724.3415/4437: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 21—9:35 a.m.]
394. Consulate’s 393, December 19, 5 p.m., paragraph 1. At the close of its meeting last night the Advisory Committee on the Chaco sent the following telegram to the Paraguayan Government:
“The Advisory Committee met on December 20th and took note of your telegram of December 19th. It feels that it must revert to certain points which have been raised by the Paraguayan Government. Before doing so it desires to point out that after receiving the observations of the Paraguayan Government and with the object of meeting those observations, the Assembly made important changes, more particularly in the military provisions, in its first draft report. The authentic text was sent to you on November 24th. Some of your observations appear, however, to refer to the first draft.
The cessation of hostilities proposed is definitive; this is an essential condition of the recommendations of the Assembly, the latter being particularly concerned to prevent the continuation of the breach of the Covenant. The plan does not provide for a long armistice, but for a final cessation of hostilities. It does not leave the armies on a war footing; it provides for demobilization, which is to begin immediately, under the supervision of the Neutral Supervisory Commission. Paraguay having always demanded adequate measures of security, the Supervisory Commission, composed of representatives of American states, provides for the most effective and most impartial measures. It has very wide terms of reference and must take the most appropriate steps. The report fixes no arbitrary distance, but leaves it to the Commission to organize security according to practical necessities.
[Page 133]The Committee is therefore convinced that the Supervisory Commission will be able to prevent any dangerous incidents, and should such occur, to settle them rapidly. Such a system of security is necessary in order that demobilization may be actively pursued once it has begun. Should it not have been completed by the time the Buenos Aires conference opens, the latter will deal with the matter urgently.
As regards the time limits for the negotiations it is stipulated that these time limits may be prolonged by agreement between the parties. It is obvious that if there is a possibility of voluntary agreement there will at the same time be a possibility of agreement to extend the time limits. It should not be forgotten that these negotiations will take place with the active cooperation of the 10 American states mentioned in paragraph 13 of the report. The United States of America and the United States of Brazil having agreed to participate the Committee considers that the question of prisoners could be dealt with at the Buenos Aires peace conference.
As regards the conditions for a possible recourse to the Permanent Court of International Justice the Assembly only contemplates such recourse to a judicial settlement in the event of the failure of direct negotiations; it hopes that this eventuality will not arise, but in its recommendations under article 15 it is obliged to provide for it. The formula proposed for submitting the substantive questions to The Hague Court does not sanction any particular view of the case; it in no way diminishes the freedom of each of the parties to uphold their proposals.
The Assembly has not lost sight of the constitutional questions to which the Paraguayan delegate had already drawn its attention. It considers that if the Paraguayan Government was prepared to accept the recommendations, it would be able to submit them to Parliament for the latter to take a decision one way or the other within the shortest time permitted by the Constitution, that is if necessary at an extraordinary session summoned for the purpose. It should moreover be pointed out that these recommendations do not formulate a settlement of the substantive question, but merely a method of settlement.
The Committee concurs in the Paraguayan Government’s view that what is necessary is to ensure the immediate and final cessation of hostilities and the negotiation of a peace in an atmosphere conducive to a settlement based on reason and justice. Such was the very purpose of the Assembly’s report in recommending the immediate cessation of hostilities and the conference of Buenos Aires.
The Assembly desired to arrest hostilities between two of its members by recommending to them practical means whereby peace might be reestablished and the system of the covenants to which they are parties again brought into observance. In its report the Assembly deliberately aimed at the restoration of peace in the future. The agenda of the conference of Buenos Aires is a statement of the questions which in its opinion call for settlement; but this does not preclude the two parties from asking the conference that other questions such as those mentioned in your telegram should be included.
The Committee hopes that its explanations will be given serious consideration by the Paraguayan Government and will facilitate its acceptance of the Assembly’s recommendations the execution of which [Page 134] it is Committee’s duty to follow but which it has not the power to change.
The Committee will reassemble on January the 14th and urgently requests the Paraguayan Government to communicate its final reply by that date as it will be its duty to draw up a report in accordance with its terms of reference.”