials. The picture starts to change with the rise of current president Enrique Peñaranda in 1940. President Peñaranda is working on a compromise with the United States, which has been preoccupied with a potential Axis presence in Bolivia. Peñaranda was in the center of the attempt of a Nazi putsch, in which the Nazi-fascists in the country allegedly planned a coup against him, and were therefore prosecuted, with the help of American intelligence. The president is also close to an agreement with Washington which would settle the Standard Oil issue and, at the same time, bring American economic aid to an economically weakened Bolivia. Although Bolivia has not yet declared war against the Axis, it is becoming an important ally to the Allies, especially as a source of raw materials – mostly tin (BLASIER, 1972).
V.3. BRAZIL (OSWALDO ARANHA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
The Brazilian foreign policy between 1935 and 1941 is known as equidistant pragmatism, because Brazil identified the existence of two powers, the United States and Germany, and seeks to take advantage of the disputes between them in order to achieve its international goals – mostly
20
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
economic and commercial – and national interests. Thus, in September 1939, when the conflict started in Europe, Brazil declared its neutrality. This declaration, however, is due more to the division within the Brazilian government between those who sided with the Axis and those who were more sympathetic to the Allies – as Foreign Minister Oswaldo Aranha, for example – than to the foreign policy at the time. Aranha appealed that the acts of aggression of Germany against the neutral Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg be condemned by the Brazilian government, but President Vargas and the high officers from the Armed Forces insisted on the neutrality. This position allowed Brazil to maintain its commerce with Germany, which needed Brazil‟s raw material supply and the country‟s market in such a rough time for its economy. The improvement in the commercial relations between Brazil and Germany was seen with concern by the United States. Americans fear not only the economic benefits for Germany, but also the potential influence the Reich can have over the Brazilian government. Thus, since 1939 the United States have intensified its diplomatic efforts towards Brazil. Through political and economic efforts, the United States seeks to improve its influence over Brazil, as it does in all the Latin American countries through the Good Neighbor Policy. The US has been able to bring the armies of the two countries closer together, and hopes to have an influence over the Brazilian public opinion as well. Some points of tension remain between Brazil and the United States: the South American country‟s refusal to allow American troops in the Northeast of the country, for example, or the American reluctance in providing the Brazilian Army with guns, fearing a potential siding with the Axis. However, the relations have indeed become closer: the United States have helped build and improve the airports of Northeast Brazil, for example, and the two countries have signed commercial partnerships, such as the one in which Brazil committed to sell certain strategic minerals only to the United States. These factors, allied to the attack to Pearl Harbor, the national opinion‟s pressure and the diminishing of the commercial relations with Germany seem to be consolidating Brazil‟s detachment of its neutral position towards an alignment with the Allies (BUENO, 2008).
V.4. CHILE (JUAN BAUTISTA ROSSETTI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Chilean population expects Chile to remain neutral in the war, as it did in World War I. In fact, Chile has several motivations to maintain diplomatic relations with the countries from the Axis and to not declaring war against them, as several Latin American countries have recently done. Two
21
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
more immediate motivations would be the current Chilean presidential election – a government which was hostile towards Germany or Italy, for example, could lose the votes from Chileans from those nationalities – and the fear of a potential Axis attack, mainly by its submarines, on the country‟s vast coast or distant islands – and, in that sense, the attacks on Pearl Harbor have weakened a potential naval aid from the United States, which would have been a reason for Chile to side with the Allies. There are, however, deeper roots for Chile‟s neutrality. The first one is that, historically, the image that the United States had in Chile has not always been positive. This posture dates back at least to 1866, when the Americans, even though preaching the Monroe Doctrine, failed to help Chile when Spain bombarded its territory. In 1881, the US State Department opposed the annexation of Bolivian and Peruvian territory by Chile. More recently, in 1930, the adoption of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff excluded the Chilean products from the American market and aggravated the economic problems in the country, causing more unemployment, for example. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Chile fosters a deep sympathy for Germany. German immigrants have been coming to Chile since the middle of the 19th century. The South American country immediately welcomed these European immigrants. Germans soon rose to a prominent role in the Chilean society, providing them with substantial influence. This was due, especially, to the levels of education of the citizens from Germany compared to those from Chilean people. Since the end of the 19th century, officers from the German army have been helping with the training of those from Chile, and personal exchanges for training purposes have occurred ever since. The relation between Chile and Germany is, thus, a close one. In a similar fashion, although a more personal one, Chile‟s Foreign Minister Rossetti, given his Italian descent, is also keen to the countries of the Axis. In conclusion, Chile sees no present reason to cut its relations with Germany, Italy or Japan (MOUNT, 2004).
