612


FOREIGN. RELATIONS, 19 5 0, VOLUME I


necessary for action in collective defense should the need therefor arise.
He observed in his report:
  "But there might be some confusion between the right or obligation
of collective self-defense and the application of collective measures of
defense, and that confusion may give rise, also, to the erroneous belief
that to exercise that right it is necessary to coordinate in adxvance the
measures to be taken, in consultation. The American States had little
doubt about this, and in my opinion they were right not to admit any.
Because collective self-defense, as a right, is derived from the United
Nations Charter and as an obligation it is derived from the Treaty of
Rio de Janeiro. The rest is pure procedure."
  In commenting upon other action at the Rio Conference, the Director
General of the Pan American Union expressed the concern he had felt
over the fact that economic cooperation is not being given the profound
study that the problems created by the terms of the war deserve. He
said that many of these problems, if not solved soon, might well lead
to serious disturbances and disorders and injure the political and social
stability of the American continent. The Director General then made
the following significant comment upon the armament question:
   "I should like to call the attention of the members of the Governing
Board to another proposal, which also reflects accurately the prevail-
ing sentiment of the Conference on the meaning of the Treaty of Rio
de Janeiro and its immediate consequences. It is Resolution XI, on
armaments and the obligations created under the Treaty, the text of
which is sufficiently clear in itself not t0 require additional comment.
Nevertheless, its importance lies in the fact that in the opinion of
some regions not represented at the Conference, what was created at
Rio de Janeiro was a military alliance of this part of the world, with
the object of preparing for an inevitable world war. The American
States did not understand it in that way. On the contrary, it is clear
for them that the Treaty assures the peace and security of the con-
tinent, and that to sign it for the purpose of embarking upon an
armament race would be illogical and absurd. [Underscoring added] 8
For the majority of us who were present at the Rio de Janeiro Confer-
ence, if not for all, war has been conclusively banished frorm the
hemisphere, as far as the possibility of aggression by one American
State against another is concerned. If that had not been the feeling
of all signers of the Treaty there would have been a determined effort
to leave some loophole for a possible aggressor, and that there never
was, throughout the deliberations. Since that is the case, there is no
reason for the Latin American countries to start in now to raise their
armaments to previously unknown levels, under the pretext that they
will need them for the defense of the hemisphere. It is possible that
it will be desirable to seek a certain uniformity of materiel and tech-
nical training among the military forces of the continent in order to
   8 Brackets appear in the source text.