Paris Peace Conf. 723.2515/8: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Commission to Negotiate Peace
[Received January 6—4:10 p.m.]
104. For Lansing. Your 23, Dec. 18, 12 M. The Peruvian Minister in Washington has informed the Department that his Government considers that the “matter in dispute” alluded to by the President of the United States cannot be other than the territorial controversy between Chile and Peru arising from the non-compliance of Chile with the stipulation of the treaty of Ancon.
The severance of consular relations between Chile and Peru was of course the coming to a head of the territorial question which has agitated these countries for years. It is clear that to maintain peace in South America, a definite settlement of this question is necessary; otherwise disturbance[s] like the present between Chile and Peru are at any time possible and in the event of war Ecuador would probably attack Peru from the north and it is conceivable that other countries might be drawn into the conflict. The Ecuadorian newspapers have been praising what they call Chilian rejection of mediation or of interference in any form by the United States.
The difficulties of attempting to settle the boundary dispute between Chile and Peru by any other agency than that of the Peace Conference would seem to be as follows:
1. It is very doubtful whether Chile would accept mediation or arbitration of the Tacna-Arica question, the judgment United States alone offer it.
2. The newspapers of Peru are making a campaign with the end in view of securing the return to Peru of the Province of Tarapaca,
which was taken by Chile in the war of the Pacific. It is certain that Chile will not consent to any arbitration proposed by the U. S. Government, which should include the protocols of Tarapaca.
3. If the United States succeeded in being accepted as an arbiter, it would be certain that whatever the decision rendered, the U. S. would be exceedingly unpopular with Chile or with Peru, or with both.
[Page 559]4. It is very probable that any arbitral decision would have to be enforced hereafter and in that event, it would be far better to have other countries associated with the United States in the enforcement.
5. The interests of other South American countries are so closely related to hostile feeling of either Chile or Peru that an impartial Pan-American settlement of the question would be difficult.
If it is considered that submitting this South American question to the Peace Conference would be injurious to the hegemony of the United States in this hemisphere and would be contrary to the Monroe Doctrine, would it be advisable to intimate to Chile and Peru that they should await the end of the Conference, in order that they might then make use of the machinery which [it] is expected the Conference will provide for the settlement of international questions.
It is believed that a hint to the Peruvian Government would result [in] that Government’s asking the Peace Conference to take up the boundary question. If the associated powers decided to arbitrate the question, Chile could not well withhold her consent. If the Peruvian Government proceeded in this matter, the suggesting of such a course by the United States Government would be avoided and it would be a question for consideration, whether such action would be a departure from the Monroe Doctrine. There have been other and Latin American boundary disputes which have been arbitrated by European powers upon the request of the countries involved; the present case, however, may result in the request of arbitration by Peru and in the compelling of Chile to consent. If this action were taken by the countries taking part in the Peace Conference, it might be considered European intervention in an American question, and therefore action contrary to what it has been our policy to permit in the past.
An expression of your views in this matter would be appreciated by the Department, as it is believed that an assumption of a definite policy is urgently necessary.