724.3415/2502
The Commission of Neutrals to the Argentine Ambassador (Espil)
Excellency: The Commission of Neutrals has received your note of the eighteenth instant [ultimo] in which you advise it of the point of view of the Argentine Government and the limit of the cooperation which may be expected from it in endeavoring to bring about the termination of hostilities unhappily existing between Bolivia and Paraguay.
This note seems to indicate that there is a misconception on the part of your Government regarding the proposal made by the Neutral Commission to the Governments of Bolivia and Paraguay on September 22 last. It is noted that your Government states that it 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 merely a diplomatic one, and that participation of a coercive character by Argentina could only be with respect of a legal instrument signed and ratified by the countries to which it is intended to apply.
In the proposal of the Commission of Neutrals to Bolivia and Paraguay of September 22 the Commission appealed to those countries to accept an unconditional termination of hostilities and immediate negotiations for the settlement of their differences by means of arbitration without reservation. This proposal was made in the interest of lasting peace. It provided not only for the immediate termination of hostilities but for the peaceful settlement once and for all of the long standing dispute between those countries. Furthermore, in order to give some assurance to the two parties in dispute, over and above the engagement of the other party, that there would be no renewal of hostilities while the question was being submitted to arbitration, the Neutral Commission stated that immediately upon the acceptance of this proposal it would send a delegation to the [Page 210] Chaco to verify the effective termination of hostilities and the Neutral Commission advised both parties that if this delegation informed it that one of the parties had violated the engagement to terminate the armed conflict the Neutral Commission would declare that country to be the aggressor and would suggest to all the countries of America that they withdraw from that country their diplomatic and consular representatives.
This proposal was not a threat expressed or implied because for the action mentioned to be taken the proposal would first have to be accepted by the two countries in dispute and they would accept it knowing in advance what action the Neutral Commission would take should either party violate its engagement regarding the termination of hostilities. While the acceptance of this proposal would not constitute an instrument signed and ratified by the countries to which it is intended to apply, it would nevertheless be an agreement equally effective for those two countries. The Neutral Commission feels that the interests of peace and the broader concepts of humanity do not require them to withhold proposals looking to the cessation of fighting until an instrument to which the two contending countries are parties has been ratified by them. Any agreement which both contending parties may find acceptable for the termination of hostilities is just as serviceable as a duly ratified agreement. As stated above, the fact that it would be agreed to in advance by the two parties in conflict removes any possible feeling that it is based on a threat and that other countries by supporting it must assume a minatory attitude towards the parties to the dispute.
The Commission of Neutrals has not been put in possession of the pacifist instrument or anti-war pact which you state your Government drew up in June, 1932. It learns that in a note which you addressed to the United States Government on September 2174 you transmitted a copy of a pact which you stated had been drawn up by the Argentine Government in order to propose it to the countries which have signed the agreement of August 3, 1932. The Neutral Commission understands that this pact has also been submitted to certain other Governments but it has not been presented to the Neutral Commission which therefore can have no observations to make with respect of it.
In this general connection, however, the Commission of Neutrals considers that it should frankly state that it feels that the American nations would not be fulfilling fully their duties as members of the family of American States if they did not exert unmistakably and [Page 211] unequivocably their full efforts on behalf of peace. The limitation of their action in international controversies to instruments signed and ratified by the parties in dispute would seriously hamper efforts for peace in this hemisphere and would open wider the doors for settlement of differences by war or by force of arms.
International law and procedure is fortunately not in an impotent state of stagnation. It is alive and vascular and is constantly advancing. Until recently war was recognized as one of the unfortunately usual means of settling differences between nations and elaborate rules were drawn up governing the conduct of combatants and neutral nations. The entry into effect of the Pact of Paris (Kellogg-Briand Pact)75 has made necessary the reexamination of many formerly existing precepts of international law in the light of the doctrine now approved by almost universal acceptance. By their declaration of August 3, 1932, nineteen American nations not only reaffirmed this principle, but extended it by stating that they would not recognize the validity of territorial acquisitions which may be obtained by occupation or conquest by force of arms. This deliberate declaration by nineteen American States of the policy by which each of them proposes to be governed in future can not be treated as lacking in weight or effectiveness. On the contrary, considering the serious circumstances under which it was made, it must be considered as of the most solemn character, carrying with it the faith of each signatory, and as of quite as much weight as instruments of more formal execution. While this declaration unfortunately has not yet resulted in stopping hostilities in the Chaco (and in this connection agreements ratified by the two parties had no greater effect), it nevertheless did serve to put those two Governments on notice that the only settlement of the Chaco question that would be recognized by the other countries of America is a settlement brought about by peaceful means.
An effective rule of international procedure does not always come into being fully grown, but arrives at its greatest prestige through a period of growth starting often from the mere sowing of an idea which acquires force and vigor through its appeal to the imagination of the peoples of the countries of the world. The fact that it may not prove immediately as effective as the authors desire should not be a source of discouragement. If it has a lofty aim it will grow in effectiveness until eventually no one will dare gainsay it. It is for this reason that the Commission of Neutrals does not feel that action should be limited to treaties already signed and ratified and it is for [Page 212] that reason they did not hesitate to sponsor the declaration of August 3, 1932.
Another proposal of the Neutral Commission was that both Bolivia and Paraguay should return to their lines of occupation of June 1, 1932, and then agree to negotiate for a peaceful settlement of their differences. Two important considerations prompted the making of this suggestion. First of all, it recognized no occupations by force of arms since this question has been before the Neutral Commission, and, by obliging both countries to maintain the line of possession of June 1, 1932, it would prevent any retaliation or attempt to regain by force of arms possessions which had been taken from either party in the recent encounters. The sanguinary events of the last six weeks have unfortunately justified the appositeness of this proposal of August 2.76 Had it been accepted the recent bloodshed would have been avoided.
Again on September 22, in an attempt to stop this internecine conflict, the Neutral Commission made a further suggestion looking toward a peaceful settlement and, as set forth above, any chargé of threatening action by the Commission is as groundless in this case as in a previous one some weeks ago which on another occasion was acknowledged by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina to be without foundation.
If there is one thing patent in all these negotiations it is the patience, loyalty and personal disinterestedness with which the Neutral Commission has dealt with this complex and trying problem. The Neutral Commission will continue as it has in the past to endeavor to find a solution satisfactory to both contending parties in this controversy. It will exert every influence possible for the reestablishment and preservation of peace and when the situation will require it it will not hesitate to consult the other American nations in order that it may leave unexplored no proper road to peace. The Commission of Neutrals confidently hopes that when the occasion arises it will then find the Argentine Government, in view of what has been expressed above, ready to participate in such efforts for peace as the countries of the continent in consultation may judge necessary.
Accept [etc.]
Chairman, Commission of Neutrals