ference adjourned in order to hear addresses by Mrs. Rosalina Coelho Lisboa de Miller, Delegate of Brazil, and Mrs. Caroline O'Day, Congresswoman from New York, on behalf of the Mandate Committee. The People's Mandate to End War represents one of the most significant crystallizations of public opinion for peace that the nations of this hemisphere have ever witnessed. The closing session of the Conference was held on December 23, 1936, at which time an address by the Secretary of State was read by the Honorable Sumner Welles, owing to the inability of the Secretary to attend on account of illness. A copy of this speech is printed as appendix 11 (p. 92). The closing addresses were delivered by Dr. Carlos Concha, Chairman of the Peruvian Delegation, and Dr. Saavedra Lamas, Chairman of the Argentine Delegation. In accordance with the established custom, the head of the delegation of the country selected as the host for the next conference addressed the closing session on behalf of the delegates.* The meetings of the committees, as well as the plenary sessions of the Conference, were open to the public; the official languages were Spanish, English, Portuguese, and French. Three important instruments-the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace; the Additional Protocol Relative to Non-Intervention; and the Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties Between the American States-provide for the deposit of the instruments of ratification with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic. This provision is at variance with the general practice which has recently been developed in inter-American conferences, namely, that the instruments of ratification of inter-American treaties and conventions are deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union, which is charged with the duty of communicating notice of such deposit to the other signatory states.† WORK OF THE CONFERENCE Any appraisal or evaluation of the work of the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace must take into consideration not only the tangible but also the intangible factors involved. The Conference did not establish a millennium, and, in fact, no serious person ever expected such accomplishment. It did not come up to the expectations of either the enthusiastic theorists or the avowed *The Seventh International Conference of American States, which met in Montevideo in 1933, selected Lima as the seat of the next periodic conference, namely, the Eighth International Conference of American States. Report of † Resolution LVII: Measures for the Ratification of Conventions. the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3-26, 1933 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934), appendix 81, p. 257. pessimists who predicted the failure of the Conference. Neither did it satisfy the strong opponents of the League of Nations who would have liked to see the Geneva organization discredited, nor the loyal advocates who would have liked the Conference to have thrown its full weight and influence toward the League. The very fact that the Conference did not try to satisfy any of these demands is the surest evidence of its fundamental success. One of the chief characteristics of the Conference was the realism with which the delegates approached the problems with which they were confronted. The delegates conceived the task of the Conference to be that of formulating, by common agreement, plans for mutual cooperation and peaceful collaboration. The principle of equality was fully recognized. There was no distinction between large and small countries, but all delegations were on a basis of complete equality. The national sovereignty and independence of each nation were scrupulously respected. Moreover, it was recognized that each nation has the right to make decisions in accordance with its own national requirements. The United States Delegation acted accordingly. Its projects, like all other important projects, were modified to meet the views of the other twenty nations represented. It was the spirit of compromise which, in harmony with the principle of equality and the policy of the "good neighbor", made the Conference such an outstanding success. There was a greater desire for unanimity than at any other conference in recent years. Three of the most important projects were presented by all the countries, and most of the conventions and resolutions were adopted unanimously. It was an outstanding achievement in international affairs to witness twenty-one nations, representing more than 250,000,000 people of different economic conditions, national ambitions, and varying requirements, agreeing to advance jointly along general lines of progress in the fields of peace, neutrality, economics, and international cooperation. This unanimity of action and willingness to place the common welfare above individual interests constituted a most hopeful sign to those peoples of the world who are striving for a reign of peace among nations. The Conference demonstrates what can be done in a constructive way when the representatives of nations sit around a table to discuss measures for the common good in an atmosphere of confidence and understanding. Secretary Hull, in his closing address before the Conference, said (appendix 11, p. 93): To a fuller extent than ever before in a meeting of the American republics, the work of conference and collaboration has been carried on in a spirit of friendly understanding and mutual confidence. Seldom has there been a meeting in which debate has been more marked by mutual consideration, or discussion more concerned with agreement rather than divergence, or in which the delegates have subordinated their individual aims and desires for the sake of the common objective they have had before them. If I am correctly informed, for the first time in the history of inter-American conferences projects of fundamental import have been presented by the unanimous action of all of the delegations. If this procedure has been adopted, it has been because all of us have felt that only by unanimity could we succeed in assuring ourselves of the complete fulfilment of that which we have sought to attain. This unanimity was made possible by the united purpose and conviction that the American peoples have a common interest which binds them one to another. The community of interest among the American nations was never so manifest as at this Conference. All delegations were sensitive to the common bond, the common purposes, and the common concern in the safety and independence of each and all. They were firmly convinced that the national security of each individual American republic had become the common interest of all. The collectivity of the American republics was dedicated at this Conference to the cause of peace and the well-being of each nation. The unity and enthusiasm displayed throughout the Conference