723.2515/1994: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)
For Lassiter. Your March 9, 11 a.m. Peruvian Commissioner’s resolution together with his informal statement to you that his Government has instructed him to withdraw should resolution be voted down, presents no new question and is important chiefly as indicating evident disposition on part of Peru to precipitate issue at this time.
Department does not understand that general conditions bearing upon possibility of ultimately celebrating fair plebiscite have materially changed during past few weeks. Incidents such as those of March 5 at Tacna are cumulative but, as far as we can form opinion from reports, are not sufficiently conclusive to justify sudden reversal of existing policy. It seems that Peru is taking incident of March 5 as pretext for action she has contemplated for some time. In an interview here on March 8 with Ambassador Velarde he gave no intimation of withdrawal or even of desire for postponement, but on contrary he discusses ways for future avoidance of such trouble as occurred on March 5.
Second alternative stated in your telegram, to terminate plebiscitary operations at once and to place responsibility on Chile, involves, as has been previously explained, a premature finding of fact which would draw Commission into controversial attitude toward one of parties to the plebiscite, both dangerous and unnecessary at this stage. Department does not think that Commission should allow itself to be forced into such a position. Your other alternative is also seemingly open to same objection, as it calls for a finding that present conditions are incompatible with holding of a plebiscite and provides for continuing proceedings only in hope that conditions may improve. In many ways this course would be worse than calling off plebiscite at once, as it would amount to official notice that strong presumption for that cause existed in minds of the Commissioners and as result entire plebiscitary process would henceforth be virtually condemned in advance to failure.
Precise problem presented is to find way to carry on until time arrives for determining finally question whether fair plebiscite can in fact be held. As Department intimated in its telegram February 27, 5 p.m., Commission can not safely make this decision until registration stage has been entered and perhaps concluded. Any other course appears, in Department’s view, bound to impose upon Plebiscitary Commission and Arbitrator responsibility far greater [Page 325] than they ought to take, as well as to diminish chances of placing blame where it belongs. Department is strongly of opinion that Peruvian resolution for indefinite postponement should not, at this juncture, be considered and if pressed to a vote it should be rejected on ground that issue is prematurely raised. On record as it stands, this question of existence of conditions or of a so-called plebiscitary atmosphere favorable to fair vote is one which has been before the Commission for months and various attempts have been made to force hand of Commission in regard to it. Department does not see how the record justifies decision practically calling off plebiscite today any more than it did two months ago.
Department does not think it wise to engage in written communications with Peruvian Commissioner, as you suggest. Department thinks that it is highly advisable, however, for you to have informal conversations with both Freyre and the Chilean member of the Commission for purpose of making clear to them that your mind is open on possibility of abandoning plebiscite or of postponing it indefinitely; that you will consider that question later, if necessary; and that if pending resolution comes to vote you will either vote against it or will vote for its postponement, placing your reason for such action upon the record. This action on your part, in Department’s view, makes it very difficult for Peru to carry out her threat of withdrawal.
Doubtless you have already observed that Freyre’s resolution is drawn so as to leave Peru in position to contend that she has reserved her right to a plebiscite under the treaty. She is asking now only indefinite postponement, and question of abandoning plebiscite would still be before Plebiscitary Commission even if resolution were passed. Resolution is accordingly another attempt to get rid of plebiscite without taking blame for it, and to maintain at same time Peru’s technical position that she wants plebiscite. Department is convinced more than ever that Commission cannot afford to do otherwise than to continue with plebiscitary arrangements until point is reached where responsibility for change can be allocated definitely and conclusively to either Chile or to Peru, or to both.