Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1933, The American Republics, Volume IV

724.3415/3122: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, May 18, 1933—9 p.m.
[Received 9:55 p.m.]

182. Reference Gilbert’s 123, May 17, 2 p.m.³ I have received confidentially from Drummond the “report” which has been accepted by the members of the Council in confidential sitting and will be presented to the Council for formal adoption probably on Saturday. After a summary of the history of the steps taken to settle the Chaco dispute the remainder of the report reads as follows:

“The states represented on the Committee of the Council which has been sitting since September 23, 1932, have lately invoked article 11 of the Covenant before the Council.

In conformity with the Covenant the two countries are under obligation to settle their dispute by pacific means. In order to carry out this obligation the Council recommends the following procedure:

The two Governments would confide the final settlement of the dispute to an impartial authority, deriving its powers from a treaty binding on both States, namely, the Covenant of the League of Nations. Such an authority after a thorough study of the question would fix the frontier between the two countries. Such a procedure connotes:

1. The cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal by Paraguay of the declaration of a state of war with Bolivia.

2. The establishment of an agreement for a submission of the dispute to arbitration.

In order effectively to establish the procedure for settlement indicated in the preceding paragraph the Council considers it essential to send to the spot a commission whose task would be:

1. To negotiate, if desirable, any arrangement calculated to promote the execution of the obligation to cease hostilities.

2. To prepare in consultation with the two Governments concerned an agreement for arbitration. If the agreement for arbitration does not indicate the arbitrators or the procedure for their appointment the Council will provide for such appointment and will, if necessary, settle the arbitral procedure.

3. The Commission will be at the Council’s disposal and will keep it informed of the course of its activities.

The committee at the Council’s request will proceed to make an inquiry on all the circumstances of the dispute including the part which the two parties have taken therein and report to the Council to enable this latter to fulfill the duties imposed upon it by the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Such is the solution that the Council proposes to the parties.

This conflict has been going on for decades. A great many conciliatory bodies have unsuccessfully attempted to arrive at a settlement. The two countries have been fighting since 1932 and even earlier. The Covenant offers the two parties as members of the League of Nations an honorable means of settling their dispute. The Council, therefore, invites the two Governments to accept the procedure for settlement laid down above and in particular to undertake to give all necessary facilities to the commission which the Council proposes to send to the spot.

Hostilities have, as has been already pointed out, been proceeding sometimes spasmodically but since June last year, continuously on both sides. During the last 4 years the dispute has been before a committee consisting of neutral representatives. It has also formed the subject of efforts at conciliation by the neighboring countries. Recently one of the parties has declared the existence of a state of war. The Council feels that in view of all these special circumstances its first duty is to endeavor to bring about the cessation of hostilities and a settlement of the dispute. It does not consider that it will adopt or need for the present enter into consideration of a different order. It trusts that it may never be compelled to do so, since it is convinced that if the parties really desire peace and good relations they will accept this procedure and pending its operation will discontinue hostilities which have already been going on too long.”

In handing me the report Drummond stated that he anticipated that neither of the parties would immediately accept the recommendations and both would declare that it was necessary to submit the matter to their Governments for a decision. However, he anticipates a favorable reply from Paraguay but fears that the Bolivians will take the line that inasmuch as the matter is before the Neutral Commission in Washington they find it difficult to accept the procedure suggested by the Council. Drummond explained that the members of the Council feel that they have no alternative but to act in this matter; the long duration of the conflict, the failure of all efforts to arrange a settlement, the declaration of war by Paraguay, and, finally and most important from their point of view, the appeal by both Governments at different times to the Council have created a situation where the Council must act under the obligations of the Covenant. Drummond sincerely hopes that this has been done in such a way as will be agreeable to our Government and if the procedure which is contemplated is agreeable to our Government then he hopes that it may be possible for the Neutral Commission to advise the Bolivian Government that it regards the proposal of the Council as a reasonable solution and hopes that the two parties will be able to accept it.

Costa du Rels, Bolivian representative, has explained to me that they would find it difficult to accept a procedure which involves a long armistice before arbitration since the maintenance of some 4,000 men in such a remote region is an operation of such cost that they could not maintain it indefinitely. A long delayed decision would, therefore, according to Costa work in favor of Paraguay. I shall not elaborate his position further as I assume the Department is familiar with it.

I should appreciate guidance as to how you desire me to reply to Drummond.

Wilson

3. Not printed.