724.3415/4024: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell)
91. Your 128, August 18, 10 a.m. For your personal and confidential information, the Argentine Ambassador here has received instructions from Dr. Saavedra Lamas suggesting that the Ministers of Argentine, Brazil, and the United States in La Paz be instructed to make joint representations to the Bolivian Government expressing the surprise of their respective Governments at the statements made by the Bolivian Minister in Buenos Aires at the meeting of August 16th and calling the attention of the Bolivian Government to the fact that the said statements are in complete disaccord with prior statements made by the diplomatic representatives of Bolivia and especially by the Bolivian Minister in Washington, and that such a change in attitude is inconceivable only 2 days after the present negotiations have been commenced.
The instructions given the Argentine Ambassador here appear to be quite different from the understanding reached at your conference with Dr. Saavedra Lamas and the Brazilian Ambassador on August 17th as reported in your cable above referred to, which understanding, as you conveyed it, refers solely to bringing pressure to bear upon Bolivia to accept without reservations the original conciliation formula.
The Argentine Ambassador has been informed that it does not appear to this Government an opportune time to adopt an admonitory tone towards Bolivia, since it appears to be very probable, in our judgment, that the apparent discrepancies between the statements made by the Bolivian Minister in Buenos Aires and those made by other officials of the Bolivian Government are due in great part to misunderstanding and perhaps to complication in procedure. The Argentine Ambassador has been informed that the Department has, however, already urged upon the Bolivian Government, through the [Page 177] Bolivian Minister here, acceptance without reservation of the conciliation formula.
The Bolivian Minister in Washington this morning strongly reiterated the prior statements he had made with regard to the attitude of his Government towards conciliation and towards arbitration. He has stated that the sine qua non of the outlet to the River Paraguay refers solely to conciliation and was intended as a friendly and confidential statement to the three mediating nations of the point of view which Bolivia must maintain during the conciliation conversations, if these took place. He has further stated that unless the mediating powers were willing to propose this during the course of the conciliation proceedings as an essential part of the agreement to be arrived at, it would seem better to resort immediately to arbitration, since Bolivia could not accept an agreement through conciliation unless an outlet to the River Paraguay formed a part of such agreement. The Minister was informed in reply to this statement that it seemed logical that Bolivia should first accept without reservations the conciliation formula and then request the friendly support of the mediating powers for her point of view if that were deemed reasonable and acceptable by the mediating nations.
With regard to the question of arbitration, the Minister was reminded that in the “reply of the Bolivian Government concerning the Commission of the League of Nations draft treaty transmitted by the Bolivian Plenipotentiary on March 6, 1934,” the Bolivian Government reiterated its acceptance of the proposal of the Commission that there be entrusted to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague legal arbitration to delimit the sovereignty of the two contending countries over the territory included in the maximum claims so far advanced by the belligerents in accordance with the principles proclaimed by the American nations in their declaration of August 3, 1932. The Department stated to the Minister that this was understood as providing for ample arbitration. The Minister replied that he understood that this was still the point of view maintained by his Government, but that in order to ascertain if any change had taken place in such point of view since March, last, he would cable immediately and obtain an explicit confirmation of his own impression. Upon receipt of this confirmation, the Department will advise you accordingly.
It appears very obvious that many complications and misunderstandings at this stage of negotiations are brought about by the endeavor of Dr. Saavedra Lamas to negotiate directly with Bolivia and Paraguay at the same time. This condition may perhaps be due in part to the suspicion with which Bolivia views Dr. Saavedra Lamas’ activities and to Bolivia’s continued belief that any suggestions made by Dr. Saavedra Lamas are to the advantage of Paraguay. It would [Page 178] seem preferable, until conciliation conversations have definitely commenced, that Brazil and the United States obtain, if possible, through direct negotiations with Bolivia an agreement without reservation as to the conciliation formula and a clear and definitive statement of Bolivia’s position with respect to conciliation and with respect to arbitration, and that the Argentine Government undertake the same service with regard to Paraguay, the three mediating Governments then attempting to reconcile such discrepancies as there may be in the points of view of the belligerent nations through their representatives in Buenos Aires.
Before definitely making the suggestion to Dr. Saavedra Lamas, the Department desires you to cable your impression as to his probable reactions to such a suggestion. It is understood that the Government of Brazil will be favorably disposed to the procedure indicated.