Couchiching Conference

Twenty ninth annual conference since last Saturday here on the shores of Lake Ontario. We've been discussing the various problems which beset the Latin Americas today. Communism of course economic disability the changing social structures and time again. One question has been raised touched upon but never fully developed the pressures and tugs of the big powers and the effects they produce in the different Latin American countries. The biggest power today is the United States. And this name has been invoked frequently during the past week with different degrees of emphasis. But another power has greatly influenced Latin America in the past and still has strong links with it today the United Kingdom tonight to speak on power relationships in the Americas. Roy Robotham Jr. representing United States and Professor John Mitford from Great Britain the chairman will introduce the more fully the press. Didn't of Carleton University Ottawa a Davidson. There are deep underlying forces at work

in and on Latin America. There are also some that are a pressing questions of pressures and counter pressures. The outcome of the interplay of these forces and pulls and pushes is going to be of great significance for the whole world. I think it's going to be of particular importance to Canada whether or not Canada overall in motion decides to get more directly involved. In dealing with such a warm subject as power relationships it's probably a very wise thing to start with a cool appraisal of a scholar. I think the conference is very lucky that the committee has been able to induce one of the most distinguished English speaking scholars in Latin America to come across the Atlantic straight to coaching Professor John Medford is head of the department of Spanish at the University of Bristol

is not only studied Spanish and Spanish American Literature and life but he has lived a great deal in Latin America he knows where all these speaks by first hand too. He has the scholars detached viewpoint. I imagine he also comes from a country with old connections of course and old knowledge of Latin America but one which perhaps is not quite so immediately involved in current problems. Therefore I think we can well start with a cool objective point of view from Professor John Mefford. Ladies and gentlemen is the trim and his Sid My task is briefly to outline the international relations of the Dayton American countries. And these are the fall into three clearly marked divisions. First there are the relations of the Latin American powers with each other. The second

become the extra American relations of these powers. Third and I put it last because it needs the most attention relations individual and collective of the Dayton American nations to the United States of America. I will deal with each of these points in time. The great liberator of northern South America. Cmon believe are headed there is a great Spanish speaking United States of South America with its federal capital on the Isthmus of Panama. His dream has never been realized because the physical reality is of Latin American existence run counter to such an ideal never that is if political unity has proved impossible. There has always be an underlying sense of identity based on common language and common cause.

These are cultural and sentimental tie is important because they not only bind the Spanish speaking American nations to each other but they also link them with the spirit a la madre Patria the mother country. Where are these common sentiments. Are sufficiently strong and whether the mutual political interests of the Latin American countries are sufficiently aligned to allow them to form a neutralised bloc in the East West conflict is a question which may will be examined in the discussion later this evening. Certainly the Latin American bloc in the United Nations is much courted and has much influence although it has now been numerically eclipsed by the new Afro Asian members. Well conflicts between the Spanish speaking nations have been due almost entirely to boundary

disputes and they still exist. A number of such disputed areas in Central America for instance and in the upper Amazon basin where Colombian Peruvian and Ecuadorian claims overlap. Chile and Argentina has set an example in the past over submitting such disputes to peaceful arbitration rather than to the gun. And I'm sure you will remember that our Queen has been asked to mediate in just such a boundary question. At the moment. Nevertheless the importance to us now of the existence of these boundary questions is that it any time and unscrupulous nationalist leader playing on the scene of an era did to some of his countrymen could always cause international incidents or even will Soviet Russia working as always through ultra nationalism

could easily turn such a situation to her advantage. Resume needs to be mentioned only briefly here. Although have boundaries touch those of every other South American nation with the exception of Chile she has by peaceful negotiation been able to settle her boundary questions and expand her national territory so that she is now the largest in area of all the Latin American states. It was never the less be remembered that a base you can say exists between Brazil and Argentina and that this must be taken into account in all American history. This partly explains why Brazil so often turns to the United States of America as a counterbalance to Argentina and why Argentina seeks to lead the Spanish speaking nations as a counterbalance to Brazil and to the

par of the United States. Well all that I've said so far represents the historical and perennial pattern of Latin American relations. But within the last few years with three new factors have become apparent and they are of the greatest importance to the future peace of the Americas. They are ideological in origin. First we have the determination of certain new democratic governments not to rest content until they have toppled the traditional dictators from PA in neighboring countries. Second day the determination of dictators to prevent the rise of democracy is odd. The messianic claims of a demagogue Leda to have discovered the gospels of the Americas the panacea for the which visit or nation. Castro is all of this

