724.3415/1958: Telegram
The Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Gutiérrez) to the Assistant Secretary of State (White)
[Received 4:42 p.m.]
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of and to reply to the cablegram of the 2nd instant which the representatives of the neutral Governments addressed to my Government. We once more express our thanks for the good offices of the neutrals, who, since 1928, have been making generous efforts for the pacific solution of our dispute with Paraguay. In having stated that Bolivia has no greater (sic) interest48 in prosecuting the investigations of the latest incidents, we must emphasize that we were disposed to accept that recourse even after the Paraguayan aggression of June 29, it being well known, as is evident to the neutrals, that at that time the contender refused to return to the conferences. At the proper time we pointed out to the Commission that such withdrawal was a menace of new aggression and thus it was that on the 15th of July we suffered a second attack, this time prepared on a larger scale. This attack placed matters on the ground of facts on which ground we have taken the reprisals required by the dignity of the country and permitted by international law, there being nothing left, in our judgment, to clear up further on this point. We must correct the idea which is attributed to us in stating that we have refused to issue orders for the suspension of hostilities. What we stated was that our future attitude would depend on the attitude which Paraguay might observe. We understand that in order to treat concerning definitive settlements it is necessary to anticipate and prevent new acts of hostility. We therefore, out of respect for peace, find acceptable the idea of a suspension of hostilities which would permit consideration of the basis of the Chaco question. But we believe that to take as a basis therefor, the restoration of things to the status of June 1 is not reasonable because it imposes a condition which renders impossible the settlement which is proposed to us. Every armistice, by its very nature, is founded on the state of things existing at the moment of the agreement. Consequently, we take the liberty also of inquiring of the neutrals whether they would deem fit to modify their proposal in accordance with the said suggestion, counting on our good will for coming to an agreement on the other details. When suspension is agreed to, the basis of the controversy [Page 58] would be taken up for consideration, it being understood that it would be left to the parties to discuss their interests.
I renew [etc.]
- Spanish text reads: “no tiene mayor interés”.↩