demonstrated the popular determination of the American peoples to preserve peace. This determination springs from the conviction so well expressed by Secretary Hull in his speech before the Conference on December 23, 1936, that "War is not an act of God but a crime of man." The serious conditions existing in other parts of the world and the danger of international conflict were recognized by all the delegates. All were impressed by the disastrous effects which an international conflict would have upon the economic, political, and social life of each. They desired to be helpful, so far as possible, in avoiding or preventing international conflicts abroad, but they were likewise determined that, if war could not be prevented, they should endeavor to provide some means whereby the American republics might take effective action in remaining outside of the conflict. Never has the purpose of the American peoples to keep out of war been more manifest or articulate than at this Conference. The policies involved were not solely based on the presumption of war and the fear of it, but they were planned with a view to making a positive contribution to world peace, as well as to enabling them to remain outside of any conflict. The treaties and conventions signed will, of course, operate only in case a serious emergency should arise. It was deemed necessary and desirable, however, to have them available even though the occasion when it would be necessary to invoke them might seem remote. No attempt was made to take action antagonistic to other nations, groups of nations, or organizations. The Conference took into consideration the fact that the Western Hemisphere is only one part of the world. It will be recalled in this connection that President Roosevelt's letter of January 30, 1936, suggesting the convocation of this Conference, stated that "the agreements which might be reached would supplement and reinforce the efforts of the League of Nations and of all other existing or future peace agencies in seeking to prevent war". The attitude which the United States Delegation took was that the American republics, in view of their common interests, could adopt measures safeguarding the peace of the Western Hemisphere and thereby contribute to the cause of peace not only throughout the Americas but also throughout the entire world. Although some of the instruments adopted may not be everything that is desired, it is believed that they represent the largest common denominator which it was possible to obtain under the circumstances. The primary consideration was to reach agreements which would recognize the demands and requirements of twenty-one independent nations and which, at the same time, would avoid sacrificing the principles of self-preservation and of national independence. The treaties and conventions signed are based upon the views of all the delegations; they are not opposed to the interests of individual nations or groups of nations; and they scrupulously respect the national sovereignty and independence of action of each of the signatory governments. As a result, there was no categorical negative vote against any of the treaties, conventions, and resolutions, and there were very few reservations or abstentions from voting. INSTRUMENTS ADOPTED AT THE CONFERENCE The Conference adopted two treaties and eight conventions, an additional protocol relative to non-intervention, and sixty-two resolutions, recommendations, and declarations. The following instruments were signed: Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace (pp. 17 and 116); Additional Protocol Relative to Non-Intervention (pp. 19 and 124); Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties Between the American States (pp. 23 and 131); Treaty on the Prevention of Controversies (pp. 20 and 143); Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation (pp. 20 and 151); Convention on the Pan American Highway (pp. 32 and 159); Convention on Interchange of Publications (pp. 35 and 176); Convention Concerning Facilities for Educational and Publicity * Not signed by the Delegation of the United States of America; see p. 35. The detailed account of the work of the Conference can most conveniently be described under the work of the respective committees. COMMITTEE I: ORGANIZATION OF PEACE 1. Methods for the prevention and pacific settlement of inter-American disputes. (a) Consideration of possible causes of controversy and of measures for their peaceful solution, excepting questions already settled by treaties. (b) Coordination and perfecting of existing international instruments for the maintenance of peace, and desirability of incorporating them in one instrument. (c) Consideration of additional measures for the maintenance of peace and the pacific settlement of inter-American controversies. (d) Measures intended to secure the prompt ratification of treaties and conventions for the maintenance of peace. (e) Generalization of the inter-American juridical system for the maintenance of peace. (f) Creation of an Inter-American Court of Justice. 2. Consideration of other measures tending toward closer association of the American Republics and of measures of cooperation with other international entities. In view of the fact that this extraordinary Conference was convened to give special consideration to questions relative to the maintenanceof peace, the work of Committee I, dealing with the topics concerning organization of peace, attracted more sustained interest than that of any of the other committees. This Committee approved one convention, two treaties, an additional protocol, and ten resolutions. In the field of the organization of peace, the Conference was faced with various alternatives. The Conference could take cognizance of the existing peace machinery and supplement it by the establishment. of additional machinery; it could provide for the abolition of all existing machinery and the creation of an entirely new machinery; it could favor close cooperation with the League of Nations and disregard the regional aspect of international organization; or it could favor the establishment of an entirely independent regional organization for the Western Hemisphere without regard for other institutions. The Conference adopted the first alternative, namely, to supplement the existing peace machinery. The main features of an effective peace machinery, such as provisions for conciliation, mediation, and arbitration, already existed, but there were certain weaknesses which required remedy. The first action was the approval by the Conference of resolution III (appendix 29, p. 210), in accordance with a proposal made by Secretary Hull reaffirming the resolution of the Montevideo Conference calling upon those governments which had not yet done so to adhere to or ratify the five existing inter-American peace treaties. Although a number of governments had ratified these instruments. |