M.. Looks at present as though he will have his hands rather too full it has to borrow to bother too much about exporting his ideas. I would only briefly with my second division new Europe in relations of the net an American pas. But I would like to say this in many ways. Americanism is a myth. The Atlantic Ocean does not divide a good deal of South America is geographically nearer to Europe then it is to North America and culturally to the nations have been much closer to Europe especially to Spain France and Britain than they have been to the USA. The ties of European immigrant groups German Italian Central European must not be overlooked in this connection and almost the growing importance of West Germany and that in America be forgotten. As an Englishman I'm

happy to say they had relations with the United Kingdom reasonably good despite many mistakes in the past. The British now know that all but three outstanding questions must be mentioned first the Argentine came to the Falklands sickened the great Amal and claimed British Honduras and said the desire of certain nations to take existing European colonies Trinidad could us how Martinique the first two questions would present no difficulties because Great Britain is quite prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice if the claims are in dispute. The third question has been carefully issue through United States influence but it is a tie. All three could be revived by unscrupulous demagogues intent

on causing trouble in the Western Hemisphere and conflagrations on America's back doorstep. The third section of what I have to say outweighs in importance all that has gone before. However much the Latin American nations may wish to go their separate ways and to decide their own destiny is an international alignment. They cannot fail to take into account the likes and dislikes the interests and attitudes of the great industrial power which inevitably dominates the American scene. Colossus of the North is no conventional expression but the statement of a truth which cannot be ignored. Two this must be added the fact that the Colossus represents not only political PA but also the land of the haves not have of the haves. While Latin America is distinct the land of the have nots whose chief interest is to obtain from the Colossus without

coming completely under its domination. Financial help for development. This is led inevitably to a love hate relationship which colors all Latin American thinking. There is much that the Latin Americans should recall with gratitude. What example the Good Neighbor Policy of the 1930s whereby so many young Americans were trained in the USA and so much technical and monetary help to give. This represents a very genuine attempt on the part of the people of the USA to atone for post mistakes and to try to understand their southern neighbors. On the other side of the picture all those actions which still rankle in the minds of all Latin Americans and which are known by their catchwords manifest destiny. Yankee imperialism Roosevelt corroborates the Monroe Doctrine. Dollar diplomacy. These are historical facts but it must be remembered that there is now no one more

critical of them than the people of the United States. They have made sincere attempts to redress such wrongs and have behaved correctly in the present difficult situation. Whatever has happened in the past I think that we was now looked with sympathy at the dilemma in which the USA is now place. She is faced by a pub which proclaims world domination as its aim its method of attack on the Americas is not the conventional one of a frontal offensive with military weapons but the most subtle one of fermenting social unrest and then exploiting the situation that's created to its own advantage. What can the USA do to meet this threat. The group regrettable fact is that in so many Latin American countries public order is guaranteed only by the might of a dictator. The USA has therefore the choice. As in Frank you speak of supporting that dictator or saying that country fall into chaos which the communists

need for the furtherance of their aims on the other hand if she supports the party opposed to a dictator she is held guilty of intervention of plunging that country into bloody civil strife with no real guarantee that the resultant government will be any more democratic than the one which replaces it which is to replace it. So this. Situation USA deserves the help and sympathy of her allies. The need for security must be recognized. But you must be warned not to interpret every move for economic economic bitter and is a manifestation of communism. The trigger happy section of her people must be kept in check and moderates encouraged in the hope that the generous aid band under the eyes and how good partnership scheme will raise standards of living and thus bring about democratic stability. The prevalent anti-Americanism in Latin America and indeed in Europe is in one

