Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1930, Volume I

724.3415/1013: Telegram

The Chargé in Bolivia ( Hibbard ) to the Acting Secretary of State

La Paz , February 27, 1930—5 p.m.
[Received February 28—6:10 p.m.⁶⁴]

16. My telegram No. 14, February 26, 5 p.m.⁶³ The following is a translation of the reply of the Bolivian Government to the note of the neutral Governments dated January 9:

“La Paz, February 25, 1930. Note number 134.

Sir: I have the Honor to acknowledge receipt of your esteemed note dated January 9th, last, in which the Governments of the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay and Cuba refer to the communication addressed to them by the Government of Bolivia on November 13th, last,⁶⁵ with regard to the suggestion of good offices for the settlement of the Bolivian-Paraguayan controversy over the Chaco Boreal. In the note under reference, the Governments of the five neutral nations deem it justifiable to formulate some opinions regarding the scope of the negotiations initiated, making clear certain opinions in order to avoid ambiguous interpretations.

The motive that guides the neutral Governments to induce Bolivia and Paraguay to an immediate settlement of the dispute is a noble one, but the Bolivian Government nevertheless considers that to proceed logically both as a safeguard of her right, of the promise given, and of the respectability of the extinct Commission of Conciliation at Washington, it is a primary matter before any exchange of ideas regarding the basis of the controversy to fulfill the decisions of the Commission of Washington.

When the unfortunate incident of the attack on Fort Vanguardia took place in December, 1928,⁶⁶ it was possible to avert a crisis through the Washington Protocol of January 3, 1929,⁶⁷ instituting the Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation. After a lengthy trial and a contradictory examination of facts, Bolivia and Paraguay subscribed to the conciliatory pact of September 12th, 1929, whose text establishes that the events of Vanguardia preceded those which took place in the Boquerón sector; that the use of coercive methods by Paraguay were responsible for reaction on the part of Bolivia; and as a consequence states that Paraguay must restore the buildings of Vanguardia and Bolivian troops abandon Fort Boquerón.

Having circumscribed the authority of the Commission at Washington to the procedure of investigation of the events of the Chaco at the end of 1928, excluding study and judgment of the territorial controversy, by clause 9 of the protocol of January 3rd, 1929, will it be practicable to initiate discussions of the case “if the resolutions, the subject of its exclusive jurisdiction, have not been fulfilled?

In the course of the lengthy debate over the ownership of the Chaco, Bolivia has shown her desire to find just solutions. She has subscribed to pacts and submitted herself to procedure which prove it. Recent incidents in themselves are an unquestionable proof of her sincere desire to disentangle the difficulties. On January 16th of the current year an unfortunate incident took place on the Bolivian-Paraguayan military frontier; a patrol of Paraguayan soldiers, composed of 60 men armed with machine guns fired on and scattered a small Bolivian detachment in the neighborhood of Boquerón, causing one death. This new aggression is inexplicable at a time when peace was asserting itself, and proves the deliberate intention of Paraguay to rebel against the conciliation pact of Washington and to frustrate an agreement to which the good faith of the contending parties and that of the supreme authority of the neutrals intervening therein, was bound. Paraguay and Bolivia almost simultaneously carried their complaints to the League of Nations. My Government did so because Bolivia, as a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles, has certain international legal obligations to the League. Faithful to her pacifist traditions, she agreed to form part in [of] an organism destined to banish acts of violence in the intercourse of nations, to raise amongst them the empire of justice and to solve their difficulties by the conciliatory methods proclaimed by the rights of peoples.

The Ministry in my charge has noted with most [much] interest and attention the contents of the aforementioned note from Your Excellency, dated January 9th, and is pleased to express satisfaction with the statements contained therein, to the effect that the procedure of double arbitration to determine first the territory under dispute and on that basis to pronounce judgment later on the boundary question itself, is discarded. Bolivia only reaffirms the reserve with which she signed the general treaty of arbitration of January 5th of last year,⁶⁸ confirming the precedent established in the conferences of Buenos Aires⁶⁹ when the Bolivian delegation made known their refusal to accept double arbitration, definitely suggested by the Paraguayan delegation.

Bolivia on different occasions in her history has shown her enthusiasm for and faith in the international institution of arbitration and in spite of the fact that numerous authors of treatises on international law agree that controversies affecting the honor or sovereignty of nations cannot be subject to arbitration, entrusted to the judgment of friendly nations differences of territorial sovereignty. At present, in her dispute with the Republic of Paraguay, not only does she agree but has definitely decided to resort to those means. But her adherence to the principles of arbitration cannot reach the extreme of submitting territorial zones, unquestionable part of the national patrimony, to the decision of third parties, although she greatly appreciates their probity and Pan American spirit, as in the case under reference, she has particular satisfaction in doing.

Neither the nation nor the Bolivian Government could accept such an arbitration, nor in general terms could any Bolivian public servant be capable of undertaking such a great responsibility.

Concerning territorial sovereignty, that is to say of the country itself, it is not possible in any way to leave to an unrestricted judgment the determination of the territory under litigation. Bolivia cannot follow blindly, without previously knowing what territory she delivers to the judgment of the arbitrators, or without establishing this as a basis first in an absolute and undoubted manner.

