724.3415/2175: Telegram
The Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Gutiérrez) to the Chairman of the Commission of Neutrals (White)
[Received August 28—2:45 a.m.]
We received on the 18th the cablegram dated the 17th from the representatives of the five neutral powers in which they make a complete study of the situation in order to avoid contradictory interpretations. They then recapitulate the argument believing that they find contradictions on the part of Bolivia. In reply we make a similar recapitulation pointing out that such contradictions do not exist. We wish to make it clear that in order to facilitate pacific settlements it was Bolivia who proposed a pact of non-aggression on reasonable bases which if carried to a successful conclusion would have insured peace, making it possible to take up the settlement of the basic problem. The obstacles to this arrangement were not the work of Bolivia. The partial occupation of Chuquisaca Lagoon having occurred on June 15th, Paraguay suddenly withdrew from the conferences on the pact in order to act on her own account in the territory.
[Page 78]The neutrals did not succeed in inducing Paraguay to return to the conferences, whereas Bolivia remained in Washington, prepared to continue them. Paraguay dealt a perfidious and cruel blow on June 29th to a small detachment of seven men, only one of whom survived. Notwithstanding this fact, Bolivia declared that she still believes in the necessity for the pact and that the Paraguayan complaints could be dealt with in Washington. Paraguay persisted in her absence, notwithstanding the suggestions of the neutrals and made a second attack on Bolivia on July 15th, dislodging the Bolivian forces from Chuquisaca Lagoon. The two blows having been struck, Paraguay returned to the conferences prepared to continue them. The stratagem was obvious and no country which values its dignity would have been deceived by it. Bolivia withdrew from the conferences, not in order to repeat that stratagem, but definitively. We must point out that during this period when Paraguay abandoned the negotiations of the pact with the quite obvious intention of making two attacks on Bolivia, the American continent maintained silence. Paraguay had placed the issue in the field of arms and then attempted to flee from that field by resorting to diplomatic stratagems. Bolivia with full right and in accordance with international rules made reprisals and captured three fortínes of the many which Paraguay has established on Bolivian territory. It was then that 19 American nations appeared on the scene to proclaim the principle that might does not create right, a principle which all of them had forgotten in times which were unfortunate for many American nations which were the victims of force. It is proper to note at this point that the new doctrine refers solely to the case of the Chaco, ignoring all past acts of violence and making allowance for all future injustices outside that territory. It is presented as a doctrine ad hoc for the case of Bolivia. Notwithstanding this fact and although Bolivia had not been called as a party to the agreement of the American nations proclaiming it, it was natural that she should receive it with approval. In view of the imminence of a conflict the representatives of the neutral Governments took active steps to secure a suspension of hostilities in the Chaco. We do not believe it necessary to mention in detail the cablegrams exchanged on this subject, as it is sufficient to give here their substance and indicate the point of disagreement. Bolivia accepted the suspension of hostilities, taking as a basis the state of affairs existing at the time of the agreement. The neutrals rejected that proposal and endeavored to impose as a basis the return of affairs to their status as of the first of June previous. That is the whole question that is to be cleared up. Bolivia was basing her policy on the practices of international law and on the very nature of things. In a state of latent [Page 79] war or of declared war hostilities are suspended, that is to say, they are stopped at the moment of the armistice to make room for final settlements, leaving things temporarily in status quo. The question involved is that of a suspension of hostilities and not of their return to a previous status. Unfortunately, the neutrals, carried away by an excessive enthusiasm for the new doctrine, wished to apply it retroactively. They desired and almost demanded restoration of things as they were at a time previous to the proclamation of the new Pan-American doctrine without considering that this retroactive application logically extended, would necessitate remaking the geography of America. As Bolivia objected to such retroactive application, believing it to be contrary to all law, the most excellent neutrals reply that the proclamation of the doctrine took place on the 3rd of August and that the Bolivian proposal was made on the 4th. We might reply that Bolivian approval of the new doctrine was given on the 5th.55 But without dwelling on these accessory circumstances it is sufficient for us to observe that the substance of the doctrine consists in denying that the facts are of sufficient effect to constitute a right and that in that sense the doctrine is applied to the facts, denying their validity, and not to the date of the proposals which refer to them. Neither is there any contradiction on our part relative to the possession of the fortines. We have maintained that this possession is subject to the final settlement of the dispute, whether the proceedings last a year or more. A final settlement which definitively establishes sovereignty must come. For that reason we said that we did not mean to define questions of sovereignty by our proposal. Any modification in the present state of things which we propose as a basis for the suspension of hostilities will be made by that final settlement. These are, in short, the reasons exchanged by the two parties on which public opinion will pass judgment. Bolivia considers that her attitude has been reasonable and in accordance with law. And regrets to add that the extremist attitude of the neutrals is what has brought us to this difficult point. We venture to believe that Paraguay would have been more inclined to receive the Bolivian proposal if, as would have been natural, the reply had been left to her. The Bolivian proposal having once been rejected by the neutrals, it is not strange that Paraguay should also refuse it, feeling herself supported by them. Finally my Government does not discover the discrepancy which their Excellencies the neutrals believe they find between the Pan-American declaration of the 3rd of August and the Bolivian counterproposal of the 4th. The former relates to the essentials of the matter, establishing [Page 80] that the validity of territorial acquisitions obtained by occupation or conquest will not be recognized, while the Bolivian counterproposal refers to the modus operandi of stopping hostilities on the basis of the positions occupied at the time precisely in order to reach a settlement in which the principle of justice shall have full application in accordance with the rights of the parties. On the contrary, this Government believes that there is a discrepancy between the declaration of the 3rd of August and the proposal of the most excellent representatives of the neutrals. In proposing the restoration of the situation existing on the 1st of June they forget that the status quo on that day was the result of mere occupations also condemned by the declaration of the 3rd of August. The error committed consists in having transposed the periods of time in attempting to apply at once to a state of quasi-belligerency the principles which must be applied to the settlement of the fundamental question after a complete study of the matter. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Government of Bolivia reiterates: first, that it is still disposed to agree to a suspension of hostilities on the basis of the present positions in the Chaco; second, that it is likewise disposed to an immediate settlement of the fundamental question either by arbitration or by some other amicable means, in accordance with what has already been stated in her note dated the 12th. This is an opportunity to eliminate the prejudice which attributes to Bolivia the purpose of disturbing the peace. The half century of history of this dispute proves the contrary. Bolivia has persistently sought a pacific solution and has signed three treaties granting increasing concessions which treaties Paraguay has deliberately allowed to lapse. Bolivia, in the course of that period has repeatedly proposed a pacific settlement of the dispute by arbitration without attaining her aim.