way a device for evading thinking about our own shortcomings. Professor Tannenbaum yesterday told us of Ned Thompson of Chicago who won his elections by ranting about King George. I would like to add a story about that same now after he had delivered one of his usual platform tirades. He was asked Ned Thompson do you mean George the Fed or George the fifth. Say exclaimed Thompson. Well the two of those guys. Don't forget that there ought to United States of the past which may perhaps be condemned and dead at the present aimed at security and goodwill. Why do we have every right to be critical of aspects of U.S. policy and some of the big business attitudes. Let us remember that she is our enemy and let us never forget that the defense of our freedom is inextricably linked

with the survival of the ordinary kindly supremely generous citizens of the United States. It will be noticed too that I said very little about Canada and how it will. This is because of what I conceived to be a very special position in the continent although technically an American nation in the sense that a two to three forms a considerable part of the North American continent. She has not been so directly implicated as other nations in the question of the continental balance of her English and French heritage likely apart from other nations. Nevertheless it seems to me that Canada know has a very special place in American at the moment. She has a very strong moral position with very real Essex. She has inherited the stock of genuine goodwill I felt for British people generally. She is one of the senior

partners in a commonwealth which is world wide and dedicated to the Rights of Man. She is free from any territorial ambitions. She just wants to be herself and to live her own life. Canada is thus in a most favorable situation to make of voice her head and her influence felt in Latin America and who knows perhaps to act as the mediator in the difficult relations between the United States and herself a neighbor. A discussion of power relationships in Latin America wouldn't be much without a spokesman for for a chief factor in those relationships the United States. We are very lucky I think to have a particularly appropriate spokesman

tonight in Mr. Royle our rubato as assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs. He's had a great deal to do of course in the last three years with the formulation and the execution of United States policy toward the south. I've tried them already had a what would be just seems just about a perfect background for for that post. He comes from Texas which has its own Latin American background. He has got to know Latin America well by serving in the American missions there. He's also served in Spain itself. I'd like to say too that in the four hours in which Mr Robotham has a dean of good teaching. My admiration for him has become quickly very great indeed. He arrived and with the skill of a diplomat found pretty quickly that a number of the points that he had covered in the speech he had carefully prepared

for tonight had already been discussed at coaching. Therefore he decided. He wouldn't read that speech to you. But he would take full as discussed some of those points and instead try to deal with other points which have not been discussed or discussed fully this week already pressing immediate questions of power relationships in the United States. It's almost a robot and I don't think is going to leave a safe ship of his prepared speech and go off on a rather more exciting voyage I think in his own individual luch rubato. Thank you very much Dr. Dutton for the introduction and May I congratulate the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs and CBC for this excellent program devoted this year to Latin America but which I

understand has now been in progress for almost 30 years. Discussing a number of interesting subjects. I recall my last visit to Canada. And I see you want to count my visit to the Canadian side of Niagara lice year. Twenty five years ago it was my privilege and pleasure to visit the campus of the University of Toronto twice. As a young man just out of college a little younger than I am now at least I was struck then by the maturity of the college student at the University of Toronto as contrasted with the immaturity of some of my fellow countrymen in colleges and universities. On the other side and for two years I visited up and down the countryside and I still recall the impression made by the outstanding group of students and faculty and alumni with whom I had contact at that time. I can tell the enormous progress that your

city of Toronto has made by just flying over it today and I am impressed also with the beauty of your verdant countryside in this wonderful setting which I can see has provoked a very very stimulating discussion because people are literally dripping with information about Latin America. To the point that I have indeed thrown my prepared speech to one side but I am doing so only because I understand that you have already discussed for example the danger of the intrusion of communism in the Americas under the pretense of meeting people's legitimate aspirations. Because I know you have already distrust and struck down the illusion that social and economic development can be achieved by violence subversion suppression of individual freedom and denigration of the individual. And because I know you have already attacked if you have not destroyed the myth of outside aggression meaning the

