724.3415/846: Telegram
The Chargé in Bolivia (Hibbard) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 16—12:12 a.m.]
85. I have been handed the following note by the Bolivian Foreign Office87 in reply to the offer of good offices made by the five neutral Governments on October 1st. The Spanish text is being transmitted by today’s pouch. … I have some important comment to make on this which will follow immediately.
“On October 1st, last, the office in my charge received from Your Excellency the note by means of which the Government of the United States, in conjunction with those of Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and Uruguay was kind enough to renew the offer which the neutral members of the extinct Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation, Bolivia [and] Paraguay, formulated in Washington on September 12th suggesting the advantage of arriving at a definite agreement in the question of the Chaco Boreal and continuing the project of a treaty of arbitration formulated on August 31 in view of the fact that the replies of the Bolivian and Paraguayan delegations contained in the opinion of the neutral delegates certain ‘conformity of principle on the fundamental points’ of the proposition giving hope for a possible understanding for the adoption of an arbitral formula ‘the obstacles being removed and the doubtful points elucidated which were objectionable to the parties in the project submitted to them’.
I consider necessary to establish, to the end that the proceedings may be regularized, that Your Excellency’s note and the analogous communications of the other four neutral Governments have given an official character to the offer of good offices of the neutral delegates who in reality presented their new proposition at the very moment when ending the powers conferred on them by the protocol of January 3rd, 1929, and when there also lapsed, by reason of its end, the special authority which they received from the interested parties on July 1st to propose formulae for settlement of the territorial litigation between Bolivia and Paraguay of an unofficial character and within the limits of the protocol mentioned. This circumstance determined the sense of the reply of the Bolivian delegates, dated in Washington, on September 14 in which they declined to continue intervention in the procedure for the settlement of the fundamental question as they were not authorized to do so.
From the tenor of Your Excellency’s courteous note which I am [Page 921] answering, it is judged that the Government of the United States, in conjunction with those of the four friendly countries which assisted on the Commission in Washington, believes it desirable that a previous agreement be reached between Bolivia and Paraguay ‘to enter immediately into direct negotiations looking to an agreement at the same time establishing a commission composed of members from the five neutral countries represented on the Commission the work of which terminated on September 13th last’.
The Government of Bolivia believes that although the functioning of this commission would be impractical and premature during the period of direct negotiations which will be held in La Paz or Asunción as soon as diplomatic relations are renewed in accordance with the conciliation agreed upon in Washington, this commission on the other hand would have a very useful and important role in case these negotiations should be abandoned because of the difficulties which may unfortunately present themselves, the moment then having arrived to utilize the good offices generously offered by the five Governments actually engaged in placing their valuable strength in the service of that harmony which should reign between the nations of this continent. The previous formation of any kind of permanent tribunal empowered to ‘remove the obstacles which may present themselves during direct negotiations in order that a happy solution may be reached,’ as Your Excellency’s note states, or, what is the same, the immediate renewal of work by the organization which functioned in the capital of the United States of America with its seat either in the same place or any other to supervise the direct negotiations and avoid all danger of new incidents in the Chaco where as Your Excellency says there are a great number of forts of both parties situated at a short distance from one another, is not necessary in any sense and would be vexatious to the dignity and sovereignty on [of] these nations since then,88 as the countries in dispute are reconciled and the incidents of December 1928 have been amicably settled, the honor and faith of Bolivia and Paraguay must remain committed to maintain a peaceful and prudent situation which will make possible a final settlement of the litigation between them without recourse for this purpose to the assistance of [a mediating] organization, a method indicated by international practice only [in cases] where imminent danger of war exists.
It is opportune to point out that the menace of armed encounters in the Chaco does not exist on the part of Bolivia if it is realized that it has been demonstrated before the Commission in Washington that she had no responsibility whatever for the rupture of good relations which occurred at the end of last year. Moreover it would not be logical to continue harboring the fear that the events of December 1928 may recur solely because of the proximity and number of forts when it is remembered that this situation is not new in the Chaco but dates back many years and has never given occasion for dangerous collisions except for the deliberate attack of the Paraguayan army on the Bolivian possession of Vanguardia.