V.5. COLOMBIA (GABRIEL TURBAY, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
The Colombian foreign policy is under the neutrality adopted before the war of 1914-1918. Colombia is officially favorable to the positions of the Allies, although according to Langley (1967), there is a pact between Colombia and Germany, firmed in the end of World War I, which deals with the development of the Colombian Air Force by the German Government. According to
22
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
the United States‟ interests, this pact may submit the Panama Canal under delicate position given that Germany has control over airlines in the region through the Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos (SCATA), for military purposes. The World War presented economic problems for Colombia as well as strategic issues due to its proximity to Germans projects and deals. The importance of Panama Canal for Colombia‟s economy turns vital taking into account that Colombia was cut off from European and Asian markets; thus, the waterway through the Panama Canal was the main access to the U.S ports, the Colombia‟s principal exportations route. Eduardo Santos, member of the Liberal Party, was elected on August 7, 1938 as the President of Colombia. In recent years, due to Roosevelt‟s Good Neighbor Policy adopted in 1930‟s in order to improve relations to Latin America, Eduardo Santos could strengthen ties with the U.S, as can be noticed in the following quotation: „„Santos was able to guide Colombia toward cooperation with the United States despite the opposition of Conservative Party leaders, who initially saw the United States as more of a menace than Germany‟‟ (LEONARD, 2006, p.115). Ultimately, His Excellence President of Colombia will be represented by a Representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Gabriel Turbandey, who has the duty to defend Colombia‟s interests during the meeting (BUSHNELL, 2005).
V.6. COSTA RICA (ALBERTO ECHANDI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Since leftist president Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia‟s rise to power in 1940, Costa Rica has witnessed several social reforms. Several social rights have been added to the country‟s Constitution, in a scale such as no other Central American government has done: workers had their rights recognized, such as the minimum wage and paid vacations, as well as compensations in case of unemployment; there was a land reform, allowing landless workers to access unproductive land; and there was a fiscal reform, implementing progressive taxation; health care and social security in general have been thoroughly implemented in Costa Rica. At the same time, President Calderón Guardia adopts an anti-Nazism and anti-fascism posture. Costa Rica was among the first countries in America to declare war against the Axis countries, even before the United States did. The Costa Rican State has seized German properties in the country, and has been adopting a general posture of hostility against families and individuals from Axis countries. This has generated a source of internal tension in Costa Rica, given the importance that Germany has been having for Costa Rican economy, buying large portions of the
23
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
country‟s coffee and cocoa production. Thus, the large agricultural producers are unhappy with Calderón Guardia‟s policy (CRUZ, 2001).
V.7. CUBA (AURELIO FERNÁNDEZ CONCHESO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF STATE)
Since the approval of the current Cuban Constitution in 1940, which was written with Washington meddling, the Government of Fulgencio Batista was institutionalized. During Batista‟s mandate, Cuba experienced a huge implementation of improvements on its economy thanks to the narrowing of diplomatic ties between Cuba and United States. These improvements were strongly proportional to the U.S importation necessities. Nowadays, the foreign policy of the Cuban Government is favorable to the U.S position as well as its interests before the eminent war. In December 9, 1941, Cuba declared war against the Empire of Japan as we may note on the following statement made by the Cuban Government: "We consider that this aggression by a non-American state against the integrity and inviolability of an American state is such a case as is contemplated in declaration No. 15 of the Conference of Habana (June 1940), by virtue of which all the nations of this continent should likewise consider themselves attacked in the same way and should act jointly." (Cuban Government, 1941). In the Meeting of Consultation of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the American Republics, the Cuban population as well as the Cuban Government expect from the Representative of State, His Excellency Aurelio Fernandez Conchesco to express convergence with the United States position (HUGH, 1970).
