724.3415/1313
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (White)
The Argentine Ambassador, Mr. Espil, called and showed me a long instruction from his Government regarding the Chaco matter, outlining the action they had taken starting June 22 and culminating July 7 with the suggestion that a neutral commission go to the Chaco to supervise matters and preserve order. This, the instruction stated, was accepted by Bolivia but on the condition that the diplomatic incident in Washington be satisfactorily adjusted first.
Subsequently Argentina suggested to both countries that a solution might be found by declaring that the statements made by the diplomatic representatives of the two countries in Washington were unintentional; that they did not constitute any taint to the honor of the two countries, and that they therefore consider both statements as having been withdrawn and not made. Bolivia immediately declined this on the ground that it was really sustaining Paraguay’s position and said that the way the matter could be settled would be by a suggestion from Argentina to both countries to the effect that Ynsfran’s statement had gone beyond the usual scope of diplomatic utterances and hence was blamable, but that in the interest of harmony between the two countries this matter should be overlooked and diplomatic relations resumed. Argentina replied declining to do so, stating that they were not in the position of judge and could not say as to who was right or wrong, and furthermore they thought this would not be accepted by Paraguay. The Argentine Minister in La Paz and the Argentine Foreign Office, the instruction stated, felt that Bolivia was inclined to prolong the matter and drag it out, and they did not think anything could be done at this time. The instruction made it clear that Argentina was not trying to enter into a solution of the fundamental question, which should be handled by the neutral Commission in Washington, but that the Argentine Government did feel that the situation is delicate and that the neutrals should take some positive action.
I told Mr. Espil what we had done. I then read him the Bolivian note received on July 25 and told him that I had sent a copy of it to my neutral colleagues and that I had drafted a reply to Bolivia and a note to Paraguay, which I was submitting to the neutrals also, suggesting that we hold a meeting on Thursday to consider the matter. In reading over the note I thought that there should be an addition about maintaining peace in the Chaco while the pact of nonaggression was under negotiation. I told Mr. Espil what I had in mind and he concurred in the note with that addition; said he thought it was the only thing to be done and that we should not lose any time in doing it. I [Page 751] told him that in such matters I always cabled the text down to our Missions in the neutral countries so that we could get prompt action. He thought that was the only thing that could be done and the proper thing to be done. In view of his instructions to explain the Argentine point of view to the neutral Commission, he said that he would go around and see the Mexican Ambassador, the Colombian and Uruguayan Ministers, and the Cuban Chargé d’Affaires. I told him I thought that would be very helpful and that I was very pleased at this exposition of Argentina’s attitude in the matter.