Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume I

Paris Peace Conf. 723.2515/8: Telegram

The Commission to Negotiate Peace to the Acting Secretary of State

Paris , January 16, 1919—10 a.m.

302. [From Lansing.] Your 104, January 4, 9 p.m. regarding the controversy between Chile and Peru. It appears clearly from the information contained in the above mentioned telegram that the difficulties in connection with the settlement of the dispute between Chile and Peru by any other means than the Peace Conference itself are indeed formidable. On the other hand I feel that it would be unfortunate if this question which after all is purely American should be submitted in the first instance for solution at the Peace Conference where it is probable that Peru would have the advantage of representation as a country which has severed relations with Germany whereas Chile would be represented as a neutral.

The great concern of the Government of the United States in connection with this matter is to prevent especially at the present time a resort to force on the part of the two countries involved and for this reason it has ardently desired some final settlement of the entire question. In view, however, of the nature of the controversy and the difficulties of reaching a definite solution in the immediate future it seems that perhaps a less comprehensive adjustment of the matter should be attempted. It is suggested therefore that the attention of Chile and Peru be called to the Treaties for the Advancement of Peace which each of them as well as Bolivia has concluded with the United States by virtue of which the respective countries have agreed to submit their disputes to a Commission of Inquiry and that while this commission is in session neither party shall commit a hostile act or resort to war with each other. Although neither of these countries has concluded a treaty of this nature with the other and although the procedure outlined above would not decide the question submitted as the report of the commission does not bind either party, such action would tend to preserve peace and at the end of the prolonged and ostensibly impartial investigation the question of arbitration or final solution could be resumed under less strained conditions.

The suggestion outlined above is purely diplomatic, not judicial and accordingly appears to be better suited to the present situation. I shall be glad therefore to be informed of any views which you may communicate to me on the matter.⁸ Lansing.

Am[erican] Mission

8. For additional papers regarding discussion of the Tacna-Arica question in connection with the Paris Peace Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. i, pp. 148–160, passim.