723.2515/508
The Bolivian Minister (Caldron) to the Acting Secretary of State
Confidential Memorandum43
Sir: As your Excellency is aware, the question between Perú and Chile over the possession of the territories of Tacna and Arica has lately become acute, thretening to disturbe the peace of the Continent.
[Page 147]It is then but natural that the United States, following its traditional policy of friendly interest in the welfare and harmony of the American republics, should think of offering its good offices in the actual conflict.
The vital interest of Bolivia in its just and right settlement prompted me to present to your Excellency’s Government this Memorandum as an advanced exposition of the right that Bolivia claims to be heard.
Bolivia’s interest in Tacna and Arica is by no means a new thing; it could be stated with truth that it was recognized from the first days of its independence, even by the inhabitantes of those territories.
When Chile and Perú signed in 1883 a treaty of peace by which the former acquired the absolute cession of Tarapacá and the temporary occupation of Tacna and Arica; Bolivia was not, as it should have been, called to take part in that treaty and therefore was deprived of the opportunity of making known that it was by no means willing to be deprived of all its sea coast, virtually ceded to Chile by the cession of Tarapacá.
Bolivia signed almost a year after, in 1884, a simple treaty of truce with Chile, and on doing so its plenipotentiaries made the express declaration that Bolivia could not, and would not resign itself to remain shut off from the Pacific.
Chile in its endevour to legalize the possession of the Bolivian coast signed in 1895 a treaty agreeing to give to Bolivia Tacna and Arica in case the plebiscit that was to decide the nationality of these territories favored Chile; but neither the plebiscite nor the treaty refered to, took place.
When at last, in 1904, Bolivia was obliged to sign a treaty of peace with Chile, after more than twenty years since the end of the war, one of the obligations contracted by Chile was the building of a railway from Arica to La Paz with the proviso that fifteen years after the completion of the work the section built in the Bolivian territory would become Bolivia’s property.
When señor Montes passed by Chile on his way to assume the Presidence of Bolivia, in 1913, he expressly declared to a nomber of important public men of Chile that Bolivia must have a port to cummunicate freely with the world.
It is then clear that ever since Chile took all the coast of Bolivia, this nation have never ceased to express its absolute need of a port. As the only available one, without disturbing peace and the existing conditions is Arica; Bolivia claims that its possession is absolutely necessary.
[Page 148]When the time will come to make a more extended and formal demand for the possession of Tacna and Arica it will be shown that these territories have been in fact bolivian commercial centres, owing their growth and development to Bolivia’s trade, in fact Tacna deprived of it has become a dead town. It will be easy to prove that neither Perú nor Chile have any real interest in Tacna and Arica; and that its transfer to Bolivia by a peacful agreement between the three nations will solve a problem of continental importance.
A growing and rich nation like Bolivia cannot be shut off from the world forever without being some time compelled to find the outlet, that now could be secured peacfully and thus insure the friendly relations amongst all concerned.
I have anticipated these few remarks in the hope that in view of them, Your Excellency will see that Bolivia’s interest in the proper solution of the question is paramount and must be considered.
I remain [etc.]
- Text received in English.↩