721.23/852a Supp.: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Manzanilla)
The Government of Colombia has communicated to the Government of the United States of America, as a signatory of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, signed at Paris August 27, 1928, the text of the telegram which the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia addressed to Your Excellency on January 1152 regarding the situation arising out of the expulsion of the Colombian authorities from Leticia by Peruvian nationals on September 1, 1932. A copy of Your Excellency’s reply of January 1453 was at the same time communicated to me.
From an examination of this correspondence it appears that the Government of Peru recognizes the validity of the boundary treaty of 1922 between Peru and Colombia and that there is therefore no dispute between the two countries regarding sovereignty over the Leticia area which is recognized by both as belonging to Colombia.
The Colombian Government charges that on the night of August 31–September 1, 1932, Colombian authorities of the town of Leticia were attacked, imprisoned, and deported by a group of armed Peruvian individuals and that since then Peruvian military forces of the Department of Loreto have committed repeated acts of aggression against the Leticia territory, and have dug trenches not only in the town of Leticia and its environs but also at Tarapacá in Colombian territory on the Putumayo River; that they have taken field and machine guns to both places and have made preparations for armed resistance; that they have taken their military airplanes to Colombian territory and that the military authorities at Iquitos have communicated [Page 424] with Peruvian garrisons in the region to inform them that the Peruvian Government will hold the town of Leticia by force.
The Peruvian Government states that the occurrences at Leticia on September 1 were a surprise to the Peruvian Government as well as to the Colombian Government. Your Government adds that the precautions which the military authorities of Loreto found themselves obliged to adopt subsequently were the consequence of the large scale preparations which were being made by Colombia to recover Leticia.
While no specific denial is made of the charges advanced by the Colombian Government that since the original taking of Leticia, Peruvian forces have entrenched themselves in that territory which they have fortified, I have nevertheless noted the statement in Your Excellency’s telegram of January 14th in which you state that forcible retention of Leticia by your Government can not be spoken of as it is not the Peruvian Government which has occupied that town and is holding it up to the present. This statement, and the encouraging fact that you definitely affirm the intention of the Peruvian Government to abide by the Treaty of 1922 and the Briand-Kellogg Anti-War Pact, lead me to hope that a solution of this difficulty will be found by your Government urging the Peruvian individuals who are now usurping authority in the Leticia area, which the Peruvian Government recognizes as Colombian, not to oppose the peaceful reestablishment of Colombian authority there.
You state in your telegram of the 14th instant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, above referred to, that your Government only seeks a modification of the frontier line established in the Treaty of 1922 and not the abrogation of that Treaty. When one of the parties to a treaty is dissatisfied therewith, it is of course perfectly proper and usual for it to open negotiations for a modification thereof, and to seek a settlement of the difference through pacific means. In fact, to deal with the matter otherwise would run counter to the stipulations of Article II of the Briand-Kellogg Pact by which the High Contracting Parties agreed that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
As pointed out above, there is no dispute between the two parties regarding the present ownership of Leticia. This was recognized by Peru in the Treaty of 1922 as belonging to Colombia and your Government now affirms again its view that this treaty is valid. The essential difference which the above referred to correspondence between the two Governments brings out is that your Government now desires a future modification of the frontier line which would transfer Leticia to Peru in return for “adequate territorial compensations”. [Page 425] As pointed out, that, under Article II of the Briand-Kellogg Pact can be sought only by pacific means.
The telegram of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia to Your Excellency of January 11 declares, on behalf of the Government of Colombia, that in such action as it may be necessary for Colombia to take in the Leticia region its forces are advancing merely in order to reoccupy Colombian territory and to prevent the continuance in that region of the conditions of violence which have caused the suspension there of all law and right in violation of public treaties. The communication continues to affirm that the Colombian forces which will be employed for that purpose will avoid conflict with the military forces of Peru unless the latter oppose the Colombian forces in their task of restoring the legitimate authorities of Colombia. The Government of Colombia requested the Government of Peru, on the basis of the friendly relations that have so long existed between them, to take all measures necessary to assure that officials, forces, or any other agents of Peru should not resist these legitimate operations of the forces of Colombia which are necessary for the rightful maintenance of its Government. The Colombian Government added that it reiterated “the assurances already given, that once Colombian sovereignty over Leticia and the surrounding territory is reestablished, if there is then any other matter which the Peruvian Government desires to discuss, the Colombian Government will be ready to discuss it in the most ample spirit of conciliation and that such settlement can then be arrived at either through direct diplomatic negotiations, through the good offices of some third power, or by the means provided in existing treaties between the two countries”.
