721.23/592
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (White)
Señor Zaldumbide, the Ecuadoran Minister, called and said his Government had told him to take up with us Ecuador’s interest in any boundary change in the Amazon region. He said that Ecuador had been very much put out at the Treaty of 1922 between Colombia and Peru which had been negotiated secretly behind Ecuador’s back. Ecuador knew nothing about it until very much later. The treaty was made known to Brazil long before Ecuador could get a copy and Brazil had protested regarding it and this resulted in the Tripartite Agreement between Brazil, Colombia and Peru, signed in Washington on March 4, 1925.29 This Tripartite Agreement had also been negotiated without Ecuador’s knowing anything about it and as a result, the then Ecuadoran Minister here had been recalled and lost his job.
Señor Zaldumbide said that his Government did not want this to happen a third time; that it would be very prejudicial to the prestige of his country. That was the reason for the circular note sent by the Ecuadoran Government to the various American Governments: it was to advise them that Ecuador has a very keen interest in any settlement in the Amazon region and it does not want any settlement to be made there completely neglecting Ecuador and wants Ecuador to be heard. The Minister said that the United States is the only country that is looked up to as neutral in this hemisphere and everything that happens in American countries of this sort, centers in Washington and as therefore we would know anything that is going on he expressed the hope, on behalf of his Government, that this Government would bear in mind the interest of Ecuador in this question and would use its influence to see that Ecuador had a chance to be heard.
I told the Minister that I, of course, fully understood Ecuador’s interest in the matter and how important any change of boundaries in the Amazon region would be for Ecuador. I told him that the United States was not carrying on any negotiations between Colombia [Page 305] and Peru at the present moment. We had not wanted to seem to play the preponderant role and have it appear that no settlements in these disputes in this hemisphere could be made except in Washington and that we very much hoped that the South American countries would take the initiative to consider this purely South American question.
I told the Minister that there were various aspects to the matter. In the first place, the present issue between Colombia and Peru is over Leticia. In that connection we felt that respect for treaties is the cornerstone of all stability and that if existing treaties are not respected, there could be very little use in making new treaties. Our first interest in this matter, therefore, was to see that existing treaties, namely, the Treaty of 1922, should be respected and lived up to unless changed in the ordinary course by the consent of both parties. To seize territory and state that one would not give it up and that it should be turned over to the country seizing it was not our idea of respect for treaties and we considered it contrary to the Declaration of August 3, and of the Kellogg Pact, because it meant the use of force as an instrument of national policy. If Peru got out of Leticia and then wanted to discuss with Colombia commercial and economic questions arising out of the Treaty of 1922, that was something which was not settled by previous agreement and something which Colombia could discuss with a conciliation committee under the terms of the Gondra Treaty. Territorial questions between Colombia and Peru had been settled, however, and did not appear to be subject to such discussion and that was the position which I understood Colombia had taken.
The Minister said that was so but that Peru demands the return of Leticia and the corridor around it to Peru in return for which Peru will give back to Colombia the territory on the upper Putumayo. I told the Minister that I understood that Colombia was not in a position to accept such a proposal as Leticia is its only outlet to the Amazon and that all its territorial questions with Peru had been settled by the 1922 treaty. To refuse to get out of Leticia, especially on the conditions which the Minister had mentioned, would certainly be to use force as an instrument of national policy. I told him that if only commercial and economic questions were discussed between Colombia and Peru, after Leticia was restored to Colombia, I did not see that this would have any relation to Ecuador’s territorial claims. On the other hand, if Colombia changed its position and should, by any chance, state that it would discuss territorial readjustments with Peru in the upper Amazon region, that then questions of serious concern to Ecuador might well come up and I would, of [Page 306] course, bear in mind what he had told me. I pointed out that even in that case there were limitations on what a third party could do. If this Government should have anything to do with such discussions it could not bring in a third country unless the two parties in dispute so requested and I pointed out to him the position we had taken consistently as regards Bolivia when that country wanted to enter into the discussion of the Tacna-Arica treaty some years ago. We had taken the position that Chile and Peru had asked our good offices and help in settling their problem and we could not complicate the matter by bringing in another country unless the two countries in dispute asked us to do so. The Minister said he understood this point but that he felt that if any questions regarding territorial changes between Colombia and Peru should be brought before this Government, this Government, as a friend of all concerned, could make known to these Governments the interest of Ecuador to have a hearing. I said that this might possibly be done and in the very remote case that such a situation should arise, we would surely bear in mind Ecuador’s interest in the matter.