In the Gutierrez-Diaz Leon protocol,⁷¹ Bolivia and Paraguay agreed that the parties ‘would determine the exact zone on which the judgment of [the] tribunal of arbitration, chosen by common accord, would be given.’ Therefore, the direct negotiations were charged with determining in concrete form the boundaries of the territory under litigation, and on this basis previously decided, the tribunal of arbitration should pronounce judgment. But as it is possible that the determining of such a zone will be the obstacle which will defeat the negotiations, [the] Government of Bolivia, filled with a desire for a sincere agreement, has proposed a formula which takes into consideration not only equity but the historic tradition of the controversy. This arbitration, proceeding from the law of treaties, consists, as I made known to Your Excellency in my note of November 13th, in taking the middle point of the demarcation established in the three agreements signed between Paraguay and Bolivia in 1879, in 1887, and in 1894.⁷² Those unfinished agreements form something in the nature of a visible mark showing the final compromise attained by the parties at different times and the opinion of the statesmen of both nations during the course of half a century of negotiations to arrive at a Bolivian-Paraguayan agreement.

From a historical point of view, as well as one of equity and respect for territorial right which within certain limits cannot be discussed, such a formula would supply the means which would make arbitration practicable.

The arguments stated above will justify before the enlightened opinion of the neutral nations the attitude of Bolivia which is making an effort to find an equitable solution of a litigation and the justice of the objections made to unlimited arbitration. As regards the latter, an antecedent which gives greater force to the argument is worthy of mention. The Commission of Conciliation at Washington, unable by article 9 of the protocol of January 3, 1929, to discuss the territorial side of the question, in a laudable endeavor to solve the litigation completely, proposed a compromise frontier line from Puerto Leda on the Paraguay River to Fort D’Orbigny on the Pilcomayo River. A careful examination of the suggestion shows that it possesses nothing in the nature of a compromise. To compromise means mutual renouncement and common sacrifice in pursuit of an ideal of concord. In this proposal summary [such a] course was only expected of Bolivia. Taking the line of the Quijarro-Decoud Treaty as a basis of comparison, Paraguay preserved her penetration in the Chaco authorized by it, but without granting to Bolivia an equivalent advance up to the mouth of the River Apa, the western line being granted to Paraguay. The compensations of a river coast were expressly denied to Bolivia, and she had to renounce about one and a half geographic degrees on the banks of the Paraguay River.

The so-called compromise line suggested does not take into consideration strict right nor conventional right which it destroys, nor even equity. It seriously impairs the situation of Bolivia, disposes freely of her territory without offering her the compensation of an equivalent fluvial territory. If such a suggestion had its origin in the heart of a Commission not empowered to examine the fundamental issue, what may transpire before an organization empowered by definite authority to exert its influence in the delineation of the territory which must be submitted to arbitration?

It is true that in order to remove any doubts, Your Excellency is good enough to state the right of each of the parties to retire from the negotiations should the formula of the understanding be unsatisfactory. My Government believes that such a step would seriously affect the authority of the neutral nations and the prestige of the country which might try it. The formula, though adverse to the one damaged by it, would establish a precedent which due to the strength of its high origin would weaken legal titles, jealousy defended, and the Government who would dissent from such opinions would appear refractory to the ideas of international concord.

These reasons, which will be appreciated to the full by the neutral governments, induce Bolivia to reaffirm irrevocably the reserves set forth in her note of November 13th, 1929, regarding the necessity to establish concrete grounds for the functioning of the Commission.

My Government wishes to place on record its gratitude for the generous and disinterested efforts made by the five neutral powers to solve the difficulties unhappily existing between Bolivia and Paraguay. Bolivia recognizes the lofty aims of the five sister nations. And it is thus that she receives with pleasure the suggestion to initiate conversations between the diplomatic representatives of Bolivia and Paraguay accredited to the Government of the United States. Notwithstanding the fact that for reasons foreign to Bolivia, Bolivian-Paraguayan relations have not yet been reestablished, my Government has the hope that as soon as the act of conciliation at Washington is executed, it will not be long before they are resumed. The practical means arrived at by the neutrals will probably lead us to the terms of an agreement. The conversations between the diplomats of Bolivia and Paraguay taking place in the quiet and propitious atmosphere of Washington, cooperating with those which will be begun in La Paz or Asunción, will give satisfactory results. My Government has faith and confidence in them and if they do not settle the territorial litigation itself, they will at least offer in concrete form the correct material upon which a subsequent arbitration may offer the last word.

Begging Your Excellency to convey to the knowledge of the Government of the United States of America the tenor of this note and to reiterate Bolivia’s deepest gratitude for her laudable and generous effort, I have the honor to offer to Your Excellency the assurance of my distinguished consideration.

Signed F. Vaca Chávez.”

Hibbard

64. Telegram in two sections.
63. Not printed; in it the Chargé reported that he had just been handed Bolivia’s reply to the note of January 9 from the neutral Governments.
65. See telegram No. 85, November 15, 1929, 6 p.m., from the Chargé in Bolivia, Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, p. 920.
66. See Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 680 ff.
67. Ibid., 1929, vol. i, p. 835.
68. Ibid., p. 653.
69. See ibid., 1928, vol. i, pp. 673–678; also Proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation, Bolivia and Paraguay, March 13, 1929–September 13, 1929 (Washington [1929]), pp. 265 ff.
71. Signed April 22, 1927; for text, see despatch No. 275, April 29, 1927, from the Chargé in Argentina, Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, p. 316.
72. For texts, see Paraguay, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Paraguay Bolivia, Tratados y Protocolos … (Asunción, Imprenta Nacional, 1927), pp. 3–10.