United States being used simply to try to restore the waning public enthusiasm for our revolution betrayed. Now is the Organization of American States moves into the center stage. I think it deserves a little bit of reviewed this evening. Is this organization which is going to be dealt with in more detail tomorrow I understand something that has simply come into being overnight and overcome by problems of great gravity. Or is it a carefully erected edifice built piece by piece over the last 80 years and now coming into maturity and prepared indeed to deal with these problems. I submit sir that it is the latter and for ten years at least 12 years since the organization was formally charter to Bogota in 1948 it has been dealing with increasingly serious

problems with increasing effectiveness. Some of the bilateral disputes indeed that have been treated by the Organization of American States and these past few years had they erupted into all out war could have destroyed the financial reserves and the economies of the countries concerned. In a week or two's time. Last year we saw the first unfolding international treatment of the situation in the Caribbean. As a result of the betrayal of the Cuban revolution it was at the meeting of foreign ministers in Santiago where the finger was placed on outright blatant Cuban intervention in the affairs of its neighbors. The intervention which was proscribed and which Cuba agreed to at that meeting which had been open is still going on openly and subversively and clandestinely at this time. Now it's San Jose.

The problem is even graver. There will be two phases taken up by the Organization of American States at San Jose the first of course is the Venezuelan charge against the Dominican Republic. Based on evidence which the Venezuelan government has put forward and which has been reviewed by an investigating committee of the Organization of American states that the Dominican Republic was involved in the attempted overthrow of the Bettencourt government. Indeed the attempted assassination of the president of Venezuela the second phase has to do with Cuba. The total problem of Cuba is one which I think deserves a little bit of analysis. The Organization of American States must take into account the Cuban use of the Communist use of the Cuban instrumentality to intervene in the affairs of the hemisphere

evidenced not only but perhaps most openly by the Khrushchev statement of July 9 and increasing evidence since that time it must take into account the open communist penetration of the Cuban government. It must take into account the almost total lack of evidence of representative democracy in Cuba at this time. It must also take into account. I'm sorry to say Dr. Mitford the export of its revolution referring to one of the points that you made an export which I repeat has been going on openly and is now going on clandestinely and subversively openly indeed talking over the heads of governments and openly inciting people. I should also mention in all honesty in fairness that the Cuban charges of economic aggression against the United States will also be taken up at that meeting under item

4 of the agenda and we will be prepared to answer their charges and to rebut them and show up the charges for their true work. I would like to make absolutely clear and in all earnestness that the problems between Cuba and the Americas are problems that indeed affect the whole hemisphere. There is a tendency to consider the problems between Cuba and the United States as being the real problem but the problems are not really bi lateral. We have offered time and time again to negotiate the problems they have steadfastly refused to negotiate the problems. That's the Organization of American States moves into this challenging situation. It's a great challenge but I believe that the American states a family of juridical equals where morality not is the paramount factor is prepared.

Considering the subject tonight our relationships in the Americas. Is it too much to hope that Maro power itself can be translated into a power capable of meeting this challenge. The organisation faces a collective problem which cannot be wished away. Thus we must assume collective responsibility and I have faith in the Organization of American States and has 21 parts to meet this challenge. Thank you very much. Two Latin Americans have also been invited to comment on the subject. One is in the care of Caribbean area one from the more southern part of the hemisphere. So I should first like to call on Mr.

D. Mexico for his views on the topic of the evening. The CHAIRMAN. Mr Robotham has made a point to which I've heard mentioned quite often that the Cuban problem is not a purely bilateral problem between Cuba and the US. You would recall that many of you know that some days ago here we discussed that one of the aspects of the Cuban economic and social revolution is that it is placed in the context of the Cold War. It is placed in the context of this struggle to systems to show the way to the billion underdeveloped people of the world.

