723.2515/3216: Telegram
The Chargé in Peru ( Hanna ) to the Secretary of State
121. Last evening President Leguia summoned me to his office and gave me an oral statement of the progress of his negotiations with the Chilean Ambassador. The principal points of these are as follows:
Two conferences have taken place. At the first conference the only important matter discussed was the suggestion of the President that the negotiations take place at Lima. The Government of Chile accepted this suggestion. At the beginning of the second conference the President told the Ambassador, in answer to the Ambassador’s inquiry as to Peru’s attitude, that he felt that justice demanded the return to Peru of the entire territory in dispute. He substantiated this by reviewing the arbitral proceedings which he interpreted as clearly indicating the right of Peru to the territory. He emphasized especially Peru’s acceptance of a plebiscite contrary to her interests, the failure of the plebiscite due to the acts of Chile, and the Lassiter motion.38 The Ambassador declined to consider a solution on this basis and proposed a division of the territory. The President objected because Tacna has no feasible outlet except through the port of Arica and because the two provinces form a single economic unit. The Ambassador then asked the President to make a further suggestion and, in reply, the President told the Ambassador that he would agree to placing the entire territory under the administration of the United States. This proposition was submitted by the Ambassador to his Government. He is now awaiting a reply.
I reminded the President that if the United States refused to act in the capacity indicated, his last suggestion would be futile. The President replied that in that event the United States might consent to act as administrator in conjunction with some other neutral [Page 669] country or countries. I then asked the President if he would accept an administration of the territory under some country or countries other than the United States. He answered in the affirmative. I stated that in the latter event many would consider Bolivia as the logical administrator. In reply to this he made it clear again that he would not consider turning the provinces over to Bolivia.
The President stated that he felt he ought to tell me that the Ambassador is not friendly to the idea of having the United States act as administrator of the territory, and had inquired why the President insisted on this, in reply to which the President had stated frankly that it was “to keep Chile in order.” The President stated that he was informed that Chilean public opinion was pressing the Government of Chile to reach a settlement.
Day before yesterday I saw the Chilean Ambassador. He appeared to be very much discouraged, even pessimistic. He informed me that to the suggestion of the President that the entire territory be returned to Peru, he had made the counter-proposal of dividing the territory along the railway, giving to Peru the portion of Arica north of the railway in exchange for the portion of Tacna south of the line, and making a free port of Arica under the administration of Chile. He did not mention the President’s forming the territory into an independent state.
It is my belief that the proposal of the President that all the territory in dispute be returned to Peru was made to place on record his claim that such a settlement would be the just settlement, and to establish a favorable point of departure for subsequent concessions to the views of Chile.
- Telegram in two sections.↩
- See telegram June 1, 1926, 5 p.m., from the Consul at Arica, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. i, p. 456, and subsequent correspondence.↩