But if, unfortunately, the moment arrives when direct negotiations are abandoned and the loyal propositions of Bolivia for reaching [Page 922] an agreement with Paraguay are not duly seconded, my Government expects to state to the Government of the United States of America through the medium of Your Excellency that it accepts with pleasure the good offices which the five brother nations so nobly offer and that in such a case it will be disposed to enter into an agreement which will create the organization proposed. The Government of Bolivia also accepts and proclaims as the fundamental basis for the work of the commission so created the juridical rules established by the principle of uti possidetis of 1810, the standard of American international law, which, when formulated by the Argentine observer at the Conference of Buenos Aires, was accepted by Paraguay and the authority of which was expressly recognized by the neutral delegates of the Commission at Washington according to the note of September 12th above mentioned. My Government fully agrees with the criterion that in treating a litigation of the character of that sustained by Bolivia and Paraguay, it is inevitable to adopt that juridical standard as the only adequate one to define the possession of a territory over which both parties claim rights emanating from historical titles.
The formal and express condition which my Government considers it indispensable to make in such a case and which must be included in the convention arranged for the acceptance of the good offices in an essential character forming an indivisible whole with the other conditions which the arrangement includes is that Bolivia will not admit under any circumstances the submission to arbitration of an undetermined portion of national territory, nor is she disposed to adopt the process of double arbitration suggested by Paraguay and accepted by the neutral members of the extinct Commission with the object of circumscribing first the material of the litigation and later resolving the best right to the territory thus determined. The Government of Bolivia reaffirms the reservation with which it agreed to the general treaty of arbitration signed on January 5th last year, a reservation which had as its object to exclude the procedure mentioned in the second part of article 4 of this treaty in order to define the specific material of the controversy in case of failure to agree among the interested parties. With this full knowledge [this idea?] the Bolivian Foreign Office corroborated the antecedent established in the conference[s] at Buenos Aires [where the] Bolivian delegation refused expressly the procedure of double arbitration suggested by the Paraguayan delegation.
A former agreement between Bolivia and Paraguay celebrated in 1927 (the Gutierrez–Diaz León protocol) also established in article 4 that the interested parties ‘would fix a determined zone on which the judgment of an arbitral tribunal chosen by common consent should be accepted.’
As the determination of the zone may possibly be the difficulty on which the negotiations entered into to make possible an arbitral solution may break, either during the direct conversations or during the work of the proposed commission, the Government of Bolivia, sincerely desirous of avoiding difficulties, is disposed to propose a mean which will serve as a guide in delimiting the territory which shall be submitted to arbitration.
This mean, which should be accepted prior to placing the settlement of the question in the hands of a commission of neutrals, is none other [Page 923] than that derived from conversational [conventional] right or derived from treaties and consists in taking the middle point of those points of demarcation established by the three treaties celebrated in 1879, 1887, and 1894, treaties, which although they were not duly perfected, constitute the only real and worth while antecedents with regard to the opinion of the statesmen of both countries at three different episodes on the old controversy of the Chaco. Taking the middle point of the three points marked [by] these treaties of [on] the River Paraguay as the frontier between the two countries the corresponding parallel would be fixed as the northern limit of material [matter] in litigation leaving all territory situated to the south of this line to be submitted to arbitration with the limitation which Paraguay cares to place and by virtue of mutual consent.
In proposing this method for determining the demarcation of the territory in dispute, the only one which appears logical and reasonable, the Government of Bolivia believes that it is giving evident proof of the broad and generous spirit with which it is animated in obtaining a decorous solution of this question, and it hopes that the Government of Paraguay, inspired by the same feelings will come to adopt this attitude. As the Governments of the neutral countries, this Chancery hopes that they, persuaded by the just reasons which have caused Bolivia to place herself beyond the excessive and unfounded pretensions which have so often been manifested in the course of this controversy, will lend their valuable moral support toward securing an understanding which will be the first step toward the realization of those earnest hopes for peace and justice by which they are inspired. They will also understand that Bolivia in presenting this indispensable condition in the form above stated for the determination of the zone in litigation, is only endeavoring to prevent contingencies which may permit the fixation of lines or the proposal of bases of settlement fully attributed to an international commission the acts of which always establish precedents. In order that the organization charged with the good offices may have the high respect, which is indispensable in the opinion of my Government for it completely to fulfill its important task, it is necessary that it enjoy to the fullest the absolute confidence of both parties, free from fears, and this reason has influenced the condition imposed by the Government of Bolivia and stated in writing in the present communication.
In requesting Your Excellency to be kind enough to bring the tenor of the preceding considerations to the knowledge of the Government of the United States of America with the renewed expression of the gratitude of the Government of Bolivia for the laudable efforts which it has exerted in this matter, I am pleased to renew to Your Excellency the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.”