724.3415/195
The Ambassador in Argentina ( Bliss ) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 21.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that the Paraguayan and Bolivian Boundary Commissions have resumed the negotiations which as the Department was informed in my Despatch No. 114, of December 28, 1927,45 were suspended in order that the Delegates might consult with their respective Governments respecting the suggestions made by the Argentine Government with a view to furthering a friendly settlement of this controversy. (See my telegram No. 109, December 19, 7 p.m.)46
The Paraguayan and Bolivian Delegations are presided over by Dr. Eusebio Ayala and Dr. Sanchez Bustamante, respectively. Dr. Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, the legal counselor of the Argentine Ministry for Foreign Affairs, will continue to act as friendly observer.
The first meeting, which occurred on May 7, was purely ceremonial in character, a tribute being paid to the memory of the late Dr. Diaz Leon, one of the authors of the protocol of April 22, 1927, (see Embassy’s despatch No. 275, of April 29, 1927),47 who died recently in Paris. The subsequent ones, however, are reported to have been devoted to lengthy discussions of the Argentine proposals, especially the suggestion that the dispute be submitted to arbitration. Although it seems that both delegations are in principle in accord with these suggestions, there have arisen, nevertheless, differences of opinion respecting the old question of the “modus vivendi” or the determination of the “status quo” that must prevail until the arbitral decision has been given. According to the Nación of May 19, the Bolivians consider that the first clause of the Argentine proposal (arbitration) means that the basic question of the delimitation of the frontier must be immediately settled, once and for all. The Paraguayans, on the other hand, interpret this suggestion as an invitation to proceed simultaneously with the arbitral settlement and the agreement respecting the “modus vivendi” that must prevail during the course of the arbitration. It is said that this “modus vivendi” would imply a temporary boundary quite different from the line of actual occupation. The other two Argentine suggestions have also given rise to certain divergences of opinion.
During the last ten days only the briefest and most non-committal reports of the conferences have appeared in the press, although it is known that active negotiations are still in progress.
[Page 674]A member of the Embassy was recently informed by Dr. Ruiz Moreno that it is most important for both countries to withdraw their troops from the forts in the disputed zone, as their presence there tends to excite and inflame popular feeling in both countries. The question must be settled peaceably, he said, for a war between Bolivia and Paraguay would be a long affair, consisting of guerilla fighting, Bolivia’s superior strength over her opponent being neutralized by her greater distance from the field of war.
Dr. Moreno vigorously denied that Argentina would ever assume the role of mediator in the controversy, and added that she would confine herself to the giving of good offices and friendly advice.
I have [etc.]