File No. 723.2515/293.
The American Ambassador to
Brazil to the Secretary of
State.
No. 273.]
American Embassy,
Rio de Janeiro,
November 17, 1913.
Sir: Mr. Fletcher, our Minister to Chile, will already have reported to
the Department that when he passed through Rio de Janeiro during
September last, the Chilean Minister to Brazil, Sr. Irarrazaval,
informed him of the substance of the conversations which he was then
having with Dr. Lauro Müller about a final and complete settlement of
the long-standing dispute between Chile and Peru over the status of
Tacna and Arica. I was in São Paulo on the day Mr. Fletcher visited Rio
de Janeiro and consequently had no opportunity of exchanging opinions
with him upon this subject. But Dr. Lauro Müller has handed me copies of
the memoranda which the Brazilian Foreign Office has exchanged with the
Chilean Legation thereon, copies of which memoranda I have the honor
herewith to enclose both in originals and translations. Furthermore Dr.
Lauro Müller has asked me to tell you that he believes the moment to be
a favorable one for the settlement of the only pending territorial
dispute likely to disturb the peace of the American continent and that
once the Tacna and Arica question has been buried the way may be opened
for the settlement of territorial questions of minor importance between
Peru and certain of her neighbors which have dragged on for many years.
In arranging these latter disputes it may not be impossible, so lie
thinks, to afford some compensation to Peru for the territorial losses
she would sustain from the alienation of the two provinces.
The Government of Chile does not yet appear to have apprised the
Government of Argentina of these negotiations nor to intend to do so
until the views of Brazil and the United States have been learned. The
reason that is given for not doing so is that Chile on previous
occasions has found that Argentine has proved somewhat difficult to
bring into line unless she knew that other powers had already given
their approval to a certain course of action. When however she has
learned that they had done so she raised no objection to keeping in step
with them.
I am unable to believe that the Argentine Foreign Office is ignorant that
the Chilean Minister has recently initiated fresh negotiations at Rio de
Janeiro for the settlement of the Tacna and Arica dispute, especially
since the South American press on several occasions has published
reports to that effect.
I have [etc.].
[Page 1237]
[Inclosure 1—Translation.]
The Legation of Chile at Rio de
Janeiro to the Brazilian Foreign
Office.1
pro memoria.
tacna—arica dispute between chile and
peru.
Historical antecedents.
In 1879 war broke out between Chile and the republics of Peru and
Bolivia, the latter being allied by a secret treaty. Chile invaded
the territories of the enemy on three different occasions: firstly
to claim the province of Antofagasta, which had been formerly ceded
to Bolivia conditionally; secondly to occupy the Peruvian provinces
of Tarapacé, and Tacna; thirdly to invade the capital of Peru, Lima,
in order to impose peace.
After the second of these campaigns, i. e. before marching on the
capital, Lima, several conferences took place on board the North
American sloop Lackawanna, stationed at
Arica, in 1880, between the delegates of Chile and Peru, with a view
to securing peace. These conferences were held at the suggestion of
the United States.
Chile then declared her intention of retaining Tacna and Arica as the
guaranty of her independence. As nothing came of the said
conferences, the Chilean Foreign Office, in a circular note dated
November 10th, 1880, directed to the Powers, declared that “should
the northern frontier of Chile be limited by the Quebrada de
Camarones, the port of Arica, fortified and thereby converted into
an impregnable fortress, would be a continual danger to Chile and
would oblige her to fortify her frontier. In any case, peaceful
relations would be in danger of disturbance at any
moment.” If Chile, in 1880, made this declaration, it could
not be supposed that she would alter or seriously modify her demands
after the third campaign, which carried her troops to the capital of
Peru.