V.8. EL SALVADOR (HECTOR DAVID CASTRO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
El Salvador‟s foreign policy has been strongly influenced by the military government of Maxilimiano Hernanez Martinez since 1931. During his dictatorship, Maximiliano has run his mandate by suppressing oppositions, such as Salvatoran peasant revolt of 1934. As an ardent fascist, Hernanez has ordered the execution of thousands of indigenous which were suspected of collaboration with the communists. These repressions against the USSR sympathizers, adopted as basis of foreign policy, spurred support from Washington to Hernanez‟s Government.
24
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
The exportations to United States have been increasing thanks to the agreeable diplomatic relation both countries have developed over time. Furthermore, the increase on exportation rates has propitiated Maximiliano Hernanez to perform a great economical improvement in El Salvador (VALIENTE, 1990).
V.9. EQUATOR (JULIO TOBAR DONOSO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
In 1941, there was a territorial dispute between Peru and Ecuador which might turn problematic the Third Meeting of Consultation of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the American Republics for these two countries. The conflict has its origins in the imprecise geographical definitions used during colonial times. Peru occupied El Oro province and the part of Amazon that belongs to Ecuador, according to the status quo signed in 1936. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, His Excellency Julio Tobar Donodo, should support what the Ecuadorian Government declared a couple of months ago. According to Charles G. Fenwick (FENWICK, 1942), the President of Ecuador, Carlos Alberto Arroyo del Rio, stated that Ecuador cannot join any continental defense act unless the American Republics are willing to establish order in its own region, performing political pressure under Peru in order to effectuate the agreement (ZOOK, 1964).
V.10. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SUMMER WELLES, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE)
Since the beginning of the conflicts in Europe, the United States of America have realized the importance that Latin America may have in a worldwide war. First of all, there is the American concern that Germany uses Central and South America as expansion or even colonization spaces in its global strategy. German insertion in the American continent would be easier in these areas given the large German population that has already migrated and established itself there. Secondly, Latin America is an important raw material supplier, and Germany‟s access to these products through commerce with those countries is crucial for its plans of rearmament and to sustain its war economy. Another relevant point is that many Latin American armies have been trained by Germany and foster sympathy for the German military – and have received, as well, because of this, much anti-American propaganda.
25
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
One of the measures adopted by the United States to try to reverse this potential German influence over Latin America, in the framework of the Good Neighbor Policy, is to raise its raw material purchases from the countries to its South, not only guaranteeing the supply of strategic materials which are now harder to obtain from suppliers in Europe because of the war, but also making the US an important partner to Latin America, whose economy heavily relies on foreign trade, in a context of diminished commerce given the world conflict. In this context, President Roosevelt has created an Office for the Coordination of Commercial and Cultural Relations between the American Republics to protect the United States relevant position in South and Central America – which is perceived as a matter of national security, as well as of economic relevance. The United States has been approaching this matter in a level of continental solidarity – praising, thus, the work of all the Pan-American conferences already held. The attack to Pearl Harbor, however, was a massive blow to a mostly neutral United States. The country immediately declared war to Japan and is joining the Allies in the war. In this context, the main goal to be pursued by the delegation of the United States of American to the Conference is convincing the Latin American countries to immediately break their diplomatic relations with the Axis powers – most resistance in this aspect is expected to come from the delegations from Chile and Argentina; the latter country has recently criticized the United States – and all Latin countries which followed – decision of declaring war without previously consulting other American countries, as it was agreed in previous conferences and in the Lima Declaration of 1938. The United States must, thus guarantee that the influence of Germany, Italy and Japan over Latin America is diminished. Another very important goal for the United States is that the supply of strategic resources such as minerals and raw materials in general to the American war effort is assured (MOURA, 2012).