And. We also. Discussed I think the question that perhaps any future revolutionary movements in the sense of a social revolution are bound to be placed within the same context. If we have today as Mr Robotham says a collective responsibility in connection with the problem of Cuba then I think we ought to look a little bit further back to the causes of this problem which is not a bilateral one. In other words are we in the other Latin American countries also concerned with the causes of this situation. I would only with a question of what to do about it. Therefore I think you have to go back to the broader picture of what I what are the basic needs and problems of Latin America and what has been the attitude of the great powers toward them.

Now I have often in private conversation with Americans in the government and outside I found little difficulty in agreeing with them on many basic questions. I have also seen very fine speeches by very distinguished American diplomats and people in high places. And some of the speech is really going to be quoted and said to represent basically the things we are after in Latin America. But something happens or something rather does not happen. The speeches are not converted into deeds. And when for example the United States says that it is certainly an important problem to achieve the relatives of but the prices of raw materials and primary products it takes years and years and years to get the first bit of action

on the part of the U.S. government. When we discuss questions of financing year after year and we keep on saying that we need large amounts of capital for basic projects which cannot be financed by private investment. And the U.S. would say. This many things are most things should be done by private foreign investments and we finally get closer and closer to an understanding of each other's point of view. Years and years go by again before something happens like the recent establishment of Inter American bank. Well I would not like to belabor this point. I would not like to say that there is no understanding of it all. But I would like to ask and assume that I'm supposed to ask some kind of a question here. I would like to ask because this is very important in Latin America it's very important to the understanding of Latin Americans of what moves the United States.

Why is it that many of these things on which we do not fundamentally disagree don't get done all they get done very late and in a way that is not always very tasteful. For example a recent announcement of a new item of policy in the game immediately upon the. Suspension of the purchases of sugar from Cuba. The tiny reduced rather hesitant reaction in Latin America. My question fundamentally is the real bottom do you think is if you could explain why it is that your good intentions like United States are not easily or quickly translated into the kind of policies that would satisfy a lot of American opinion. Mr Key hold your question for the moment and see if Mr. Mann Well

done yes I do has something to something to say and perhaps. Perhaps a question went to thank him. At this point and just completing the outline of the question posed by Mr Wilkie I would ask another question. Argentina which is my country has and is presently receiving a great amount of assistance from the United States and has been held in a civilization program through United States institutions. I see a danger in the present trend of events in the United States in trying to oversimplify the problem. This is a danger that I can see on both sides of the argument. The United States on one side and vocal representatives of Latin America on the other side are trying to simplify the problem down to a choice between communism are

not communism. I don't think the choice is as simple and I don't think the problem lies there. Cuba is a very sorry example right now and it will probably wind up really poor with this communism influence and a lot of neighbors much richer than before. But the point is there has been communist infiltration in Latin America for years. We in Argentina have had of the most numerous embassy belonging to Russia. The same thing applies to the way they have traveled freely we have just now started kicking them out of Latin America. So this isn't something new. Now the same problems we had two years ago are still there. We are grateful as countries for the aid received and I think that the problems that exist merit an individual analysis rather than a flag waving under the appearance of communism. Would you like to be your first Mister. QUESTION But I'd like to combine them for a moment

and to say that one of the most difficult things to do and something that Mr. A kiddie and and restore don't use especially Mr. or don't use have helped to do is to put the whole aspect of Latin America into proper perspective it's quite easy with the Cuban problem or the Dominican problem are the whole Caribbean problem to over look the enormous amount of progress that is being made in the area as a whole and the many constructive relationships said are in existence both bilateral between neighboring countries and bilateral between us and certain countries in the area and the multilateral relationships. I'd like to say that in spite of the fact that I read through my notes and tried to put into eight or nine minutes a few up to minute considerations of the OAS challenge at San Jose and in my prepared remarks I did dwell to some extent on the positive