The treaty of peace between Chile and Peru (Treaty of Ancón) was
arranged by the Provisional Government of General Iglesias, which
Government Chile was interested in supporting so that she might have
someone with whom to negotiate. This Peruvian General, who was
strongly opposed by public opinion in Peru, did not wish to increase
his unpopularity by handing over to the victors the territories of
Tacna and Arica, as demanded by Chile. It was for this reason that
the Treaty of Ancón was formulated, by providing an indirect
surrender of the territories after a simulated plebiscite (of which
there are many examples in the history of nations). By this treaty
Chile was to retain possession of Tacna and Arica for a period of
ten years and only in case of the plebiscite resulting unfavorably
to her would she, after that period, end her rule of those two
provinces. The plebiscite however was to occur after the drawing up
of a special protocol; the drafting of this protocol was postponed
for an indefinite period. It was further agreed that the articles of
the said protocol should be subject to the approval of Chile.
The additional protocol referring to the plebiscite has never been
drafted, as Chile refused to accept any clause that did not
recognize absolutely the right of her continued dominion over Tacna
and Arica. The declaration of her delegates to this effect at the
conferences held on board of the Lackawanna
(these provinces being the key to her northern frontier) constitutes
now an historical fact, confirmed by the Treaty of Ancon and by an
uninterrupted occupation of 33 years. No country in the world would
abandon, under such conditions, territory dearly bought with blood,
which had further been recognised by treaty as surrendered to Chile
and administered for the third part of a century, and showing
important improvements, of which the Arica to La Paz railway is only
one example. Should a solution to the dispute be sought, the
simplest of all would be found to be the best, i. e. that the
present state should be left unaltered, thereby leaving unmodified a
situation which has existed for 33 years.
History of the Latest Negotiations Between Chile and
Peru.
On many occasions Chile and Peru have sought for a satisfactory
solution of their dispute but always without success. The most
recent negotiations took
[Page 1238]
place in November last; the following points were agreed upon,
subject to the approval of the two Congresses:
- a)
- Chile and Peru agree that it would be desirable to renew
diplomatic relations after long interruption.
- b)
- They also agreed that a plebiscite should take place
within 21 years, i. e. up to 1933.
- c)
- That an agreement should be arrived at regarding those who
should have a right to vote at the plebiscite and also that
a tribunal should be immediately constituted to organize the
plebiscite. This tribunal or committee should consist of
five members, two of which should be appointed by Peru, two
by Chile and a third by the President of the Supreme Court
of Chile. This committee should, by simple majority of
votes, transact its business, and its ruling should not be
subject to any further appeal.
- d)
- Chile would pay to Peru, immediately, through a sinking
fund, the sum of £500,000.
These negotiations, which were opposed both in Peru and Chile, gave
rise to a secret note from President Billinghurst to the Peruvian
Congress. This document contained statements which the Chilean
Government considered contrary to the policy it has upheld
throughout this dispute: That the territories of Tacna and Arica
should definitely and by means of a plebiscite be surrendered to
Chile. The fact that official cognizance of this secret note was
taken by the Peruvian Government caused the negotiations to be
broken off. Chile afterwards demanded, as conditional to their
continuation, the official withdrawal of the note. The Government of
Peru promised to do this. Several circumstances however continued to
delay the negotiations; they will be resumed shortly in Chile
between a confidential agent of Peru and the Chilean Foreign
Office.
The Object of the Negotiations.
(a) The negotiations will reestablish relations interrupted for many
years between the two nations; they will also do away with the
permanent source of unrest and ill feeling that has made it
necessary for the two countries to maintain constant military
preparations, which in turn have produced in the other republics of
America a like effect and have interfered with the investment of
capital in Perú, Bolivia and Chile, etc.
(b) The negotiations provide for a period of 21 years for the
organization of the plebiscite. This clause has not found favor in
Chile. The Government of Chile has indicated that this would mean
that for a period of 21 years (or practically a quarter of a
century) the actual state of unrest and ill feeling would continue
to exist. Peru has at present no right to demand the evacuation of
these territories by Chile; this delay of 21 years, however, would
give her fair hopes of possibly regaining the two provinces at the
expiration of that period. Besides, the railway from Arica to La Paz
has furnished Bolivia with an outlet to the Pacific and in 21 years
time that country would also become interested in the possession of
these territories; this fact has been recognized by the present
President of Bolivia, General Montes.