V.11. GUATEMALA (MANUEL ARROYO, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Since Jorge Ubico became the President of Guatemala in 1931, there is a huge process of economical expansion which is consequence of the openness to foreign capitals through the implementation of tax benefits to companies from abroad, mainly from United States, such as the United Fruit Company, which generates a great amount of structural investments in Guatemala in return for the openness conceded by Ubico. Last year, the Constituent Assembly extended Ubico‟s presidential term to 15 March 1949.
26
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
Despite the history of military intervention committed by the United States in Guatemala in order to guarantee the appropriate security in the Panama Canal, both countries have kept agreeable diplomatic relations. Nowadays, the representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, the honorable Manuel Arroyo, has the special and delicate duty to regard the Guatemalan economical interests considering the consequences of the current War as well as it‟s teasing for the stability of the actual Government (LEONARD, 2006).
V.12. HAITI (CHARLES FOMBRUN, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
“Between 1849 and 1913, the US Navy entered Haitian waters 24 times to „protect American lives and property‟. The US invasion of 1915 brought back slavery to Haiti in all but name and imposed a US-designed constitution giving US corporations free rein” (CROMWELL, D; EDWARDS,D. 2004). Haiti was one of the unique countries that accepted Jewish refugees during the Second Great War. Having an extremely clear pro-Allies position, though not official, the country remained neutral until the Pearl Harbor bombing. The attack cause a commotion throughout the population and the government decided the proximity and extension of damage need retaliations. The immediate response of President Lescot was the declaration of war to Japan that was shortly followed by the declaration of war to the other countries in the formal Axis, Germany and Italy.
V.13. HONDURAS (JULIÁN R. CÁCERES, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Until Pearl Harbor‟s attack, Honduras was officially neutral. However the country had a significant amount of German businesses during the Second Great War that was visible in US‟s “Proclaimed List of Blocked Neutrals”. Nevertheless, the country, among other countries in Latin America, had an agreement with the United States that they would request armed assistance from the U.S. as long as they needed it for military purposes and would also allow the same country the usage of their seas, land and air for possible war needs, like troops removal or logistics. Their intelligence systems would also communicate aiming the protection of the whole continent. In trade for these services, the United States would offer military training and cooperation to Honduras.
27
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
President Tiburcio Carías, though, did not want military cooperation. Hence, there was no military cooperation agreement between the United States and Honduras. The Pearl Harbor attacks contributed to the end of Honduras‟ shaken neutrality. The country declared war to the members of the Axis days after the attacks, and although they did not send troops, they contributed with logistics, bringing food and raw materials to the battlefield.
V.14. MEXICO (EZEQUIEL PADILLA, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Until the late thirties, Mexico‟s war policy was considered an unclear one, though officially the president declared Mexico neutral. The country had been affected by both fascist and communist ideals and the population divided in groups that frequently held debates. However, after the Spanish Civil War, the annexations of Germany throughout Europe and 1940‟s Nazi sabotage regarding oil issues, President Cárdenas officially sided with the United States, though a great amount of the conservative population of the country had interest in following the lead of the ideals transmitted by the Spanish Falange. When the Second Great War started, Mexico was recovering from a period of instability that was ignited since 1910‟s Revolution. President Manuel Ávila, Cárdenas successor, chose to use this war scenario to unite the country against a common enemy, this idea would not only enforce the nationalism but would also help the country develop industrialize and modernize its economy (LEONARD, BRATZEL; 2007). Being officially a pro-Allie, Mexico started campaigning against the Axis, encouraging other Latin American countries and even Asian countries to support their ideals. The Nazi sabotage regarding oil and Mexican oil expropriation controversy resulted in a deal between United States and Mexico that represented “a victory to Mexican nationalism” (LEONARD, BRATZEL; 2007.) because it represented Mexico fighting for its own interests and having a bargain power increased because of the war scenario. The situation escalated when it comes to Mexico participation in the war arena after the Pearl Harbor attacks, President Camacho had declared that “any aggression against a neighbor in the Western Hemisphere was considered an aggression against Mexico sovereignty”. Nevertheless, the President affirmed that the country would stay outside the conflict unless a direct attack happened.
