724.3415/209
The Ambassador in Argentina (
Bliss
) to the Secretary of
State
Buenos Aires
,
July 19,
1928
.
[Received August 16.]
No. 339
Sir: Supplementing my despatches No. 285 of
May 28th and No. 327–G of June 27, 1928 (page 3)48 I now have the
honor to inform the Department that the negotiations that have been
in progress in Buenos Aires to define the boundary between Bolivia
and Paraguay have been suspended, as the two delegations have been
completely unable to reach any definite agreement.49
The final session was held on July 12th at the Argentine Foreign
Office. At this meeting a statement was drawn up announcing the
suspension of the conference until the Governments of both
interested countries shall have reached a new understanding and
setting forth the viewpoints of each delegation. The penultimate
paragraph declares that only peaceful means will be used to settle
this question, “except in case of legitimate defense”.
A copy of this document, as published by La
Prensa, and a translation thereof are transmitted
herewith.
During the course of this session, which was also attended by the
Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs and several other officials
of the Foreign Office, Dr. Gallardo50 expressed the
opinion that although the Conference had not achieved a definite
solution of this old problem, it left the road open for subsequent
settlement and that this settlement would be aided by the exchanges
of views that had taken place. He added that he hoped the two
Governments would find it [Page 675]
convenient to renew the negotiations in Buenos Aires, although
Argentina would view with equal satisfaction any adjustment reached
in another country.
Drs. Zubizarreta50a and Sanchez Bustamante,
the Presidents of the Paraguayan and Bolivian Commissions, replied
to Dr. Gallardo and expressed their thanks for the hospitality
accorded by the Argentine Government.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The text of the Argentine proposals that have formed the subject of
the recent deliberations, have been made public by the Argentine
authorities. A copy and translation of these suggestions, as
published in La Prensa of July 13th,
accompany this despatch.
At the regular weekly diplomatic reception on July 18th I asked the
Minister for Foreign Affairs if he would tell me the significance of
the suspension of these negotiations. As is frequently the case, the
Minister was noncommittal and confined his remarks to generalities.
Nevertheless, I inferred that he was disappointed at the failure of
the plenipotentiaries to reach an agreement—a failure reflecting on
the efficacy of the good offices offered by the Argentine Government
causing some little chagrin in official and press circles.
The visit to Buenos Aires at this time of the president-elect of
Paraguay has given rise to speculation as to the effect it will
ultimately leave upon this boundary question and whether the visits
made by Dr. Guggiari to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Chile will
result in these four countries showing partiality to the Paraguayan
claims. As yet there is only vague rumor on this hypothesis on which
reliance cannot be placed but I shall report any reliable
information I may be able to obtain.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure 1—Translation51]
Statement Issued July 12, 1928, by the
Bolivian and Paraguayan Plenipotentiaries Suspending the
Conference To Define Boundaries
At a meeting held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the
purpose of agreeing upon the Act of Suspension of the Conference
on Boundaries between the two countries, the Plenipotentiaries
of Bolivia and Paraguay hereby declare:
That it has not been possible for them to reach an agreement
regarding the questions considered at the Conference.
[Page 676]
Consequently, they are of the opinion, in accordance with the
provisions of the Protocol signed in Buenos Aires on April 22,
1927, that the moment has arrived to inform the Government of
the Argentine Republic concerning the reasons for their
dissension; they do therefore
Resolve:
To suspend the Conference until a new agreement is
reached by the Foreign Offices of both countries, and
they leave on record their recognition of the high
impartiality with which the Argentine Government has
attended the deliberations held until now.
The Commission of Plenipotentiaries of Bolivia states:
- I.
- That it fully accepts the terms of the final act
proposed by the Argentine Observer, Dr. Isidoro Ruiz
Moreno, under authority from his Government, and
reaffirms the four points embodied in said act:
- 1.
- That the settlement of the controversy should
be based upon the uti
possidetis of 1810;
- 2.
- That, in the event that it proves impossible
to arrive at a direct understanding, it will be
necessary to determine the bases of legal
arbitration;
- 3.
- That the advances that have been made by
either country have created a de
facto, situation that confers no right and
that cannot be submitted to the arbitrator in
order to support their respective
contentions;
- 4.
- That in view of the present state of the
negotiations it refers their continuation to the
Foreign Offices.
- II.
