724.3415/1920 2/14
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (White)
The Argentine Ambassador, Mr. Espil, called and showed me a telegram from his Government indicating that it felt that insistence should not be made on the cessation of hostilities between Bolivia and Paraguay on the basis of occupations of June 1, 1932, but rather on the basis of actual occupations. I told the Ambassador that the acceptance of any such theory would definitely scrap the position taken by the countries of this hemisphere on August 3 and I thought it would be most inopportune. Mr. Espil intimated that the Bolivian Government might fall if we insisted on this. I inquired which was the most essential for the good of this continent—to maintain the doctrine enunciated on August 3—or to maintain the present individuals composing the Government in Bolivia. I told him that we did not want to take an intransigent position nor bring up a collateral argument with Bolivia, but I felt that while trying to make the acceptance of the cessation of hostilities easier for the Bolivian Government, [Page 166] we should do nothing which would impair or invalidate the doctrine of August 3. (My neutral colleagues when we met took an equally strong position on this matter.)
Mr. Espil also indicated that the Argentine, Brazilian, Chilean and Peruvian Governments were in agreement to act together and he showed me a telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina saying that while they wanted to support the Neutral Commission they would point out that in Argentina they had all the background for handling this matter, making mention of the conferences that took place in Argentina in 1927 and 1928. I asked whether he was asking the Neutrals to step aside and let the neighboring countries handle the matter and, if so, whether they had any specific proposal of this sort to make to the Neutrals, saying that they would like to take the matter over and would assume all responsibility in the future, and whether they had agreed among themselves on such action and had any definite program. He said that he had no instructions to indicate an affirmative answer to any of these questions. I told him I thought it would be well for him to get instructions on these points. I asked who represented the neighboring countries, where their organization was set up, whether they had a definite organization in Buenos Aires such as we have here, and whether, in that event, he was to be the liaison between the two. He said he had no information on this point either. I told him that in the interest of peace in this hemisphere and the carrying out to successful conclusion what we have begun there ought to be some very definite understandings on these points. He said that he agreed. He indicated that it might be well for the neighboring countries to meet with the Neutrals again and I told him that we want to cooperate with them fully and that I would call a meeting within the next couple of days. I added that I hoped in the meantime he would have full information on these points.