Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The American Republics, Volume V

724.3415/1997: Telegram

The Ambassador in Argentina (Bliss) to the Secretary of State

Buenos Aires, August 8, 1932—6 p.m.
[Received August 9—12:25 a.m.]

70. In complying this afternoon with the Department’s instruction 51, August 6, 2 p.m.,³² the Minister for Foreign Affairs requested I explain to you at length his viewpoint of the present situation. He considers that the text of the communication which I read over the telephone to Assistant Secretary White some days ago and which has now been signed by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru, with slight modification in last point will prevent possibility of playing off neutral group against the group of neighboring countries. The three Governments have requested Argentina to transmit the note to the Governments of Bolivia and Paraguay and he expects to hand it to the diplomatic representatives of these two countries tomorrow.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs asked me to say that although the moral effect produced by the communication of the 19 American Governments is gratifying he is only interested in obtaining a definite result. His proximity to the scene of controversy makes it less difficult to grasp the situation than for the Neutral Commission. He is apprehensive lest the efforts of the Commission and the four neighboring Governments fail and insists that quick action must be taken to prevent hostilities which he naturally considers would be most lamentable for all America; European countries would point to the failure of the American Republics to prevent war between [two] of its smallest republics.

He has conversed at length with the Ministers of Paraguay and Bolivia and also with Dr. Escalier, former Bolivian Minister who has considerable political influence in his country though a resident of Buenos Aires, and Minister for Foreign Affairs believes that the two Governments would be disposed to agree to a truce of 1 month on the following basis:

1. The status quo to be observed, it being understood that it is a status quo de facto and not de jure;

2. Observance of the status quo to be guaranteed by a civil commission perhaps composed of consuls of neutral countries.

3. An agreement to resolve the whole fundamental question.

In his opinion Bolivian Government would fall if it agreed to accept status quo ante and military government difficult to deal with would succeed.

The Minister stated that his Government will under no circumstances act as arbiter though he might accept to frame text of an agreement to arbitrate. Furthermore, he considers whole question can readily be solved if the two Governments will once agree to submit the question to final arbitration basing this opinion on the knowledge he has of the Bolivian-Paraguayan Conference held 2 or 3 years ago in Buenos Aires³³ to which the present President of Bolivia and the President-elect of Paraguay both served as delegates.

Earnestly [apparent omission] continuing his cooperation. Minister for Foreign Affairs expresses the hope of shortly obtaining an agreement from both Governments to a truce on the bases indicated above which he would then communicate to the Neutral Commission in Washington. He emphasized great importance of obtaining this truce because a month or a month and a half hence the rainy season in the Chaco will make military action practically impossible. He has promised to inform me as soon as he has delivered to the Bolivian Minister and the Paraguayan Minister the note from the four neighboring countries.

Bliss

32. See footnote 30, p. 163.
33. See Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 674 ff.; see also “Minutes and Documents of the Conferences of Paraguayan and Bolivian Plenipotentiaries held in Buenos Aires under the auspices of the Argentine Government” in Proceedings of Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation, Bolivia and Paraguay, March 13, 1929–September 13, 1929 (Washington [1929?], pp. 265 ff.).