28
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
V.15. NICARAGUA (MARIANO ARGUELLO VARGAS, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Nicaragua from the beginning of the war had a proximity to the United States position. In January 1st of 1937, Anastasio Somoza became Nicaragua‟s President after a coup in which the US Marine Corps were fixed the country until he occupied the presidential chair. Officially, though, the country had a neutral position. During the War the possessions from the German community in Nicaragua were confiscated as a move from the government to prevent this population from helping countries in the Axis (LEONARD, T; BRATZEL; J. 2007). After the Pearl Harbor bombing, Nicaragua officially declared war to Japan, followed afterward to war declarations to Italy and Germany. Due to unsatisfactory military training, the country‟s government decided to stay out of the battlefield, participating more with propaganda and logistics.
V.16. PANAMA (OCTAVIO FÁBREGA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Panama had major changes in the 30‟s: the dynamization and modernization of the economy led to a growth in number of population in middle class, in political supporters of Axis ideals and in demands to the government from the population. The country‟s support represented an important political asset during the Second Great War. Its position in Latin America is in a strategic localization. Therefore, it was vital for the United States the maintenance of said country as an ally. Due to political and social changes, like the rise in number of population in middle class, that the country had undergone in the 20‟s and 30‟s representing a possible amiability to ideals in discordance with the ones defended by the Allies, the United States were concerned that this key asset to its war efforts would represent a possible threat to its defense and attack plans (LEONARD, BRATZEL; 2007). Fortunately, to the Allies, a few months prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks, the government changed to a pro-US one. After the event in Pearl Harbor, Panama declared its support to the Allies and had its Canal‟s security as one of the biggest concerns of the United States. A plan for the usage of the Canal for transportation, military base and other logistics needs was established and could be put in use in order to protect the continent.
29
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
V.17. PARAGUAY (LUIS A. ARGAÑA, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
With the Second World War in its course, Paraguay is being ruled by President Higinio Morínigo, whose government is a dictatorial regime, without either freedom of speech or individual liberties for its population. It is important noticing that since the beginning of its mandate as president, he has had the support of influential military groups in the country, what definitely aids him to maintain its position. In the context of World War II, Paraguayan economy was being boosted due to the increasing demand for some of its internal products supposed to be exported to the European countries. Detecting that Germany, together with the Axis powers, is eager to gain political and economic influence in Latin America - mainly in countries such as Paraguay – the United States realized that it was necessary to enhance its position towards the country in order to weaken German influence at a minimum level. The United States then sought to achieve a closer cooperation with Paraguay, providing funds, supplies and loans for government projects in varied areas, such as education, health and agriculture. Notwithstanding, in spite of the American support to Paraguay, Moríngio government kept its position as a German partner and examples of this “Axis cooperation” was the amount of institutions - such as churches, hospitals and schools -in Paraguay which clearly sympathized with the Nazi ideals. Moreover, a great number of Paraguayan military and government officials was sympathetic to the Axis. Therefore, Paraguay was, until December 1941, a country visibly associated to the Axis powers, even with the American support which intended to end this influence. The events on Pearl Harbor in 1941, however, were crucial to change Paraguayan‟s position towards the Axis and German itself. Germany and Italy declared war against the USA, and Moríngio is then forced to commit to the Allied countries (LEONARD, BRATZEL; 2007).
