724.3415/3782½: Telegram (part air)
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 2—7:15 a.m.]
115. Consulate’s 112, May 30, 8 p.m., paragraph 4.44 The following is a summary of the Council meeting this morning:
1. Najera, President of the Committee of Three, recalled the Council’s resolution of May 19 (Consulate’s 83, May 19, 10 p.m., paragraph 2(B)) and requested the two parties to state their views. He further remarked that the incident relating to the non-observance by Paraguay of the rules of international law had been settled by the latter’s telegram (Consulate’s 106, May 30, noon44).
2. The Bolivian representative repeated previous arguments advancing nothing which would seem in effect to indicate a change of attitude toward the proposals for settlement contained in the Chaco Commission’s report. He laid particular stress on the implication in the report that the dispute related to vast territory and was not a mere boundary question as Paraguay maintains. The whole territory [Page 68] should, therefore, be submitted to arbitration. With regard to Commission’s formula for settlement he objected to the exclusion of the Hayes Zone from the matter to be submitted to arbitration implying that this was a political concession due to Paraguay’s recent victories.
Referring to the embargo proposal he urged the Council not to undertake such a measure maintaining that an embargo could not be applied equally to both countries due to the more favorable geographical position of Paraguay. Such a measure he said would be tantamount to the unjust application of sanctions against Bolivia. Under article 16 of the Covenant sanctions could be applied only against the aggressor which had not been determined by the Commission. He desired that the Covenant be applied but in view of the difficulty of an investigation into responsibilities he would consent to the adjournment of that question.
Bolivia was prepared to accept the legal formula proposed by the Commission, but insisted that the whole matter should be submitted to arbitral settlement without regard to political considerations such as that involved in the exclusion of the Hayes Zone. If the procedure under article 11 proved unsuccessful his Government would invoke article 13.
3. Paraguay resumed previous arguments stating in particular that no settlement could be accepted which did not include adequate guarantees of security. The position in regard to the Hayes Zone was maintained.
4. The representative of Mexico then read the text of a telegram despatched to the two parties by the Mexican Foreign Minister appealing for an armistice and a final settlement before the impending embargo should be applied. The replies of the two parties, which he likewise read, indicate no change of position. Bolivia again suggested an arbitral judgment and that Mexico act as intermediary to that effect. In regard to the latter statement Najera declared that he considered the League as the last instance and that further intervention of third parties was not desirable.
5. The Argentine representative urged the parties to come to an agreement before the application of an embargo and suggested to the Council that it proceed prudently in regard to the embargo proposal in the hope that some result be obtained either through direct negotiations or under the auspices of the neighboring countries.
6. The Bolivian representative then stated that since the representative of Paraguay had not responded to his appeal for an arbitral settlement on a legal basis he saw no hope of success under article 11 and considered it useless to invoke article 13. He requested the Council, therefore, to deal with the matter under article 15.
[Page 69]7. The President of the Council stated that the question of the application of article 15 would be considered forthwith. He requested the Committee of Three to meet as soon as possible to consider how their work might be affected by the Bolivian request and to expedite their report on the embargo.