710.E/134: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Peru ( Sterling )
1. Your 88, December 21, 1 p.m. On December 22, 1922, the Peruvian Ambassador left with the Secretary a memorandum on the subject [Page 289] of the four telegrams which had been exchanged between the Chilean and Peruvian Foreign Ministers in regard to the invitation extended by Chile to Peru to attend the Fifth Pan American Conference at Santiago. The memorandum also stated … that Peru, for reasons affecting its national honor, could take no part in this conference while conditions in the Provinces of Tacna, Arica and Tarata remain unchanged. The Ambassador explained to the Secretary that he left the memorandum for the latter’s information, and not for either advice or suggestion.
The Secretary stated in reply that he would, of course, take note of what was said in the memorandum, but that he did not desire to express any opinion in regard to the matter; that Peru’s attendance at the conference was a question for her to decide for herself. The Secretary informed the Ambassador that the United States had accepted the invitation to the conference; he hoped that it would be a success, and that Peru would find it possible to attend. The Secretary added that he did not wish to express or indicate any opinion in regard to any of the statements the memorandum contained, and that he had no knowledge of the conduct of Chile referred to in it.
The Secretary said he felt that he ought, in a personal and unofficial way, to make this statement: Peru had succeeded in obtaining, as a result of the Chilean-Peruvian Conference at Washington, a protocol for the settlement of the Tacna-Arica controversy; the President of Chile had, with great difficulty, obtained the assent of the Chilean Congress to the protocol, and that the ratifications were to be exchanged soon. … The Secretary then pointed out that the matters in connection with Tacna-Arica to which the Ambassador had referred, namely, the conduct of Chile, et cetera, were matters which could be brought up and considered before the arbitration; it was not a case where some new or independent controversy was arising, but was a phase of the old matter which was to come under the arbitration. … The Secretary said that of course he could not discuss officially the question as to whether the Government of Peru should or should not be represented at the conference, for his opinion upon that point had not been asked, but that privately he might express his astonishment that Peru would take any action which should threaten the outcome of a matter which concerned her important interests.
The Ambassador stated in reply that he appreciated what the Secretary had said and that he was acting in accordance with instructions from his Government; that feeling was very intense in [Page 290] Peru especially after the statements that had been made during the debates in the Chilean Congress. The Secretary then pointed out that the result had been the ratification of the protocol by a decisive vote; he added that in his opinion it would be unfortunate if foreign governments were to change their policies because of expressions that might be used by particular Senators in the course of debate in our Senate.
It is desirable that the Department’s attitude should be fully appreciated, and in your conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, you may make discreet use of my views as may seem appropriate to you. It is deemed important, if it can be brought about, that Peru should be represented at the Santiago Conference.