I should not be frank if I did not candidly state to Your Excellency that I have been much disturbed by the statement in your telegram of January 14th, above referred to, that the military measures taken by the Peruvian authorities at Loreto were undertaken because of the measures which the Colombian Government is obliged to take to reestablish the Colombian authorities deposed in the Leticia territory. Your telegram stated that because of the status of these invaders as Peruvians and “in view of the motive of reintegration of the national territory that impelled them” to seize this territory they “could not be abandoned to the menacing uncertainty established with respect to them by the sending of Colombian military authorities having the mission of subduing them”. My apprehensions on this score were heightened by the statement made by the Peruvian Ambassador in Washington on the 23rd instant,54 pursuant to an instruction [Page 426] from you of January 21st, that your Government feels that if the Brazilian Government, in endeavoring to find a satisfactory solution of this situation, insists that Leticia should be delivered to Colombia, she will fail in her endeavor to prevent war because the Loretanos are decided to oppose forcibly any use of force by Colombia and that Peru can not stand by passively when the interests of Loreto are at stake.
Let us examine the situation in the light of these statements:
It is admitted that Peruvian individuals seized Leticia and the surrounding territory and deposed the Colombian authorities. It is also admitted that Leticia and the adjacent territory is Colombian. It is stated in Your Excellency’s telegram of the 14th instant under consideration that one can not speak of the forcible retention of Leticia by the Peruvian Government as it is not the Peruvian Government which has occupied that town and is holding it up to the present. In other words, the Peruvian Government quite properly disavows the taking and holding of Leticia. On the other hand, however, it would appear that other statements of your Government just referred to are unfortunately susceptible of the interpretation that your Government will use force to support these invaders of Leticia and to prevent the Colombian authorities from reestablishing their authority in this Colombian territory. Furthermore, your telegrams of January 18 and 21 to the Peruvian Ambassador in Washington55 indicate not only that your Government has not yet accepted the very equitable solution of this difficulty proposed by the Government of Brazil but that it has insisted that the Leticia territory shall not be returned to Colombia until the boundary line established by the Salomon-Lozano Treaty of 1922 is modified. I venture to hope that these latter statements do not correctly express the intention of your Excellency’s Government. For if it were conceivable that Peru was seeking to obtain her desire to modify the Treaty of 1922, not by pacific means, but by a forcible and armed support of the illegal occupation of Leticia, would such a position not be entirely contrary to the provisions of Article 2 of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which provides that no solution of a controversy shall be sought except by pacific means? At least this Government sees no alternative to such conclusion. And if so, as set forth in the preamble of that Pact, such a violation of it would entail a denial of the benefits furnished by that Pact to the signatory power which violated it.
Furthermore, if the statement by the Peruvian Ambassador, to which I have referred, to the effect that the Loretanos are decided to oppose [Page 427] forcibly the efforts by Colombia to restore her authority in Leticia and that Peru can not stand by passively when the interests of Loreto are at stake, correctly represents the intentions of your Government, would not such action by Peru constitute a recourse to war for the settlement of an international controversy and the employment of war as an instrument of national policy in its relations with another signatory power and be contrary to Article I of the Kellogg-Briand Pact?
I am encouraged, however, to believe that your categoric statement reaffirming the validity of the boundary treaty between Peru and Colombia of 1922 and the intention of your Government to abide by that treaty “as well as all the other treaties in force, among which is the Briand-Kellogg Anti-War Pact” may be taken to indicate that your Government does not intend to take such a step as to oppose the reestablishment of lawful Colombian authority in Leticia.
The Government of Brazil, interpreting most clearly the feelings of the
American nations that there should not be recourse to hostilities in
this hemisphere, has drawn up and submitted to the Peruvian and
Colombian Governments a proposal which in the opinion of my Government
offers a peaceful and honorable means of terminating this situation. The
essence of this proposal is as follows:
My Government has been advised that the Government of Colombia has accepted this proposal of the Brazilian Government.
The Brazilian Government, feeling that this formula offered an equitable solution of this difficult situation, asked my Government to support it before your Government. My Government was very glad to do so, as Your Excellency is aware, through the American Ambassador in Lima. Once again, my Government most earnestly urges your Government to abide by the commitments undertaken by it in [Page 428] the Pact of Paris and that it accept the solution proposed by the Brazilian Government for settling peacefully and in accordance with the international commitments of Peru this unfortunate situation.
In the same connection permit me also to remind Your Excellency of the Resolution voted at the Sixth International Conference of American States on February 20, 1928, in opposition to aggression,56 and also of the declaration which Peru signed with 18 other American nations on August 3, 1932,57 stating that it was opposed to force and renounced it both for the solution of its controversies and as an instrument of national policy in the reciprocal relations of the American countries. In the same document the American nations further declared that they would not recognize the validity of territorial acquisitions which might be obtained through occupation or conquest by force of arms.
- League of Nations, Official Journal, April 1933, p. 609.↩
- Ibid., p. 611.↩
- See memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State, January 23, p. 413.↩
- Copies of communications of January 18 and 21 (not printed) were handed to Mr. White by the Peruvian Ambassador on January 23; for substance thereof, see memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State, January 23, p. 413.↩
- Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, Motions, Agreements, Resolutions and Conventions (Habana, 1928), p. 179.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, p. 159.↩