721.23/1567: Telegram
The Minister in Colombia (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:25 p.m.]
44. Department’s telegram No. 40, April 8, 3 p.m. Olaya much upset at Lester’s modifications to March 18th recommendations (modifications he says previously stipulated by Peru and rejected by League). He reminds me of the many times he has supported unpopular proposals in the face of a hostile public opinion when he believed in the justice of the cause (my despatch No. 5311, March 7, 193357 for Leticia formula) but this time he says he can not fight the public; he emphasizes again that no government here can possibly enter into any agreement that does not provide first for the recovery of Leticia (as March 18th recommendations did); negotiations can follow once Leticia is back under the Colombian flag but the recovery of Leticia cannot be made contingent upon them: Santos at Geneva is strongly opposed to Lester’s modifications as are all political leaders here.
British Minister who is virtually spokesman for League here sends this morning following telegram to his Government:
“I saw American Minister Saturday night. He had received telegram from State Department on same lines as your number 36 but fuller. He saw Minister for Foreign Affairs same night and found him highly suspicious of proposals and therefore uneasy and opposed to any question of acceptance in the form proposed. American Minister was with President in latter’s country estate yesterday and found him even more suspicious and opposed than Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Suspicions allegedly based on following reasons: that Peru is insincere and is endeavoring to play off ABC countries with League. She has approached Argentine Government on plea that this is a Latin American and not a League matter and endeavored through Argentine Government individually or as member of ABC group to enlist support for proposals identical to those now submitted through League.
The objections of the Colombian Government, which would appear to be shared by press and public, can be summarized as follows:
The proposals start with point 1 which the Colombian Government have been and are willing to accept but this is followed by point 3 [Page 517] which is so subtly worded as to befog the issue. Colombian Government points out that in the new proposals there is tendency to treat Leticia zone as ‘territory in dispute’ whereas the sovereignty of Colombia has never been questioned. President and Colombian Government are convinced that point 1 has been set forward as a trap to make Colombian Government act on point 2 and that when all Colombian forces have been withdrawn Peru would twist interpretation of point 3 to their advantage, that is, that territory was ‘in dispute’, that Colombian forces should not be designated and that ultimate ownership of zone should be dependent on result of negotiations, et cetera, and that Peru would have her own forces ready to advance further on undefended Colombian territory as soon as or even before negotiations broke down.
At the present critical stage it is most important that position and proposals be clearly and unequivocally defined. I have therefore throughout day been in touch with Minister for Foreign Affairs and American Minister. I feel sure that a formula embodying following will be acceptable:
‘Colombian Government accepts point 1 and will act on point 2 but only if it be clearly laid down that the interpretation is as follows:
- (a)
- Peru will evacuate Leticia zone, the Colombian sovereignty over which has never been in dispute since ratification of treaty of 1922, immediately on arrival of a commission to be appointed by Council. The commission will call upon Colombian Government to provide military forces to maintain order and will hoist the Colombian flag in Leticia and wherever else desired within zone temporarily handed over to them.
- (b)
- Colombia accepts the presence of the commission as a pledge both to her from the League and from her to the League: to her as a guarantee that her sovereignty has the recognition and protection of the League: from her that she is willing now as she would have been before the incident occurred to discuss with Peru as with any government matters of mutual concern and interest.
- (c)
- That the terms of (a) having been complied with and of (b) recognized hostilities to cease on both sides and negotiations to ensue forthwith between the two countries.’”
With reference to second paragraph of telegram of the British Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs showed me the last note from Argentine Minister here demonstrating that Peruvian Government had endeavored to have Argentine Government sponsor modifications now proposed by Lester.
- Not printed.↩