frankly stated, is that the political system of the Old World has as a basis the decadent doctrine of balance of power, which inevitably leads Nations to war. Balance of power is the opposition of forces; it is rivalry and antagonism. Balance of power is based on equality of physical power and not on juridical equality. In America, on the other hand, the principle is different: here pacifist ideals have developed and flourished, here the august standard of the solution of international controversies by conciliation, arbitration and, in a word, by the ways of peace, is in the ascendant. How then, is it conceivable that the two types of aggression mentioned above can be foreseen and met by one and the same method? In the face of aggressions originating in countries that have set up force as the supreme arbiter of the destiny of nations, America must consider the application of the pact of solidarity. But on the other hand, in the face of conflicts of a purely domestic nature, the Americas have the duty of perpetuating their traditions, which impose upon them the obligation of resorting first of all to means of peaceful settlement, unless the situation is so grave and violent that enforcement measures must be applied immediately.

II—Another important problem derived from the assimilation of the two types of aggression is the following:

Article 4 of the Act of Chapultepec repeats the second paragraph of Declaration XV of Habana, the basic difference being the omission of the word non-American. The remainder of the sentence is identical. But, in the aforesaid paragraph of Declaration XV there is a concept which, while entirely justifiable in the case of extra-continental aggression, is difficult to apply to inter-American aggression. This is the concept of a "threat of aggression", which becomes inappropriate upon application in the inter-American sphere, for, granting the undeniable vagueness and lack of clarity of the sentence in which it is stated that: ". . . should there be reason to believe that an act of aggression is being prepared . . .", it is necessary not only to clarify its language but also to indicate, for the case of an interAmerican threat of aggression, a special procedure different from the one applicable in the case of an extra-continental threat of aggression.

This same observation applies to other provisions of principle and procedure which, originally conceived with a view to extra-continental aggression, were extended by assimilation to inter-American aggression. The assimilation can become a source of disagreement in all cases in which, in order to avoid the extension, to cases of internal disputes, of principles and procedures applicable to extracontinental aggression, our countries make reservations or attempt

772629-48- -8

to temper those provisions, with a resulting diminution of the essential goal sought, namely, American solidarity in the event of attacks from abroad.

From the foregoing reasons, one may deduce the advisability of developing the principles contained in the Act of Chapultepec, considering, in the first place, the necessity of preventing and warding off aggressions which one American country may suffer from any other regardless of its geographic location and, in the second place, the need of establishing the procedure which must be followed in either case.

The Venezuelan Delegation believes that the logical desideratum would be that we here agree on the foundations of principle and procedure, in case of aggressions of extra-continental origin, upon which the American defense system is to be built. In this instrument the concept of a "threat of aggression" would be included; the designation of a typical case of aggression, defined according to the agreements at Chapultepec would be adopted; and consideration would be given to the use of enforcement measures; and, in a word, an attempt would be made to give strength and vigor to the pact of American solidarity.

On the other hand, in matters concerning aggressions which may arise from exclusively domestic conflicts, thought should be given to their solution by means of the Inter-American peace system, with the exception of urgent cases such as those which already have been mentioned and concerning which there already exists an excellent draft drawn up by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the discusssion of which draft might be a matter for consideration at the Ninth Pan-American Conference soon to be held in Bogotá.

In order to give appropriate direction to the provisions of such a pact, there should be borne in mind the fundamental difference in purpose that should exist between it and the pact intended to prevent and suppress aggressions originating outside the continent. In fact, the Treaty which deals with typically domestic aggressions should be, for obvious reasons, particularly emphatic in its preventive provisions tending to ensure the nonoccurrence of aggression. Note should be taken, on the other hand, of the fact that in the Treaty dealing with extra-continental aggression the preventive provisions mentioned would be inoperative, since such aggression is beyond the control of the signers of the pact.

Of course, it is not, nor could it be, the intention of the Venezuelan Delegation to suggest only one method of settling the problems set forth above. What really interests Venezuela is the recognition and application of the principles she holds in this respect. Consequently

she is disposed to consider, in company with the rest of her sister. Republics, not only the formula of the two treaties to which reference has been made, but also any other formula which implies the acceptance of those principles and contributes toward putting them in force, as would a formula of one single treaty covering procedures intended to govern both types of aggression.

