724.3415/4069: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:40 p.m.]
220. Upon Avenol’s return to Geneva this morning I took early occasion to call on him and to inform him of the substance of the Department’s 87, August 30, 4 p.m. The Secretary General expressed his appreciation of the exposition of the current efforts of the United States, Argentina and Brazil respecting the Chaco and in particular of your views regarding the prospects for success of such efforts and the situation thus created. He is fully sensible of your cooperative policy respecting all international efforts vis-à-vis the Chaco as clearly demonstrated in Montevideo of which he feels your message to him is further evidence.
[Page 75]1. He reexpressed the definite change in the juridical position of the League respecting the dispute arising from the appeal to the Assembly and emphasized the time limit imposed on League action.
2. He discussed the previous policy of the League in withholding action in deference to the Washington negotiations earlier in the dispute. While such policy may have been an expedient position for the League to take at that time it had nevertheless been a difficult and somewhat questionable position for the League to assume in the face of its responsibilities under the Covenant in particular in the face of a factual condition of warfare which has continued to the present. He looked with apprehension upon a more protracted lack of activity of the League in the Chaco as subversive of an internal and external regard for its responsibilities and prestige with a consequent relaxation of the sense of general international responsibility in all fields.
3. Thus particularly in view of the new juridical responsibilities of the League which will arise immediately upon the convening of the Assembly on September 11th he felt that the Assembly could not withhold taking active measures unless fully satisfied that measures taken elsewhere were being conducted under a satisfactory procedure which likewise gave some promise of success. This was of course entirely for the Assembly itself to decide vis-à-vis the situation as the Assembly would view it.
4. I expressed to Avenol the opinion that it was reasonable to suppose that Argentina as a party to the present American efforts and also as a member of the League would be the Government which would expose and advocate either formally or informally the character and the prospects of success of these arrangements.
In reply Avenol said that he had no information whatsoever from Argentina, his sole source of information being what I had told him and what he had read in the press.
I then asked him whether he would make inquiries of the Argentine Government or whether a voluntary statement to him on the part of the Argentine Government which he could circulate to the League would be helpful.
In reply he said that he would not make such an inquiry and that he would prefer that Argentina make no official statement to him at present as respecting the first it could be charged and respecting the second it could be inferred that he had been a party to activities which were derogatory of the responsibility of the Assembly or of the expression of its authority in determining its action.
5. He felt that the only course of action which could reconcile the position of the League and the position of the American efforts would be a formal communication to the Assembly (or to an Assembly committee [Page 76] which might be set up upon the convening of the Assembly) of the entire details of the American formula together with some estimate of the prospects of a successful issue based on such a formula. A mere statement that hopeful efforts were being undertaken outside of the League would he felt not be sufficient. Likewise any assumption of responsibility on the part of the participants in such efforts could not in itself be construed by the League as a reason for foregoing its own responsibility. While it was for the Assembly to arrive at its own decision he personally felt that it could not for the reasons discussed above lay aside its responsibility without reasons for doing so which would be fully accepted by the Assembly and by public opinion.
6. He said that he had taken up the matter of participating in an Assembly committee with the Brazilian representative as forecast in my 21950 and that while he had received no definite answer he had been given to understand that Brazil would probably follow the lead of the United States.
7. Avenol stated that he would see me again the first of the week after he had given the matter further consideration. He stated that he did not perceive that there could be any modification in the principles respecting the necessary position of the League as he had expressed it but that he might have some added considerations to present or suggestions respecting procedures.
8. He expressed the hope that you would understand the position of the League and his own position as he had explained it and that exchanges of views might continue between you and himself with a view to arriving at the fullest cooperation in all efforts.
9. I feel that it would be most helpful to me to receive the Department’s reaction to the foregoing before my further conversation with Avenol.
10. Respecting the American efforts in themselves Avenol expressed only the following opinions.
- (a)
- That as expressed to him by the Bolivian representative Bolivia did not trust the impartiality of Argentina and that thus the expediency of Argentina’s leadership in this matter was to be questioned.
- (b)
- That the declared neutrality of the neighboring states which was contrary to the Covenant was leading to a dangerous situation inasmuch as he did not perceive it to be neutral in fact and he was thus apprehensive that a continuance of this situation would lead to a spread of the conflict in South America.
- (c)
- That the jealousy felt for any Latin American state which played a leading role militated against successful common efforts within the Latin American sphere.