724.3415/2038: Telegram
The Commission of Neutrals to the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Gutiérrez)
The representatives of the neutral countries have received Your Excellency’s cablegram of the 12th instant, and consider that, in order to avoid contradictory interpretations, it is necessary to make a complete and frank examination of the situation.
The representatives of the neutral countries wish first of all to assure Your Excellency that their only purpose in this matter is to arrive at a solution which will be just for both Bolivia and Paraguay, that is, which will satisfy both countries and leave uninjured the permanent interests of this hemisphere.
Your Excellency complains that the Neutrals apply the doctrine of August 3, retroactively. Let us examine the case. Conflict and blood-shed were occurring in the Chaco. American Nations unanimously declared that they were opposed to such methods and would not recognize any territorial adjustment “of this controversy” not obtained by pacific means, nor the validity of territorial acquisitions obtained by means of occupation or conquest by force of arms. Therefore the neutrals have agreed upon the American declaration and have not even suggested the application of retroactivity which Your Excellency believes is found therein.
In the cablegram to which we refer, Your Excellency declares that Bolivia does not agree to abandon the fortines taken from Paraguay unless a final settlement of the dispute “modifies the sovereignty of these positions”. This declaration that such positions carry with them the right of sovereignty, is not only opposed to the declaration of the American Nations of August 3, but also to Your Excellency’s own declarations. In your cablegram of August 5th54 in reply to that of the 3rd from the nineteen countries, Your Excellency stated that the declarations contained in the latter “interpret with perfect exactness Bolivian thought” and “they are inspired by the ideas underlying American public law which does not admit occupation by usurpation as a title of ownership”. Your Excellency stated also that Bolivia “receives with enthusiasm the new doctrine being initiated in America, that force does not confer rights” and that “in the Chaco dispute the same thesis is applicable”. In addition to this acceptance of the doctrine of the American Nations, in the cablegram of August 8, Your Excellency gave it a very definite and specific [Page 69] application to the Chaco when you said “my Government in proposing the existing situation as a basis for the suspension of hostilities did not intend to decide questions of territorial sovereignty. The juridical situation of the fortines taken from one and the other country touches the fundamentals of the subject”.
Since there seems to exist in your country the belief that the American declaration is directed especially against Bolivia, it should be made known that the Commission of Neutrals began to consider and draw up a message of consultation to the American nations which afterwards became the declaration of August 3, since the time that Paraguay, without requesting explanations or investigation, announced its intention to terminate the conference on account of the reported Bolivian advances. It was at that moment that the Bolivian delegation in Washington placed itself in the hands of the Commission of Neutrals for the solution of the incidents and declared that after the incident of June 15 “a claim would have been justified on the part of the Government of Paraguay if it considered that its rights had been violated and the Government of Bolivia would have hastened to explain what had occurred”, and “notwithstanding the unjustified and new aggression of Paraguay, Bolivia believes that there is not sufficient reason to break off the negotiations. On the contrary, she believes that there is a greater and urgent necessity for arriving at an agreement that will prevent a situation so abnormal and perilous as that which prevails in the Chaco today”. This was the position which Bolivia took when Paraguay reported Bolivian advances. Paraguay announced her intention to leave the conference, and then the Neutrals prepared the declaration which later came to be that of August 3. Paraguay, before her delegates had embarked, changed her instructions and ordered the Delegation to return to Washington, expressing her willingness to consider the suggestions of the Neutrals, and declaring that no act of armed hostility would be committed against Bolivia. The Neutrals were naturally very pleased because in view of these declarations and of those just cited from the communication from the Bolivian Delegation, they considered that a solution was near at hand. At that moment, however, Bolivia reported Paraguayan attacks on Bolivian fortines, and declared that she could not continue in the conversations at Washington without lowering her dignity.
It is not necessary to remind Your Excellency of the numerous cablegrams exchanged between the Commission of Neutrals and Your Government attempting to persuade Bolivia to send to the Neutrals in Washington the details of the occurrences, in order that they might find a solution, and that the Bolivian Government might [Page 70] order a cessation of hostilities and arrive at an adjustment of the fundamental question by arbitration or other pacific means. When it became impossible for the Commission to achieve these ends, it addressed itself to the countries of America, with a request for their cooperation, the declaration of August 3, resulting therefrom.
Although the Neutrals can not depart from the principle established on August 3, nevertheless, in order to find a means of harmonizing the Bolivian suggestion with the points of view of the rest of the continent, they asked Your Excellency on August 9, whether Bolivia, in making the suggestion for maintenance of present positions, would fix a date on which both countries would return any positions taken by force of arms since June 1.
This requirement was necessary in order that the American nations might be certain that if unfortunately, for any reason an adjustment was not effected, such failure would not imply the indefinite retention of those positions, contrary to the doctrine of August 3. The question was asked with the object of obtaining a satisfactory solution in collaboration with the Government of Bolivia.
Your Excellency expressed in the second paragraph of your cable of the 13th [12th], your desire for a solution of the matter “by means of an arbitration juris concerning limited zone”. The conditions desired by both countries should be discussed when they are negotiating an arbitration or direct adjustment.
With reference to Your Excellency’s statement that there was no juridical situation in the Chaco on June 1 the Neutrals wish to clarify proposals made by them in cablegram of August 9. It has been their opinion that the positions subsequent to June 1 do not alter the de facto situation existing between Bolivia and Paraguay, on that day.
To sum up, the situation is as follows:
- First. All the countries of the continent have made the declaration of principles of August 3.
- Second. On August 4 Bolivia suggested that there be taken as a basis for the suspension of hostilities the existing positions in the Chaco, which is contrary to the declaration of August 3.
- Third. Bolivia, in her reply of the 5th, adhered to the American declaration.
- Fourth. The Neutrals, on the 5th declared that they could not accept the Bolivian proposal of the 4th as it was contrary to the declaration of principles of the 3rd.
- Fifth. On the 8th Bolivia said, “in proposing the existing situation as a basis for the suspension of hostilities she did not intend to decide questions of territorial sovereignty” but that “Bolivia persists in her counter proposal”.
- Sixth. The neutrals, on the 9th, tried to harmonize the Bolivian [Page 71] proposal with the American declaration, suggesting that Bolivia fix a date for the return of positions taken subsequently to June 1.
- Seventh. On the 12th Bolivia rejected the solution proposed, changing her declarations of the 5th and 8th above cited, to another in which she states that she cannot abandon positions “until a final solution of the controversy modifies the sovereignty of said positions”.
In view of the foregoing, and as the neutrals persist in the desire that Bolivia and Paraguay reach an agreement in the serious matter of the Chaco, as well as in the desire that the Bolivian proposal may be harmonized with the doctrine of August 3 and Bolivia’s declarations of the 5th and 8th of the same months, they earnestly request Your Excellency to be good enough to tell them what is your concrete proposal which may lead to such agreement, which proposal they will study most carefully.
Chairman of the Committee of Neutrals
Minister of Colombia
Chargé d’Affaires of Uruguay
Chargé d’Affaires of Cuba
Chargé d’Affaires of Mexico