factors that need to be taken into account into account and which were stressed quite properly by Mr. Keating. Someone has put it I believe the president himself mentioned that it's a race between evolution and revolution and evolution. Sound progress orderly progress I think is something that we must help peoples achieve all over. The record of our cooperation and our effort to understand for example the Mexican Revolution down through the years I think is a good example of our capacity to achieve understanding the help that we have given in recent years to the Bolivian revolution in spite of rather basic disagreements with certain facets of it at times. Here's another example of our capacity to try to understand the revolutionary aspirations of people. Certainly the stated asserted ideals of the revolution of Cuba had as much support in the United States as they did

anywhere in the hemisphere. And it's a betrayal of those ideals that has been so tragic to watch. Years that it takes to get action on certain programs that you referred to. I will acknowledge that that happens occasionally we are responsive to the interests of our peoples. We are responsive to certain pressure groups if you please just like most democratic countries are. And it perhaps does take time for us to get things done. I think you can still make an economic argument against the Inter-American bank but the political arguments for the Inter-American bank overcame the economic arguments and I think the United States is enthusiastically carrying out its responsibilities and perhaps will endeavor to help broaden the responsibilities of the Inter-American bank in the near future. And I think with respect to the timing of the Eisenhower program which was announced on July the 11th I would ask you if

you took into account that there have been two meetings of the Committee of Twenty one under Operation Pan American the last two years another meeting coming up in Bogota next month. If you take into account that the Presidents national advisory committee has been meeting six times in the past six or seven months to seriously examine the problem of economic assistance for Latin America. If you analyze the trip of the president himself where he saw it first hand some of the conditions in Latin America and the need for rapid. Attack of the problems of economic under development and the fact that we are a democracy that we don't move as fast as perhaps we should. You would recognize that maybe the program was put together and ready for announcement at the time. Now if it happened to coincide with something it you referred to would you have us wait. You just complained on the other hand for taking so long to get things done. It seems to me like it's just as well that we came out with it when we did. It was coincidental

and I think the program has very constructive. Meetings open for questions. I missed him on a few nights ago. A distinguished lotting American indicated from the platform that the Monroe Doctrine was not acceptable to the South American countries. In view of that statement in fact I would appreciate a comment from you so on that statement. And also in view of the fact that the Monroe Doctrine as I understand it and in this I am subject to correction that it was a unique declaration by your government. I'm wondering so what would be the position of your government. Should a nation paua enunciate a similar doctrine with respect to Asia and specifically to the China Seas and a foe to most of.

Yes you are me you. Quick question is directed to you Mr Obama. I'll undertake to answer the first part of the program I don't think this subject is of this particular conference is supposed to deal with Asia is it. But the the Munroe doctrine of course was enunciated a hundred forty years ago approximately out of time and in a context quite different of course from the present day one. I think it served its purpose. Perhaps constructive for the most part and I would guess that there weren't any serious complaints during the early years of the doctrine about it. There perhaps are differing views including some very critical views about the money or doctrine among our Latin American

friends. I think it's interesting to note though that in 1947 the 21 American Republics signed the Rio Treaty in Rio de Janeiro at which time they enunciated for the whole world that an aggression against any single. Republic of the Americas would be considered an aggression against all. Which means in effect that you have had the hemisphere that is the American republics as a whole take own some of this collective responsibility which I earlier referred to for the well-being and the protection and the security of the hemisphere. I think as far as the latter part of your problem is your question is concerned which I repeat I don't pretend to be particularly well prepared owned and hard to know a whole lot about. I believe I can see that you're smiling and that is

absent. That's a true statement as far as my own relative lack of information on it. I don't know whether your equating a certain power in Asia with the United States with respect to the marl standards which it undertakes to carry out in conducting its affairs in the world I doubt that you were. And up until now this question of yours I think is purely hypothetical one can be dealt with when it comes to be a real one. Festival back of it all. Mr. Chairman I shouldn't like to belabor the issues that divide. But I would like to bring us back to the hemisphere. And I should like