In addition to the points analyzed above, the Venezuelan Delegation suggests that the Conference consider the following points, to which the Delegation also attaches special importance:

III-In Declaration XV of Habana and later in the Act of Chapultepec, the signatory countries stated that an attack against one American State would be considered as an attack against all of them. In listing the obligations arising from this solemn declaration, they made only brief mention of their commitment to hold a consultation. There exists, then, an evident imbalance between the declaration and the commitment. This imbalance makes it necessary, on the one hand, to modify the terms of the declaration, and on the other hand, to specify the scope of the obligations arising therefrom, in order that a balance may be struck between both proposals. Therefore, those terms should be modified to declare that an attack by a non-American country against a Nation of the Continent "affects American solidarity" or some other equivalent expression.

IV—In specifying the scope of the commitment and pointing out the obligation of our Republics to hold a consultation, when the specified occasion arises, for the purpose of examining the adoption of one or several of the measures suggested in the "Act of Chapultepec", the Venezuelan Delegation considers indispensable the retention of the principle that the juridical situation of all the Republics of the Continent is to be considered similar when these republics adopt the measures stemming from the consultation which are compatible with their resources and capabilities. In effect, the fact should be recognized that for geographical, economic and other reasons, not all the nations are in a position to make an equal contribution in the event that an American Republic is attacked. For that reason it is considered necessary that an express declaration be made that during the consultation held in each case, it is necessary to determine, with these facts in mind, the measures that each American Nation shall adopt. It is further necessary that there be established the principle that there will be no distinctions in the legal status of the American Republics which have complied with the obligations contracted in the consultation called as a result of an aggression suffered by one republic. In this way it will be easier to avoid differences of opinion upon

this matter, which differences can weaken continental solidarity so seriously.

V-In view of the assumption that, in the course of the debates of the present conference, there may arise questions of an economic character derived from or related to the subjects discussed, and in view of the importance of these matters, the Venezuelan Delegation is ready to cooperate in their study, if a like attitude is shared by the other Delegations of the American Republics.

Bolivia:

D. PROPOSALS FOR PROCEDURES AND AGENCIES
OF CONSULTATION AND ACTION

Article 4

Any controversy or situation, whatever its origin, which adversely affects the general welfare or the friendly relations among the American Republics, or which may endanger the maintenance of interAmerican peace or security, and which cannot be resolved peacefully, shall, obligatorily, be referred to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, in order that the Board, acting as an agency of security, may propose the appropriate procedures of investigation, conciliation, or mediation, and determine, whenever necessary, the precautionary measures which the American States should take together.

A notification to the Pan American Union, by any American State, of the existence of an international disagreement which jeopardizes the peace between two or more American nations shall suffice for the Pan American Union to take cognizance of the situation which has been reported, and to suggest the procedures indicated in the preceding paragraph.

The decisions which the Governing Board of the Pan American Union may adopt in such circumstances shall be taken by a simple majority of the countries present, exclusive of those which may be involved in a controversy or dispute (entredicho). In the event that the proposals and precautionary measures should fail, the subject matter of the controversy shall immediately be submitted to the Security Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

I
Article 5

In the event of a threat of aggression or in the event that there are reasons to believe that aggression is being prepared by any State

against the territory or the sovereignty of an American State, the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union, officially at the request of the interested State or of any American Republic, shall initiate consultation among the contracting States, with the exception of the parties to the dispute in order to agree upon the measures it may be desirable to take.

Article 6

Among the measures which the Contracting States may apply in order to deal with threats of aggression against one or more of them the following shall be included in whole or in part: The recall of Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions; the breaking of diplomatic relations; the breaking of consular relations; the breaking of postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and radio-telephonic relations; and the interruption of economic, commercial, and financial relations.

The measures contemplated in this Article shall be taken with the authorization of the Security Council in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 7

In the event of an act of aggression against one or more American States that are parties to this Pact, the Contracting States in the exercise of the right of legitimate defense agree to repel that act of aggression, individually or collectively, through the use of armed forces and the application of any or all the measures enumerated in Article 6, until such time as the Security Council of the United Nations has taken the measures necessary to maintain or re-establish peace. The Security Council shall be informed immediately and fully with respect to the measures taken by virtue of this Article.

Article 8

In any case, invasion by armed forces of a State of the territory of a Contracting State, crossing boundaries established by treaty and demarcated in accordance therewith, this shall be considered an act of aggression. A declaration of war, an attack by land, naval or air forces against the territory, ships or aircraft of a Contracting State, and support given to armed bands for the purpose of invasion of an American State, shall also be considered as aggressive acts. In addition to the cases set forth in this Article, which shall suffice for the automatic exercise of the right of legitimate collective defense, the determination of other acts of aggression shall be made by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union by decision of two thirds of the countries present, without the votes of the interested countries.