721.23/1987
The Minister in Ecuador (Dawson) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 28.]
Sir: I have the honor to report as follows concerning eventual Ecuadoran participation in the negotiations to be held at Rio de Janeiro for the settlement of the Leticia incident, reference being made in this connection to my despatch No. 1132 of September 1322 and earlier despatches dealing with the same subject.
As noted in my despatch No. 1107 of August 28,22 I was informed at that time by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs that, while Peru had opposed Ecuador’s direct participation in the negotiations with Colombia, former Foreign Minister Manzanilla had expressed himself as being willing that Ecuador be represented by an observer with the eventual right to make suggestions. From information furnished me by a member of the Advisory Board for Foreign Relations, it appears that Ecuador is now seeking admission as an “interested observer” and that recent conversations with Peru have revolved largely around this point as well as the scope of the activities of any [Page 577] Ecuadoran representative who might be admitted in such a capacity. The Ecuadoran viewpoint seems to be that an “interested observer” should not only be kept advised as to the course of the negotiations but also have the right to make suggestions and lodge protests.
The foregoing information was confirmed by statements made to me this morning by the Chief of the Diplomatic Section of the Ecuadoran Foreign Office who expressed the personal and informal opinion that participation at Rio de Janeiro would hardly be worth while if it were to consist solely in the right to watch proceedings. Incidentally, Dr. Arroyo Delgado expressed the likewise personal opinion that the Peruvian Government is taking advantage of the perturbed domestic situation in Ecuador.
In this same connection, Sr. José Gabriel Navarro (the member of the Advisory Board referred to above) informed me that Ecuador continues to be disposed to negotiate with Peru for a settlement of the boundary dispute between the two countries. It is apparently contemplated that Ecuadoran–Peruvian boundary negotiations shall be “simultaneous and parallel” with the approaching Colombian–Peruvian negotiations but that they shall not be conducted at Rio de Janeiro. Dr. Navarro tells me that, while it has been suggested and is expected in many quarters that the Ecuadoran-Peruvian negotiations will be held in Lima, he himself holds the view that Washington should be selected as their seat. I infer that he has made a recommendation to this effect to the Advisory Board. Dr. Navarro states that, aside from the advisability of adhering to the Ponce-Castro Protocol,23 he believes that the two countries would be more likely to reach an agreement at Washington than at Lima. He informs me that he was a close friend of Dr. N. Clemente Ponce, the Ecuadoran signer of the Protocol, and that from personal conversations he knows that Dr. Ponce felt that Peru would as in the past use dilatory tactics to postpone any agreement and that the best means of reaching a solution would be through negotiations in Washington under the auspices of a high-minded and impartial Government. According to Sr. Navarro, it was Dr. Ponce’s opinion that negotiations in Lima would lead to no result and that on the other hand negotiators meeting in Washington and removed from the vicissitudes of domestic political disturbances and changes would not separate without having reached a settlement.
Respectfully yours,
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 305.↩