to ask the distinguished visitor from the United Kingdom. On to point of information to give his opinion or ruling. The first point of information is could he elaborate just a little for the benefit of the rest of us. What are the issues that divide Argentinian and Brazil. And secondly what would be the position in terms of international law and other up questions if any country were to claim as he suggests part of the territory of what will be a fully Federated British West Indies in the next few years. Very interesting questions indeed. The issues between Argentina and Brazil are partly

historical. They go back to the conflict on the shores of the River Plate on the bombed out Audi and tell when a berth Brazil in the United Provinces of La Plata Argentina was then claimed position of this bond was set up as a buffer state. And since that time there have been new really open boundary conflicts but the Nevertheless does exist and certain psychological antipathy between the two which is an ever present factor in him in relation to the people and when Osiris referred to the MA course the monkey is up north and I didn't tell you how the Brazilians refer to the Argentine times in private conversation. And believe me you talked about Toronto says about Montreal is nothing compared as you know it's really I think a question of two cars trying to lead

the hemisphere Brazil is mightily larger than they are totally larger than the other pars and Argentina too has always aspired to the dealership of the South and country continent. I think there was of the basic psychological reasons. Now I can't give a rule and I'm not an international lawyer. I only indicated the problem of the British positions in the Caribbean Trinidad and so on and the Dutch and the French are SOL in Martinique because this was an issue raised just at the end of the wall when the European powers were weak and it was referred I believe to the organization a committee of the Organization of American States and that's where it wrists because the United States of America saw that this was an issue which really should not be raised to the degree.

Unfortunately it has not come about under international law of course if I'm called upon to give some kind of a ruling under an international law there's no question as to who these positions belong but it's quite clear. For a while there. Mr. Chairman I would like to volunteer an explanation and some correction. The statement attributed to a distinguished visitor from Latin America and that was Presidents again in connection with the modern doctrine but I sort of see that as answer to a question that I directed to him and he said that at a meeting of my political party which had taken place in Lima Peru a few days ago and he named his five party ticket back to the question I would a motor doctor it was discussed

and they unanimously agree to a post not to the mother or doctor you south by the you know like that I thought but I show an implementation I would a motor doctoring on the part of the United States because they felt that the interpretation and implementation of such a doctrine is now out to collect your responsibility. QUESTION Mr. Chairman I realize that this question will be more fully discussed tomorrow night. But while we have our eminent visitor Mr. Robot I'm here tonight. I wondered if he could tell us what the attitude of the American State Department is towards the problem or question of Canada joining the OAS. We pause for a moment.

I don't I don't think there is any more. Precise answer that could be given to your question. And it would apply not only to the United States but to the other members of the Organization of American States and to refer to the language which was deliberately chosen in 1948 to make it possible for a candidate to come into the Organization of American States whenever in her due wisdom and in her national judgment after she's weighed the relative merits she decides it's in her interest to do so. I am as I mentioned Mr. Obama as a diplomat I am. Given the back lot going back to Professor met Ford about the little dissension shall we call between Brazil and Argentina. I'm rather

curious to find out in view of the recent developments first. Naturally the long tradition of very intense commerce between Brazil and Argentina. And secondly in view of the recent developments of greater posh market between the two countries I would like to ask Professor met for it how serious he finds this dissension. I would like also to add that I'm half Brazilian half Argentine and that's why I say yes I do. It's perfectly right and it's a very good development at the present time. Nick it's become very close regretted to SUNO I was concerned mainly to deal with basic principles as I understand them principles which haven't met a strong the last 150 years of history and I was really concerned to point out

these tensions within the eight Latin Americas as of that we didn't fall into the trap of considering the Latin Americas as a unit. I mean there was Spector's of that I'm sure any Brazilian would admitted in any person the Argentine sensible people of course don't pay too much you come to these feelings but you've got to realise that such feelings all day can be played upon can be whipped up into an emotion. Let's hope they never will. I'm sure that the new generation of Argentines and Brazilians will get a good deal of what has gone on in the past. Yeah. I'd like to direct this question to Mr. Rubaie time if I may. In discussing power politics in Latin America I want to give his opinion about a new economic and therefore political power source that seems to be developing in Latin America the free trade association and get his opinion if he

