722.2315/739
The Chargé in Colombia (Dawson) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 10.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s telegram No. 53 of June 2, 3 p.m., concerning the desire of the Government of Ecuador to participate in the negotiations to take place between Colombia and Peru concerning the Leticia controversy, with a view to settling its [Page 570] boundary question with Peru, I have the honor to report that I presented the aide-mémoire quoted in the telegram to the Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs on June 3, 1933.
Dr. Urdaneta informed me that he would take the question up with the Advisory Committee on Foreign Affairs at the earliest opportunity and with President Olaya at a cabinet meeting to take place at Fusagasugá on June 5. He said that he would endeavor to have a reply ready by June 7. Dr. Urdaneta indicated that, while Colombia had accepted a suggestion by Brazil that Ecuador participate in the negotiations to follow the evacuation of Leticia under the Brazilian suggestion for the settlement of the Leticia question, he felt that the present situation might necessitate a change in the Colombian Government’s attitude. He referred specifically to the fact that the March 18, 1933 recommendations of the League of Nations14 did not indicate the scope of the negotiations which are to take place between Colombia and Peru and that the acceptance of an Ecuadoran request to be admitted to them to discuss boundary questions might be used by Peru as a precedent for insisting that revision of the Colombian–Peruvian boundary established by the Salomon-Lozano Treaty be considered thereat.
Dr. Urdaneta stated that Dr. Carlos M. Larrea, the Ecuadoran Minister to Colombia, had called on him several days ago to express orally Ecuador’s interest in being admitted to the Leticia negotiations but that Dr. Larrea had presented no formal request. He stated that he had answered Dr. Larrea in “the vaguest and most noncommittal terms” he could find, not having discussed the question with either the President or the Advisory Committee on Foreign Affairs.
On June 4, 1933, President Olaya discussed the entire question with me in some detail. He stated that he thought that the consideration of the Ecuadoran request would at this time be premature; he felt that the first stage of the League recommendations of March 18, namely, the evacuation of Leticia, should be completed before the second stage, i. e., the negotiations, should be taken up. He remarked that the best time to consider Ecuador’s request would appear to be when the question of deciding as to the scope of the negotiations arose. He stated that he would be glad personally to have Ecuador participate in the negotiations but felt that the question was one primarily for Peru to decide. Colombia, he said, was principally interested, of course, in settling its dispute with Peru and he did not wish to antagonize the Peruvian Government by supporting Ecuador’s desire to participate in the negotiations if Peru should be opposed to such participation.
[Page 571]In this connection, President Olaya informed me that Dr. Alfonso Lopez, during his conversations with President Oscar Benavides of Peru in Lima, had suggested to the latter that the Peruvian–Ecuadoran boundary question might be settled at the same time as the Leticia controversy by a general conference, and that General Benavides had replied that it would be better to keep Ecuador out of it. Dr. Olaya suggested that General Benavides probably considered that Peru might be at a disadvantage in tripartite negotiations, whereas its superior strength would give it an advantage in direct bilateral negotiations with Ecuador should it eventually decide on these; he said that all indications were that the present line of occupation in the portion of the Amazon territory disputed by Ecuador and Peru was quite satisfactory to the latter.
Respectfully yours,