V.18. PERU (ALFREDO SOLF Y MURO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
In the 1930s, due to the long-standing territorial disputes between Peru and Ecuador, the Peruvian government decided to build a modern military force, which would also include an increase in its manpower (MASTERSON, SOTELO; 2007). With this end, president Benavides replaced the military support - education and training principles and army‟s commands structure -
30
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
given by French military for the Germans in 1937. Together with the Germans, came also support given by Italy, which helped in the modernization of the Peruvian Air Force. However, due to the Second World War consequences, Italian cooperation was substituted by an United States advisory team (MASTERSON, SOTELO; 2007), whose partnership with Peru was the first step of the USA to block the Axis‟ influence in the South American country. It is one of the United States concerns as well the conflict between Ecuador and Peru. If it took place an extended struggle in Latin America, this would probably “divert Washington's attention from the growing peril in Europe and (...) Washington would seek a quick diplomatic conclusion to a Latin American conflict” (MASTERSON, SOTELO; 2007, p. 130). Also, the USA is interested in building bases in Ecuador and Peru in order to protect air and sea access routes to the Panama Canal, and this will not be possible unless it exists peace between both countries. Nevertheless, even with the United States‟ concern and actions towards this issue in South America, the animosities between Peru and Equador grew stronger. Thus, one of secondary Peruvian purposes at the Third Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, is finding a plausible solution to its internal conflicts. As World War II broke out, the American Ministers of Foreign Affairs gathered in Panama in 1939, a meeting that ended up in the signature of the declaration of neutrality concerning the war. Being so, "Peru was satisfied with its neutrality declaration and took no direct measures against German, Italian and Japanese nationals" (MASTERSON, SOTELO; 2007, p. 129). In 1940, however, a second meeting of ministers was held in Havana, and Peru, with the other American countries agreed on that "an attack upon any of the hemispheric powers would be considered by the nations of the Americas as an act of aggression upon all" (MASTERSON, SOTELO; 2007, p. 129). After World War II hostilities began, Peru become one of Washington's allies which means the country joined the Allied cause, however, without actually declaring war against the Axis.
V.19. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (ARTURO DESPRADEL, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Back in 1940, when the Second Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers took place in Habana, the Dominican Republic was one of the members of the Committee on Preservation of Peace in the Western Hemisphere, settled during the conference. The country, referring to struggles between and within American countries, agreed with the other parties at the meeting that it was of utmost importance "keeping constant vigilance to insure that states between which any dispute
31
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
exists or may arise, of any nature whatsoever, may solve it as quickly as possible" (The Avalon Project, 2008). This duty was due to the necessity of keeping American nations united, in a context of international war, despite of its existing differences. Dominican Republic was also one of the signatories of the Declaration on Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Nations of the Americas and therefore agreed that any attempt of a non-American state against the integrity, sovereignty or the political independence of an American state shall be considered as an act of aggression against the states which signed the declaration (The Avalon Project, 2008). Considering this background of Inter American cooperation, during the Second World War Latin American countries have shown the trend of allying themselves with the United States purposes, mainly due to the Good Neighbor Policy and the Dominican Republic is an example. Despite personal views from its dictator Rafael Trujillo, who believed that Hitler has unique style and militaristic rallies (BRATZEL, 2007, p. 9) and the trade‟s historic between Germany and the Dominican Republic, the country promptly declared war against the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941. Concerning trade, the only possible partner that could equally replace the trade between Dominican Republic and Germany was the USA, and of course the last one took advantage of this situation to conquer its aims. Considering geography, the Dominican Republic is strategic for the USA, because the country is located near the Panama Canal and for this reason the USA government decided to "supply aid to nations the United States might need in the future for the defense of the canal” (BRATZEL, 2007, p. 9). It is important noticing also that these American countries whose locations are strategic to the United States‟ interests made use of its position to insist upon concessions from the USA (BRATZEL, 2007).
V.20. URUGUAI (ALBERTO GUANI, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
Throughout the 1930s, Uruguay has had ups and downs concerning its internal political stability but in the international level the USA through its Good Neighbor Policy was deeply trying to unify the New World - including Uruguay - against possible foreign influences and menaces from the European and Asian countries (BRATZEL, 2007). Before World War II collapsed, Uruguay and Germany used to have very significant trade relations, but after September 1939, German ships were no longer allowed to get to Latin America and then the trade between both countries became unlikely.
