723.2515/2332a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Chile (Collier)
83. Today’s morning papers carry Associated Press despatch from Santiago which states that well-informed quarters are of opinion that Chile will not accept the agreement in principle for division of Tacna-Arica among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia; also, that patriotic organizations are launching new movement to compel Government of Chile to terminate negotiations here and to insist on plebiscite. If this press report is accurate forecast of Chile’s attitude at this juncture, situation will immediately assume exceedingly grave aspect. I must say to you frankly that cumulative effect of my experience in attempting to obtain satisfactory definition of Chile’s position in negotiations, since April 15, particularly, is most disappointing; it is becoming increasingly difficult to resist conclusion that Chile does not intend to do anything but to force the issue on the plebiscite. I fail to discern any reliable indication that she now means to do more than to give lip service to the attempt to reach a settlement by negotiation. Recent communications which have come to me through Ambassador Cruchaga, together with certain dilatory tactics which are strongly suggestive of a determination to exhaust patience of the United States and to precipitate collapse of negotiations without assuming the direct [Page 440] responsibility for breaking them off but also to obtain if that be possible presumed technical advantages in regard to the plebiscite, have created most painful impression here. Intimation has been put forward many times that with expiration today of period for registration. Chile will contend that door has been closed as far as that stage of plebiscitary process is concerned, and that henceforth Plebiscitary Commission will have neither the duty nor the power to do anything but to proceed with election.
I think that it should be clearly understood once for all that if negotiations come to naught, the plebiscite will be dealt with in manner and spirit which will not fail to keep in view the basic consideration of the plebiscite; namely, that it must be a free and fair one. There will be no splitting of hairs, and technical considerations, such as have been mentioned, will not be allowed to block way to just result. I have no right to speak for the Arbitrator, of course, for he can express an opinion only when a question comes before him upon a proper record; I have no doubt, however, on the point that the powers of the Commission and its control over the process which has been committed to its charge are plenary, and that until that process has been carried through to completion the Commission’s powers are ample to do whatever may be necessary to promote a fair and free election. It is for this reason that I have attached not the slightest importance to the expiration of the registration period which has heretofore been fixed. The Plebiscitary Commission can at any time, if it deems proper, revise or amend its regulations, reopen registration, or even cancel registration lists and start in all over again if it desires. It can also suspend the plebiscitary process for as long as it pleases, and can in last resort declare plebiscite frustrated or impracticable. If the road to settlement through negotiation should be finally blocked, the power to deal with plebiscite can not, therefore, be held to have been diminished or impaired either by any lapse of time or by the technical completion of any phase of the proceedings. Neither Chile nor Peru can assume that the problems which, in that contingency, would arise will not be faced with all the courage that is required to do exact justice. Chile can not fall into any more lamentable error in this emergency than to mistake patience for weakness.
In present stage of negotiations with Peru ready to go forward either on basis of permanent neutralization or on basis of Bolivian corridor outlined in my No. 80, May 16, 2 p.m., it seems incomprehensible that Chile should put herself deliberately in the indefensible position of wrecking the good offices, and then falling back upon the plebiscite with the risks attending it, which I have frankly endeavored to point out.
[Page 441]Unless you perceive strong reasons to the contrary, I wish you to seek an interview at once with Minister for Foreign Affairs, and state to him orally the substance of this message. I do not think that it would be wise to make this statement in such a way as to entail necessity for leaving with him a written memorandum on the matter.