714.1515/614: Telegram
The Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (Davis) to the Secretary of State
3. After series of conferences with Guatemalan and Honduran Commissions and after visiting part of territory in dispute, it appears improbable that they will establish a pacific [provisional?] boundary by mutual accord.
Guatemalan Commission insists that exclusive control of Motagua Valley is essential to its commercial life and to safety of national defense. Honduran Commission apparently willing to raise no question as to status quo condition under which Guatemala controls Motagua River and territory south of it from the Managua River to the Chachahualia River but insists upon Motagua River as provisional boundary from the Chachahualia to the sea.
The complicated situation between interests in the disputed territory makes the fixing of a provisional line most difficult. While I am prepared to proceed in fixing provisional line, I am convinced after studying the situation here that the only means of avoiding future conflicts is through permanent arbitration. I am therefore planning to propose formally at a session of the Commission on the 18th that the two Governments through their respective Commissions agree to nominate special plenipotentiaries to meet immediately in Washington or other neutral country to consider proposals for arbitration or mutual agreement.
I should be pleased if the Department could instruct the Legations at Guatemala City and Tegucigalpa to be prepared to make strong representations to the Government to which they are accredited on behalf of the Department in favor of this proposal. I shall advise both Legations as soon as I present the proposal. Should either Government refuse to enter into negotiations that Government would be placed in a difficult position should it protest against the provisional line.
Should both parties agree to open negotiations the establishing of a provisional line prior to these negotiations might disturb the situation and I am of the opinion that the decision of the mediator on present line should be postponed for a reasonable time—say three months for negotiations; and if agreement is reached, an additional three months for legislative action. In the meantime the Mixed Commission now in [session?] should provide simple regulations for maintaining status quo.
[Page 734]The Guatemalan Commission has avoided any commitment on permanent arbitration and apparently fears that arbitration will place its railway and commercial interests in jeopardy.
The Honduran Commission has orally informed me that in negotiations for final settlement its Government is willing to consider direct agreement between both countries on basis of mutual concessions or in case of an arbitration convention is willing to include a clause which will reopen the arbitration to take into consideration the vital commercial interests of the two republics.
Should it be necessary for me to fix a provisional boundary, I consider it inadvisable [advisable?] to complete and forward final decision from point outside the countries party to controversy. The situation is complicated and delicate and I would prefer to prepare decision in Washington where Department files and maps of 1917 mediation are available. It would not be necessary to bring clerk or engineer.
I shall appreciate Department’s instructions on suggestions outlined in this report. Please reply by cable direct to Cuyamel, Honduras.
- Telegram in three sections↩