32
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
During its mandate, Gabriel Terra - president from 1931 to 1938 – pursued an improvement of Uruguayan relations with the Roosevelt‟s United States. However, there were a few controversies and uncertainty in its foreign policy, since the president also kept relations with Italy and Germany, country that offered financial support to the building of a hydroelectric dam on Rio Negro, in the year of 1937. In 1938, General Alfredo Baldomir is elected president and again the country suffers an internal political reorganization. Internationally, when World War II broke out, Uruguay initially declared neutrality, but due to the course of events, the country is being pressured to assume a position in favor of the Allies‟ interests. In his government, Baldomir was favorable to the building of naval and air bases in the country by the United States and the cooperation between both countries did not stop at this point, since Uruguayan armed forces received training from the USA. The event that definitely was a turning point to Baldomir‟s position concerning World War II was the Battle of the River Plate. After this occasion (the only battle of Second World War which took place in South America) in the year of 1939, the country assumed its support for the Allied cause and seeks peace in the region of Latin America.
V.21. VENEZUELA (CARACCIOLO PARRA PEREZ, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS)
During World War II, due to the interest shown by the Axis and the Allies in Venezuela, the country‟s strategy is of protecting its most significant resource - its great supply of oil - from the belligerent powers. However, Venezuela is in a delicate position considering that the country still needs demand for its oil in order to maintain its economic health. The country then envisions the possibility of selling petroleum both to the Axis and the Allied powers, an idea which later would be proven unlikely, since neither the Allies nor the Axis would tolerate this scenario (LAUDERBAUGH, 2007). One of the Venezuela‟s main concern is related to its security, given that the country has nearly 4.000 Germans living within its borders that can easily come up with plans of sabotaging its oil facilities (LAUDERBAUGH, 2007). Moreover, European countries such as the Netherlands and France have colonies near Venezuela, territories that if invaded by the Axis would become a tough problem, once the Axis powers could use these lands to boycott Venezuelan oil production and distribution. In the beginning of the war in Europe, Venezuela declared neutrality, similar to many American countries, and kept the trade with both sides in conflict. Nevertheless, this position at a
33
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
time in the struggles was no longer possible and Venezuelan government started increasing its proximity with the United States by means of agreements that allowed American advisers to "improve the capability of the Venezuelan military establishment" (LAUDERBAUGH, 2007, p. 120). After Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941 the United States officially enters the war and Venezuela maintains its declared neutrality. However, “its actions clearly indicated its support for the Allies” (LAUDERBAUGH, 2007, p. 120).
34
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
VI. REFERENCES
BLASIER, Cole. THE UNITED STATES, GERMANY, AND THE BOLIVIAN REVOLUTIONARIES (1941-1946). In: The Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 52, N. 1, fev. 1972, pp. 26-54.
BRATZEL, John F. LATIN AMERICA RESPONDS TO WORLD WAR II. In: LEONARD, Thomas M.; BRATZEL, John F. Latin America during World War II. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. United States of America, 2007, pp. 8-12.
BUENO, Clodoaldo. O BRASIL E A SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL – NEUTRALIDADE E PRAGMATISMO. In: CERVO, Amado L. & BUENO, Clodoaldo. História da política exterior do Brasil. 3ª ed ampliada. Brasília: UnB, 2008, pp. 248-253.
BUSHNELL, David. COLOMBIA Y LA CAUSA DE LOS ALIADOS EN LA SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL: LA COLABORACIÓN MILITAR Y ECONÔMICA COM ESTADOS UNIDOS, APENAS PRODUJO UMA DECLARACIÓN DE BELIGERÂNCIA CONTRA LOS PAÍSES DEL EJE. Bogotá: Biblioteca virtual Del Banco dela Republica, 2005
CERVO, Amado Luiz. RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS DA AMÉRICA LATINA: VELHOS E NOVOS PARADIGMAS. 2 ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2007.
A INSTABILIDADE INTERNACIONAL (1919-1939). In: SARAIVA, José Flávio S. (org.). História das relações internacionais contemporâneas: da sociedade internacional do século XIX à era da globalização. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2007b, pp. 131-167.
