724.3415/2502
The Argentine Ambassador (Espil) to the Chairman of the Commission of Neutrals (White)
Your Excellency: I have read with interest the communications exchanged between the Commission of Neutrals and the Council of the League of Nations65 which Your Excellency has had the kindness to transmit to me.
I am informed thereby that the Governments of Bolivia and Paraguay have agreed to the sending of a Commission by the Neutrals to the theater of hostilities and that this Commission will leave as soon as the situation renders it advisable.
Of course I do not know what the functions of this Commission will be and I am in doubt whether the Commission of Neutrals still maintains its idea, expressed in the telegram of September 22 last,66 authorizing it to verify the actual termination of hostilities, and whether, on the basis of its report that one of the parties had violated the agreement to terminate the struggle, the Commission of Neutrals would declare that that country is the aggressor and would suggest to all the Governments of America the withdrawal of their diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the said country.
In case the Commission of Neutrals holds to this idea, I believe it [Page 204] to be my duty to inform it, with all frankness, of the point of view of our Government in this matter.
Our Chancellery being informed of the telegram from the Commission of Neutrals of September 22, to which I have just referred, reminds me that its attitude was confined, in accordance with the express instructions which the undersigned received at the opportune time, to formulating the wish that in America territorial disputes should not be settled by force. The statement of the said initial concept was due principally to the fact that our country was not a member of the Commission of Neutrals.
Furthermore, when our Chancellery learned that the declaration was thought pertinent that territorial acquisitions secured by force should not be recognized and it was invited to formulate this doctrine if it considered it proper, it understood that a principle was involved which meant nothing new, since it was consecrated in Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that it was not new, either, for the countries of South America, because of the uti possidetis of 1810 which was the expression of respect for territorial integrity based on the delimitations of the Colonial regime, whether as possessions de jure or de facto. The necessity for respecting this same territorial integrity had also been recognized and insured in the successive Spanish-American Congresses, from the Congress of Panama in 1826 through the Congresses of Lima in 1847 and 1864 and the Continental Treaty of 1856.
Then, when in the recent Manchurian dispute, the United States, in its communication to the disputant countries, declared that it would not recognize the forcible taking possession of Chinese territories, a declaration confirmed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Stimson, in his letter to Senator Borah of February 23, 1932,67 it made such statement not only in reaffirmation of an old Pan American tradition, but in reiteration of a principle already consecrated in the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Our Chancellery also thought that the formulation of a rule of conduct of such a character could only receive its adherence when it was the expression of a united movement of the whole continent with a pacific aim, the sanction and efficacy of which were based exclusively on the weight of public opinion in all the countries of America, it being understood that only moral pressure would be involved, supported by the juridical effects of the common neutrality of the limitrophe countries within the strict application of the Hague Conventions and others which govern in the matter, which, due to the [Page 205] particular geographic circumstances, would have especial significance. Thus, my Chancellery meant to fix the extreme limit to its action, and, in the absence of a legal instrument which could extend it beyond the scope of good offices and moral compulsion, it initiated and signed with the limitrophe countries the Declaration of August 668 in which express and deliberate mention was made of the Covenant of the League of Nations, reminding Bolivia and Paraguay that they had signed it and that under it they had correlative obligations.
If I review these antecedents it is for the purpose of stating that the Argentine Chancellery will not go along with the Commission of Neutrals in any act which, extending beyond the limits of good offices and the moral influence of the opinion of all the Continent, might approximate an intervention, even though it should be merely a diplomatic one, inasmuch as such an attitude would be contrary to Argentine traditions and doctrines and even if it were a collective intervention of all the countries of America, it would be wanting in any legal instrument which alone, signed and ratified by the countries to which it is intended to apply, could justify a participation of a coercive character in harmony with the basic principles of International Law and its own attitudes of the past, which it would not forget in any case.
This exact and well defined line, which our Chancellery has followed without any hesitation in the face of the grievous conflict which is disturbing the peace between the two neighboring countries, if it should have to be demonstrated outside the natural reserve of the diplomatic proceedings which may have rendered a clear perception of it difficult, has its substantiation in the study and examination already made in various Chancelleries of the American nations and, among them, that of the United States. I refer to the consideration of the advisability of establishing, not only for the present Bolivian-Paraguayan conflict, but for the future, an instrument of peace or anti-war pact which, linking up that of the League of Nations with others of a similar nature existing in the world, would tend to insure the reign of peace in a regime of conciliation not annulling but complementing and harmonizing all existing agreements. Your Excellency knows, since it has been submitted to the Chancellery of the United States, such draft of a non-aggression and conciliation pact formulated by my Government, by which any diplomatic or military intervention is expressly excluded. The time at which that draft was drawn up (June 1932) shows that my Chancellery [Page 206] has not changed the line of action which it mapped out for itself and has followed in view of the Bolivian-Paraguayan conflict and that this attitude can not cause surprise to the Chancelleries of other countries which have known for some time past the doctrines and principles set forth in the draft referred to.
The Argentine Chancellery understands then that adoption of coercive measures can be based only on a Treaty accepted beforehand by the countries to which it is to apply, as is the case with the League of Nations Pact, and that a mere Declaration like that of August third is not sufficient to produce comminatory effects against third powers.
I would be very grateful to Your Excellency if you would advise the Commission of Neutrals of these views which indicate the limit of our cooperation, without, however, interrupting in any manner the continuity of the action which my Government has been taking in the noble efforts for peace which the countries of the continent are making.
I take pleasure [etc.]