723.2515/2150: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
53. Your No. 78, April 17, 4 p.m. There seems to be a misunderstanding in regard to present attitude of Peru on the alternative proposals which I submitted to the Plenipotentiaries on April 15. Facts are as follows: (1) Peru has definitely accepted first alternative, relating to neutralization; (2) Peru has not rejected second alternative. Ambassador Velarde has merely submitted his personal observations on it by way of criticism.
Today Ambassador Velarde has indicated to me that my two alternatives might be susceptible of combination; he suggested neutralization of all the territory in dispute with exception of strip preferably along extreme southern border which could be transferred to Bolivia. I think it would be unwise to let Chile know that this suggestion came from Peru, but the Ambassador’s talk with me today indicated that they are endeavoring to find some compromise between the two propositions and that they have not at all rejected the second.
Under these circumstances, if, as you say, Chile is determined to reject the first alternative, it is clear that assumption that she need not deal with second is unjustified. If she should accept second, which Peru has not rejected, there would, perhaps, be an opportunity to bring about an agreement either on second as it stands or on combination of the two.
It should be made clear to Government of Chile that Peru did not reject second proposition.
Do you think it would be helpful if Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay joined with me in urging settlement upon both Chile and Peru?