723.2515/2432½
Minutes of Meeting of the Plenipotentiaries, Under the Extension of Good Offices of the Secretary of State, June 4, 1926
The Secretary opened the meeting in the Tacna-Arica negotiations at 10:30 a.m., on June 4. All the persons who attended the previous meetings were present and in addition Mr. Wade Ellis, counsel for Peru.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Secretary stated that negotiations were getting nowhere by his putting up proposals only to be rejected categorically by first one and then the other of the parties. However, the Secretary was going to suggest a basis of discussion to see if he could get an intimation from either that this proposal or a modification thereof would be acceptable. The Secretary stated that in making this proposal it should not be thought that he had withdrawn the proposals already made. The proposals already made by him were still open should they be acceptable later to the parties. The Secretary then read his proposal as follows:
“The Secretary of State has the honor to refer to the proposal made by him to the Plenipotentiaries of Peru and Chile on April 15, 1926, reading as follows:
‘The Secretary of State has the honor to suggest that in the interest of international peace and a cordial rapprochement between the parties they consider the advisability of a mutual and joint sacrifice whereby either
- ‘(1) the territory of Tacna and Arica shall be constituted a neutralized state, either independent or under the protectorate of South American States, as may be agreed, or
- ‘(2) the provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be transferred (upon an apportionment of equitable compensation, and appropriate economic arrangements, to be agreed upon) to a South American State not a party to these negotiations.
‘As neither party is willing to surrender the territory in question to the other, and as the proposal for a division of the territory between them has been rejected, the remaining opportunity for a solution of the longstanding controversy would appear to be found in one of the suggestions above made or in a modification thereof if such is deemed to be advisable.’
“Without withdrawing any of the proposals already made by him, the Secretary now desires to suggest as an additional proposal to the Plenipotentiaries of the two Governments concerned the following modification of Part 2 of said proposal:
‘That both Governments accept in principle as a basis of adjustment of their differences concerning the provinces of Tacna and [Page 463] Arica, reserving all details for consideration in the course of the ensuing negotiations:
- ‘(a) The delimitation of a corridor extending from the Bolivian frontier to the Pacific Ocean, said corridor to be transferred to Bolivia upon the apportionment of equitable compensation, appropriate economic arrangements and such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between Chile and Peru.
- ‘(b) All territory in the disputed area lying to the north of the northern boundary of the corridor so delimited to be and become a part of Peru.
- ‘(c) All territory in the disputed area lying to the south of the southern boundary of the corridor so delimited to be and become a part of Chile.
- ‘(d) The foregoing territorial dispositions to be effected with due regard for the principle of just compensation for public improvements and all other matters as to which compensation may be deemed appropriate or necessary.
- ‘(e) No government not now a party to these negotiations to be admitted to participation therein, except by agreement between Peru and Chile.’”
The Peruvian Ambassador stated that the formula proposed was acceptable. Peru, he said, desired to facilitate good offices and to arrive at a settlement agreeable to both to terminate a situation which is equally inconvenient to both. Peru finds this proposal acceptable and considers it opens the way for discussions to bring about a settlement.
The Chilean Ambassador stated that he would desire the Secretary to make the proposal more concrete and not in such general terms. The parties do not know what they are turning over to Bolivia, what are the boundaries of the territory so turned over nor what goes to Chile nor what to Peru. True it is that the details are reserved for further negotiations. He desired to inquire however what is a corridor? This is not a detail. What does the Secretary mean by a corridor and what does Bolivia mean by a corridor as it would be useless for Peru and Chile to agree if Bolivia does not. Chile, he said, cannot accept the proposal in the form presented because it is not definite and clear but vague.
The Secretary stated that he realized of course that if any corridor was to be transferred under any arrangement with Bolivia the arrangement must be arrived at and defined. The Secretary’s suggestion was merely a basis for discussion. He hoped that both parties would say that they would consider it and state how they would be willing to divide the territory and make a corridor. The Secretary repeated that it was impossible to arrive anywhere by rejections and he inquired whether either party had any suggestion or statement as to what it will do so that negotiations may be carried on. The Secretary then inquired of the Peruvian Ambassador if he had any suggestions to make.
[Page 464]The Peruvian Ambassador replied in the negative. He stated that Peru had accepted the Secretary’s proposal as made as according to the Secretary’s statement it was a proposal in principle and not a proposal in detail. The Ambassador was not prepared to discuss the details but accepted the proposal as made in principle. He felt that the Secretary’s statement opens the way for negotiations.
The Chilean Ambassador replied that he had no suggestion to make. It is, he said, a question of judgment as to the best way to arrive at a settlement. A vague suggestion of a corridor to Bolivia the limits of which are not established is not in Chile’s opinion the right way to make a settlement. Chile hopes that the Secretary after the meeting can make a more definite proposal.
The Secretary replied that he would be willing to do so if he knew what Chile and Peru would agree to but there is no use in making proposals of division or of a corridor unless he has some idea what will be agreed to. As to Bolivia the Secretary stated that he had made it plain that unless both parties wanted Bolivia included the Secretary will not discuss the matter with Bolivia. To do so there must be an agreement on this point first between Chile and Peru.
The Secretary stated that if each party would give to the Secretary personally any definite suggestions as to what they will consider that he would make a suggestion in greater detail.
The Chilean Ambassador stated that in the logical order of ideas, as Peru has accepted in principle the suggestion of the Secretary, it would be Peru’s part to make a suggestion.
The Peruvian Ambassador replied that to do this it would be necessary for Chile to give the proposal the same acceptance that Peru had given and so have a starting point for discussion. He added that he felt that proposals should be made by both and not by one only.
The Secretary stated that he considered this reply technical rather than meritorious. He did not understand that Chile had rejected a corridor but wanted more details regarding it and he inquired whether both would submit to the Secretary their ideas in detail as to a corridor, the part to go to Peru and the part to go to Chile, et cetera. If they will do so he will do his best to try to harmonize the views of the two parties.
The Chilean Ambassador stated that he would cable his Government regarding the situation and would advise the Secretary as soon as possible of his Government’s definite position in the matter. The Peruvian Ambassador made the same reply.
The Secretary then inquired whether the two parties wished to continue the good offices. The Peruvian Ambassador replied in the [Page 465] affirmative and stated that he would make all possible personal efforts to arrive at a satisfactory solution. The Chilean Ambassador made the same reply.
The Secretary then stated that the negotiations had been going on for two months or more and the plebiscite also going on. If anything was to be done in Washington it must be done soon. A meeting had been called in Arica for four o’clock Saturday afternoon. The Secretary did not know whether they would press for a definite determination at that time or not. He understood that under the rules the question might go over if objected to. He wanted to urge both parties however to try to come together in agreement. From his private conversations with both Ambassadors he did not think they were far apart and he hoped that they would reach an agreement.
The Secretary then inquired whether there were any suggestions as to the next meeting and inquired whether the following day, Saturday, June 5, would be satisfactory. The Chilean Ambassador said that that would be impossible, there would not be time to receive a reply to his cable. The Peruvian Ambassador was of the same opinion. The Secretary suggested Monday morning, the Peruvian Ambassador 3:30 Monday afternoon which the Chilean Ambassador agreed to. The meeting was then adjourned until 3:30 Monday, June 7.
- Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs.↩