724.3415/3940: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Bolivia (Des Portes)
12. Your 41, July 19, noon, and 42, July 19, 6 p.m. It is deemed desirable that you make it clear in your next conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the copy of the Argentine formula was received by this Department on Saturday, July 14, the same date upon which it was presented to the Bolivian Government. It is the understanding of the Department that the document was transmitted to the Brazilian Government at identically the same time that it was delivered to the Government of the United States. It is obvious that the Minister is under a misapprehension when he states that it is his understanding that the Argentine proposal was presented “long ago” to Brazil and the United States.
You should further state at the earliest opportunity that throughout the months which have passed since the time of the holding of the Montevideo conference, this Government has constantly exerted its best efforts to further the presentation of a peace proposal to Bolivia and Paraguay which could be considered as a fair and reasonable proposal, one equally honorable to both countries, and one which contained the principle of a resort to arbitration should conciliation unfortunately prove impracticable. The Government of the United States believes that the Bolivian Government will readily appreciate the fact that in its earnest desire to promote satisfactory bases for peace, the Government of the United States was primarily concerned with the nature of the proposal itself and not with its source.
If the Government of the United States had failed to express its earnest hope that a fair and reasonable proposal be accepted by both the governments at war, it would have considered itself derelict in its moral obligation as an impartial friend now as always of both Bolivia and Paraguay.
You should further make very clear the feeling of this Government that the action taken by Argentina and the proposal that the site of the proposed conciliation conference be Buenos Aires does not in any sense imply that the question is placed under the auspices of Argentina. The participation of both Brazil and the United States in the discussions which have now commenced and the firm desire of both Brazil and the United States that all the other nations of the continent support the peace proposal should it be agreed to in principle by Bolivia and Paraguay, should be regarded as convincing proof that the solution of the question is not to be left to the “sole auspices of Argentina.” If the Bolivian Government will bear these significant facts in mind, the Government of the United States hopes that [Page 153] it will concern itself with the consideration of the nature of the formula presented to its study and no longer attribute any material importance to the points indicated in the latter half of the second paragraph of your 41.
With reference to this Government’s attitude as regards the Colombian-Peruvian invitation, you should limit yourself to stating that the Government of the United States applauded the initiative taken in the interest of peace by those two Governments, but that in view of the fact that both Brazil and Argentina had declined the invitation and that Paraguay had refused to accept it, it seemed very clear to this Government that noble as the initiative might be, a satisfactory outcome could hardly be anticipated under these conditions and that consequently it was felt that any determination by the United States as to the acceptance of the invitation had better be postponed.