CRUZ, Rodolfo Cerdas. COSTA RICA DESDE 1930. In: BETHELL, Leslie (ed.). Historia de América Latina. Vol. 14 – América Central desde 1930. Barcelona: Crítica, 2001, pp. 187-244.
DALLEK, Robert. THE AMERICAN STYLE OF FOREIGN POLICY. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
35
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
D‟ARAÚJO, Maria Celina. ENTRE A EUROPA E OS ESTADOS UNIDOS: DIÁLOGOS DE VARGAS COM SEU DIÁRIO. In: Luso-Brazilian Review, vol 34, n.1, 1997.
DONGHI, Tulio Halperin. HISTORIA CONTEMPORÁNEA DE AMÉRICA LATINA. 4a. reimpresión. Madrid: Alianza editorial, 2001.
GALASSO, Norberto. PERÓN: FORMACIÓN, ASCENSO Y CAÍDA (1893-1955). Buenos Aires: Colihue, 2006.
GOLDSTEIN, Marin E. America's FOREIGN POLICY: DRIFT OR DECISION. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1984
HUGH, Thomas. CUBA: THE PURSUIT OF FREEDOM. Eyre & Spohiswoode, London, 1970.
LANGLEY, Lester. THE WORLD CRISIS AND THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY IN PANAMA 1936-41, In: The Americas, vol. 24, n.2, October 1967.
LAUDERBAUGH, George M. BOLIVARIAN NATIONS: SECURING THE NORTHERN FRONTIER. In: LEONARD, Thomas M.; BRATZEL, John F. Latin America during World War II. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. United States of America, 2007, pp. 109-124.
MAGNOLI, Demétrio (Org.). HISTÓRIA DAS GUERRAS. Editora Contexto, 2006. 480p.
MASTERSON, Daniel M.; SOTELO, Jorge Ortiz. PERU: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND LOCAL REALITIES. In: LEONARD, Thomas M.; BRATZEL, John F (ed.). Latin America during World War II. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. United States of America, 2007, pp. 126-144.
36
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
MOURA, Gerson. RELAÇÕES EXTERIORES DO BRASIL (1939-1950): MUDANÇAS NA NATUREZA DAS RELAÇÕES BRASIL-ESTADOS UNIDOS DURANTE E APÓS A SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL. Brasília: FUNAG, 2012.
PASTORE, Carlos. EL PARAGUAY Y LA TIRANÍA DE MORÍNIGO. Edit. Antequera, 1947. 76 p.
PECEQUILO, Cristina S. A POLÍTICA EXTERNA DOS ESTADOS UNIDOS. Porto Alegre: UFRGS Editora, 2005.
RÉMOND, René. HISTÓRIA DOS ESTADOS UNIDOS. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1989.
VALIENTE, Mario Salazar. EL SALVADOR: OS ÚLTIMOS ANOS. In: CASANOVA, 1990, p. 159-177.
VIZENTINI, Paulo Fagundes. HISTÓRIA DO SÉCULO XX. 3ª ed. Atualizada. Porto Alegre: Editora Leitura XXI, 2007.
ZOOK, David H. Zarumilla-Marañón: THE ECUADOR-PERU DISPUTE. New York: Bookman Associates, 1996.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. SECOND MEETING OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS. The American Journal of International Law Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-32. Available at:
CROMWELL, D; EDWARDS, D. BRINGING HELL TO HAITI –PART 1. 2004. Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/141/haiti#Early20thCenturyUSOccupationofHaiti Access at February 18, 2013.
37
III MFA - 1942 | TEMAS 9 – Latin America
FENWICK, Charles. The THIRD MEETING OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AT RIO DE JANEIRO. Available at: www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2192629?uid=3737664&uid=2134&uid=364200861&uid =2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=364200851&uid=60&sid=21 p. 169-203. Access at: June 19, 2012.
MOUNT, Graeme. Chile and World War II. Latin American Studies Association, 2004. Available at
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. MEETINGS OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Available at:
THE AVALON PROJECT. A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949. Yale Law School; Lillian Goldman Law Library. Available at:
38