- That since the Paraguayan Delegation did not accept
the proposal for demilitarization, selected by the
Bolivian Commission of Ministers Plenipotentiary from
the two optional terms of the second point of the
friendly suggestion made by the Argentine Government,
nor the third point of said suggestion, the Government
of Bolivia maintains unalterable its opinion as regards
the arbitral zones abolished by mutual agreement in
1913, and with regard to the status
quo of possessions agreed upon in 1907,
reserving its right to present claims for any advances
which may have overstepped the bounds of those
possessions.
- III.
- That since the conditions under which said status quo was agreed upon have
changed, it deems it necessary that new formulae be
considered which shall meet the present situation and
the legitimate interests of both countries.
- IV.
- That in compliance with the agreement entered into by
Bolivia and Paraguay in the Gutierrez-Diaz Leon
Protocol, the arbitration cannot be an indeterminate
one, but should devolve upon zones fixed by mutual
agreement, and that since both parties have declared
themselves in favor of a juridical arbitration, no
possession, regardless of the time that has elapsed, can
prevail against legitimate rights founded upon titles
and acts emanating from the Spanish Crown, in
determining the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Charcas
and the territory of the Province of Paraguay.
[Page 677]
The Commission of Plenipotentiaries of Paraguay states:
I. That the representatives of Bolivia have not accepted the
proposal made by the exponents relative to the dismantling and
abandonment of the fortins founded by both countries subsequent
to 1907.
That said proposal corresponded with the idea suggested by the
Argentine Republic of demilitarizing the military posts or
positions referred to, and which was accepted, in principle, by
the Governments of Paraguay and Bolivia.
III. That the representatives of Bolivia confined themselves to
proposing the reduction and balancing of the military forces of
the fortins of both countries.
IV. That the representatives of Paraguay rejected the Bolivian
proposal as being insufficient and hardly in accord with the
Argentine suggestion.
V. That the representatives of both countries stated that they
accepted arbitration as a means of settling the boundary
controversy, but disagreed fundamentally as to the manner of
classifying and stating the question.
The Paraguayan Delegates considered the question, in accordance
with all the antecedents, as a boundary dispute between the
territory of the former Province of Paraguay, which extends west
of its river and to which the Republic of Paraguay is successor,
and the territories of the former District of Chiquitos and of
the entities or provinces of Alto Perú out of which Bolivia was
formed.
The proposal of the Bolivian Delegates implied the redemption of
the entire territory of the Chaco Boreal, with the still more
grave feature of fixing as a disputed and arbitrable zone the
territory included between the parallel coinciding with the
mouth of the Apa River and the Pilcomayo River up to 59° [west]
of Greenwich, and to leave to Bolivia, without discussion, all
the rest of the territory of that geographic unit. This Bolivian
proposal was rejected absolutely by the Delegates of Paraguay as
being contrary to the sovereignty of this country and all the
diplomatic antecedents relative to the settlement of the
controversy.
VI. That a new modus vivendi not having
been agreed upon, the Delegation of Paraguay reaffirms and
ratifies the legal existence of the status
quo agreed upon in 1907 as well as its scope and
meaning in accordance with its thesis set forth in previous
conferences, and reserves the right of its country to present
claims for the violation of said pact.
VII. That the Delegation of Paraguay accepted the formula
suggested by the Argentine Observer for the Act of Suspension of
the Conference relative to arbitration and the uti possidetis of 1810, but it was unable to agree to
item III of said formula because the representatives of Bolivia
considered it tantamount to a condemnation of all the possessory
acts, however old these may have been, and not subject to the
zone of the status quo.
Upon closing, both Delegations agree in declaring that the
dispute in which their respective countries are involved shall
be settled only by pacific means, except in the case of
self-defense.
[Page 678]
In testimony whereof, they sign
this Act in triplicate in the City of Buenos
Aires, on the twelfth day of July nineteen
hundred and twenty-eight.
[Enclosure 2—Translation52]
Argentine Proposals of December 1927, as
Published in “La Prensa” of July 13, 1928
- 1.
- That Paraguay agree to proceed directly to arbitrate the
fundamental question.
- 2.
- That Bolivia and Paraguay proceed to demilitarize all
their fortins or to withdraw those that are opposite each
other to a distance of fifty kilometers each; this act to be
verified by a military commission from a third
country.
- 3.
- That it be declared that the advances which either country
may have made have created a de facto
situation which does not give them any right nor can said
advances be alleged before the arbitrator as the basis of
their claims.