can on the U.S. attitude towards that association and what he feels the political significance of it could be. But we attribute to the great importance and great significance to the development of the Free Trade Association which involves seven countries and South America I believe Mexico is loosely associated with the organization right now as we do also to the Central American Regional market. Which is now more than a concept which is actually marching ahead with increasing vigor. We have recognized here again I refer to Mr. Ickes question. I think we got on the bandwagon and in this particular case pretty early in the game if you would give us an objective judgment on this matter we recognize that it's

a matter of great political importance to the hemisphere and it also has a great economic potential. Good. We of course always stressed when we assert our support for this matter of the common market free trade association whatever regional grouping you might arrange that we do so with the thought in mind that this will bring increased productivity increased competition lowered prices and reduced barriers and would not in any way lead to increased barriers or walls to cut out outside trade. We have made the same point true in dealing with our European friends who have their own trade problems built around the sixes in the sevens which you know something about. While I'm talking ab like to take the initiative just for a moment to

stress one other aspect of an economic development problem which I think fits into the context of both Mr Kedy and Mr I don't use his earlier statements and that is the direct relationship between political stability and economic development. There has been a great deal of concern expressed by those interested in economic development in Latin America about the effect the destructive process is going on now in Cuba on private investment around the hemisphere. And I think that is a valid cause for concern. There's no question but what it is having an effect not only in the United States but it's having an effect elsewhere. Countries that have the capital to invest but there's another aspect of this it's worth mentioning and that is what it does to capital within the Latin American countries themselves where there is political stability where there is order instead of disorder where there's institutional process that brings about the changes in government and political

maturity that capital tends to stay at home to work and to be invested. I remember talking to one senior government official of a Latin American country a small country only three or four years ago who told me that there was at least 40 million dollars of capital belonging to nationals of his country which he would like to have come home and go to work and he hoped that their government their administration would be able to bring that capital back. I think it's a very very important relationship there that should not be overlooked and is not just outside investment it's domestic investment as well. That's affected by this matter. State government any alternative to supporting military dictatorships in Latin America is not a communist military dictatorships in the same way that supports a democratic state in Latin America. I wonder if I could answer that in this way.

Did you mean to say in the first place that we do support military dictatorships. Because if you do our support seems to be the best way to bring them to an end. If you look at the progress in the last five or six years you'll see that they have. There's never been a period of time when representative democracy has moved ahead so just as it has. What is in the opinion of your government are the legitimate conditions that can be put to the Latin American countries as prerequisites before they are entitled to get substantial economic aid. I do think that if economic assistance is going to be effective that they have to assume a lot of responsibilities themselves and I think that Latin American countries as a whole the mature countries the progressive countries are realizing that more and more we can only give a little bit of an outside help can be only one small ingredient but

self-help so to speak can really catch fire and I think working together what little can be added from the outside and where their own sound approach to economic development can do a great deal but you have to have sound fiscal policies and the desire to move ahead. Mr Key as a qualification you're not sure that I would ask a question this time because I'm not sure that I got an answer last time but I would I would like to make just a brief correction for Mr Robotham said that Mexico is loosely associated with a seven country Free Trade Association. I wish to assure him that Mexico is a very active participant of Mexico signed a treaty of Montevideo in February has a delegation of Montevideo and discussions with other countries. And there we leave tonight's session of the coaching conference. The speakers were Roy Reuben Jr. assistant secretary for enter American affairs at the U.S. State Department

and Professor John mentored department of Spanish Bristol University in England the chairman was a Davidson Duchene. Tomorrow evening our panel session this year we deal with Canadian relationships with Latin America. The good teaching conference is organized jointly by the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Copies of the speeches may be obtained shortly at one dollar and fifty cents by writing to the University of Toronto press Toronto Ontario. The program produced by Christina McDougal technical operations by John Sculley. This is Bob Wilson speaking to you from coaching. This is CBC Radio the TransCanada network.