723.2515/1971: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)
For Lassiter. Your telegram February 25, 6 p.m., received late yesterday afternoon. This morning I have received final reply from Peru reading as follows:
[Here follows the text of the memorandum quoted in telegram No. 16, February 26, from the Ambassador in Peru, supra.]
Mr. Velarde, Peruvian Ambassador, called yesterday afternoon. Apparently he had no knowledge of tender of good offices by us, and had called to say that ship with about 230 Peruvians had sailed from Callao for Arica, that another ship with some 300 Peruvian candidates for registration was about to embark, and that these two ships would be followed by others.
Mr. Velarde also said that, as Chile had not put into effect all prerequisite resolutions voted by Plebiscitary Commission and as plebiscitary atmosphere which the Commission desired had not yet been [Page 318] established, the Peruvians would have no guarantees for their personal safety except those which might be furnished by the Commission. Accordingly, he requested on behalf of the Government of Peru that I recommend that such measures be taken as you could take for protection of these Peruvians. I told Mr. Velarde that I would inform you of what he had said, and that I was sure you would do all you could in regard to the matter.
It is evident now that both parties to this controversy intend to maintain their respective technical positions intact by going on with all formalities for celebrating plebiscite. I think that it is also reasonably clear that neither party has faith in the plebiscite as solution of the problem but neither one will take the responsibility for calling it off by withdrawal or otherwise. Both are determined to fasten responsibility for failure of plebiscite upon the United States. They have no right to do so, and it should not be permitted. I am not yet able to reconcile myself to idea of playing into their hands by making an advance finding, based on disputable issues of fact, to effect that reasonably fair plebiscite is absolutely impossible. Outcome of this proceeding will be either decision by plebiscite that can be sustained or clear conclusion that plebiscite has been frustrated by Chile. It is difficult to see how case for frustration can be deemed complete and closed until attempt, at least, to carry through registration phase has been made.
In the second of your recommendations where you refer to Peru’s rejection of tender of good offices, you say that if the reason is simply that she prefers plebiscite, we are then warranted in going ahead. That is what has happened. Peru has rejected offer, has indicated that she prefers plebiscite, and is actually sending into the territory her candidates for registration. She is not saying anything more about withdrawing.
With both parties insisting on the plebiscite, we have no choice in matter, and dominant consideration from now on must be to conduct proceedings with all care to protect Arbitrator and ultimately to place blame for failure where it belongs. I can see no way clear to accomplish this aim save by taking both parties at their word and by going on with plebiscite, which they have said they want, until Plebiscitary Commission is in fact blocked by either or both of them. If at this juncture the Commission should take initiative in calling off plebiscite in face of avowed desire of both contestants to carry on, Commission’s action would plainly provide them with opportunity they are looking for to put responsibility for failure upon Commission and the Arbitrator. As matters now stand, Peru has assumed responsibility of rejecting tender of good offices made to her while Chile accepted tender; and if, eventually, Chile frustrates a fair plebiscite, we have only to lay facts before world opinion.
[Page 319]We can no longer run risk of being blamed for any disorders that may take place. Plebiscitary Commission and Arbitrator are not in position of having pushed proceedings relentlessly toward such crisis. Chile and Peru themselves are doing this. Peru has been given her chance to avoid disastrous complications of this character and has rejected it, deliberately choosing to go ahead, her eyes open to the danger. If trouble should follow, the responsibility for it cannot fail to rest upon Peru and Chile.