723.2515/2081: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter)
[Paraphrase]
Washington, March 31,
1926—1 p.m.
31. Your No. 38, March 30, 4 p.m. Position taken by Peru at this juncture I deem not only against her own best interests, but if persisted in may, indeed, defeat all efforts to settle this controversy either by exercise of good offices or by a plebiscite. Let me place situation before you as I see it:
- 1.
- Question of suspension of plebiscitary proceedings in order to permit exercise of good offices under favorable conditions is one with which Plebiscitary Commission cannot properly concern itself. Commission has no authority to suspend proceedings for that reason. If it can suspend at all, it can do so only for reasons directly connected with holding of the plebiscite it is committed to conduct. In the circumstances now existing, suspension of plebiscitary proceedings can properly be brought about only by agreement with Chile and Peru in same manner as was agreement for a diplomatic settlement by resort to good offices.
- 2.
- Persistence on part of Peru in declining to participate in registration in absence both of any agreement for suspension and of any order made by Plebiscitary Commission in proper exercise of its power and authority will be equivalent to a withdrawal from the proceedings which are being taken pursuant to Arbitrator’s award; Peru should realize that a withdrawal under these conditions may place her in position of rejecting the award and of defeating execution of article III of Treaty of Ancon which provides for a plebiscite. Peru would be taking this action without legal justification and entirely upon her own motion, for there is no official determination that plebiscite cannot and should not be held.
- 3.
- By this situation Peru is making it possible for Chile to contend that the former, having abandoned the proceedings on her own initiative, has given up her legal right to a plebiscite and, in consequence, to the territory in dispute. Chile will also contend, no doubt, that Peru is acting in bad faith, as she declines to participate in registration, nothwithstanding Commission’s order to continue, and now proposes to withdraw her Commissioner and to send him to Washington, in this way emphasizing her disposition to enforce abandonment of plebiscite without legal justification.
- 4.
- My efforts to have Chile accept suggestion of suspension of plebiscitary proceedings during negotiations here are being seriously embarrassed by failure of Peru to maintain attitude of cooperation both with me and with chairman of the Plebiscitary Commission to [Page 367] maintain unimpaired plebiscitary process until some agreement on suspension can be reached. I hope you can impress upon President Leguía and upon Minister for Foreign Affairs great importance of cooperation, such as avoiding action which can be construed as withdrawal or as giving Chile opportunity to bring charges of bad faith. It is clear that registration must continue until an agreement is reached, and Peru’s participating in it for the present is best evidence she can offer of her sincere desire to promote a settlement.
Kellogg