Paris Peace Conf. 723.2515/10
The Technical Advisers to the Commission to Negotiate Peace ( Miller , Scott ) to the Secretary of State
Memorandum
Referring to dispatch 104, urgent, January 4th, from the Acting Secretary of State and considering the request for an expression of opinion as to whether this dispatch modifies in any way the memorandum submitted by the undersigned on December 30th last, [Page 560] relating to the Tacna-Arica question, the following observations are submitted:
Dispatch 104 very clearly points out the difficulties in the way of any settlement of the boundary dispute between Chile and Peru by any other agency than that of the Peace Conference itself. These difficulties seem formidable and are not to be minimized.
On the other hand, it appears to the undersigned that it would be unfortunate if this question, which is purely American, should prove to be such a one as can find no preliminary solution and would therefore of necessity, or at least by reason of the action of Peru, be submitted to the Peace Conference, at which Peru would doubtless be represented as one of those countries which have broken relations with Germany, and Chile represented as a neutral.
It is obvious under such circumstances that a certain sympathetic interest would exist in favor of Peru; an interest which that country doubtless well recognizes.
It does not seem to the undersigned that the difficulties which have been mentioned offer any obstacle in the way of the suggestion ventured in the memorandum of December 30th last. Indeed it would seem that that suggestion, which, if adopted, would preclude consideration of the matter at the Peace Conference, is one which might be to the interest of the United States to make, as perhaps avoiding any question of any possible prejudice to the American views and interests relating to the Monroe Doctrine.
It may well be, and perhaps should be, assumed that the suggestion will not be accepted by Peru, and perhaps under these circumstances it is not inappropriate to consider what further action, if any, might then be taken by the United States.
If not premature at this time, it may be suggested that there would still remain to the United States the possibility of presenting informally to the Governments of Chile and Peru its views as to the bases upon which direct negotiations between the two countries might be commenced and even concluded on the question, and without elaborating any discussion of such bases, it is perhaps appropriate to refer to the previous memorandum of the undersigned foreshadowing the view that such bases might be found in the financial bearings of the dispute, recognized in the Treaty of Ancon, of 1883.
As of possible interest in connection with the subject matter of dispatch 104, a copy of the official translation of the “Rose Book” of Chile is transmitted herewith.7 This pamphlet contains, in the [Page 561] nature of an appendix, an abstract and parallel study of the papers contained in the “Rose Book” of Chile.
- David Hunter Miller
- James Brown Scott
- Reference is to House Inquiry Handbook No. 6 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1918), which is a translation of Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, Communicaciones cambiadas entre las Concillerias de Chile y el Peru solre la cuestión de Tacna y Arica (1905 á 1908) (Santiago de Chile, Imprenta Barcelona, 1908).↩