In order that the bases of the negotiations shall constitute
effectively an act of approximation and a guaranty of the peace of
America, it would be necessary to either refer the question immediately to the two countries by means of
a plebiscite or to consult the countries over a period of 90 to 100
years.
(c) It would now be easier than ever to carry out an immediate
plebiscite, as the Governments of Chile and Peru have agreed upon
the base of the electoral committee that shall supervise the
plebiscite, the said committee to decide by a pimple majority of
votes, without appeal.
(d) The sum of £500,000 offered by Chile, as an extra payment, is
almost double the indemnization agreed upon by the Treaty of Ancon
as a recompense to the nation that should lose the election. Chile
has always declared that she would be ready to increase the amount
of that indemnization.
[Inclosure 2—Translation.]
The Legation of Chile at Rio de
Janeiro to the Brazilian Foreign
Office.1
memorandum on the tacna-arica dispute between
chile and peru.
Firstly. That the friendly suggestion is made without in any way
affecting the absolutely neutral attitude which the United States
has always observed
[Page 1239]
and
proposes to continue to observe in the Pacific regarding pending
questions between Peru and Chile, which questions, in the opinion of
the said United States, the interested nations are alone competent
to settle—
Secondly. That in the higher interests of the peace of America, the
desire has been expressed, that a dispute which keeps alive a state
of unrest on this continent shall be brought to a satisfactory
settlement; and, further, that in order to avoid the postponement of
such a settlement for another 80 or 90 years, a referendum shall
take place immediately.
Thirdly. That the only serious obstacle to the above referendum would
have been the organization of an electoral committee in view of the
fact that the Treaty of Ancon provided that no plebiscite should
take place until the two countries should be in entire accord
regarding the new protocol which should regulate the election. It
appears now however that this obstacle may be considered removed
since Peru and Chile appear to have come to an agreement that the
said electoral committee shall consist of five members, viz: of two
Chileans, two Peruvians, and the President of the Supreme Court of
Chile, who shall preside.
Fourthly. That this suggestion of the United States, interpreting a
noble American idea, shall be communicated to Peru.
Fifthly. That the answer to the Government of the United States shall
be transmitted in a note from the Chilean Minister at Washington, in
which the said representative shall communicate to the American
Chancellery the stage of the negotiations with Peru, which were
begun in November last. This information shall be communicated to
the American Government as soon as the attitude of Peru is
known.
[Inclosure 3—Translation.]
The Brazilian Minister for
Foreign Affairs to the Chilean
Minister at Rio de Janeiro.1
Mr. Minister: I have read with careful
attention the confidential note of September 1st in which your
excellency, in relating the history of the latest incidents,
describes the actual state of the disagreement that exists between
Chile and Peru with reference to Tacna and Arica, the continuance of
which disagreement has always seemed to us undesirable and
antagonistic to the peace both of these two friendly republics and
of the continent.
The Chilean Government is certainly aware of the great interest with
which Brazil, always desirous of seeing a friendly settlement, has
from the first followed the various phases of this old question. It
was therefore a source of lively satisfaction to her to learn that
negotiations were well on their way towards a solution of the
deplorable situation that exists between the two republics of the
American continent.
Our satisfaction has been notably increased by the news that one of
the principal, if not the principal, cause of the old
disagreement—the organization of an electoral committee which shall
put through the plebiscite for which the Treaty of Ancon made
provision—may be considered as removed, since the two countries
appear to have come to an agreement regarding the manner in which
the said commission shall be constituted.
Under the influence of this agreeable impression, the Brazilian
Government, without in any way pretending to interfere in the
private affairs of the two interested nations, thereby recognizing
that those two nations alone are competent to settle their
disagreement, and animated by the good will shown by the Governments
of Chile and Peru, wishes to express its sincere desire that the two
republics shall not further delay the solution of the Tacna and
Arica question, but that on the contrary they shall settle it
promptly and definitely in their own interest and in the interest of
the peace and fraternal harmony of America.
I have [etc.].
