723.2515/1661: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)73
For Pershing: The following is my view of the suggestions Chile has made for diplomatic settlement outside plebiscite, and the policy I propose to follow:
The President should keep perfectly clear his position as Arbitrator. He has accepted a submission and is dealing with matter within terms of the submission and of his award. Difficulty of having a fair plebiscite will not be because he has failed to give proper attention to terms and condition of award. Arbitrator provided for a Plebiscitary Commission with complete control over terms and conditions of plebiscite subject to the award. He has appointed a citizen of outstanding ability and impartiality as the American member of the Commission. If it should now prove impossible to [Page 410] hold a fair plebiscite, it will be because of character and attitude of the population or because of failure of Chile, which under Treaty of Ancon has administrative authority over territory during plebiscitary period, to comply with the requirements of the award.
It is necessary, for above reasons, that in every step taken responsibility for prevention of a fair plebiscite constantly be kept where it belongs. General Pershing will attend to requirements which are necessary to safeguard plebiscite. If any question arise regarding propriety of these requirements or of authority of Commission to impose them, the Arbitrator then, on his own initiative if it is necessary, can render an opinion construing the award which will settle any question of that sort. Responsibility will then rest upon Chile to comply and if her authority is not fairly and adequately exercised accordingly, and for that reason plebiscite fails, the responsibility will be hers.
The danger existing in taking up measures for some outside solution in view of difficulty of obtaining fair plebiscite, is that positions of Chile and of this Government may be obscured or misconstrued. For that reason use of good offices of this Government will be granted only at request of both parties. I will not be bearer of Chilean proposal regarded as means of getting rid of the plebiscite. If negotiations between the Governments of Chile and Peru or any of their representatives, however informal or unauthorized technically these may be, reach point where both are ready to invite the helpful offices of the Government of the United States, there may be chance to perform great service in bringing those two Governments to an accord. In meantime President will confine himself to role of Arbitrator, sustaining power of Plebiscitary Commission to make reasonable requirements under the award and making clear the obligation of Chile as administrator of the territory to provide fair opportunity for plebiscite, in this way making clear to both Chile and Peru fairness and impartiality of his intention and procedure. Meanwhile both those countries, contemplating possible failure of plebiscite for one reason or another, may find ways to negotiate for a definite settlement. There can exist an attitude on my part permitting such a course but not going to extent of submitting or favoring an alternative plan. Case is not yet ripe enough for suggestions by me regarding nature of an alternative settlement. If negotiations between Chile and Peru, or any of their representatives, progress far enough to be promising, I am likely to receive hints if not requests from Governments of both that my good offices are desired. Should that happen, I would be in strong position and could ascertain from each party what it is willing to do, and I might be able to assist in helping them to reach agreement. But this will come about only at their [Page 411] invitation and with reasonable prospect of success; otherwise plans for plebiscite should continue. If they fail, party responsible must accept all the blame.
- The same to the Embassy in Chile as Department’s No. 69, and to the Embassy in Peru as Department’s No. 63.↩