724.3415/4159: Telegram
The Minister in Paraguay (Nicholson) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 21—1:05 a.m.]
43. Department’s telegram No. 36, September 17, 7 p.m. Following is a translation, which has been approved by the President, of a written statement which President Ayala prepared immediately upon my informing him of the Department’s telegram referred to.
“1. After the rejection of the formula proposed by its special commission of investigation, the League, at the proposal of Bolivia, examined the possibility of applying article No. 15 of the Covenant to the Chaco conflict. Paraguay observed that the said article has for its objective to prevent war and is not applicable to the case, but in order to show its pacific disposition, it gave its consent exclusively to the conciliation procedure established by the said article for the solution of international differences. This month both parties presented the memorandum referred to in paragraph 2 of article No. 15.
A committee at the seat of the Assembly now is studying the most effective manner of utilizing the Covenant in the conflict. My opinion is that the League will not succeed. If Paraguay complied with the debate in Geneva it is because of the obligation implied by its character as a member.
2. The Argentine formula consists substantially of a meeting of plenipotentiaries in order to negotiate the immediate and definite termination of the war, and then the submission of conflict to the conciliation procedure of the American Anti-War Pact, and eventually to arbitration. Paraguay accepted the plan without reservations or modifications. Not so Bolivia, which presented a counter proposal in which it introduced modifications which are objectionable to us. The Paraguayan Government is of the opinion that the Bolivian reservations or modifications can be examined adequately in the meeting. There would be serious objection to discussing them prior to that meeting.
No valid reason is given why Bolivia should not attend a meeting, as Paraguay is willing to do, which does not compromise more than the good faith of the two countries.
3. Paraguay is disposed, as soon as hostilities shall cease, to examine the questions which separate the two belligerents in a broad spirit which shall contemplate not only reciprocal security but also and particularly the future of the two Republics. Those questions cannot be solved satisfactorily in an atmosphere of war. The war eliminated, the peace which shall not imply the imposition of one party on the other will be much easier.
4. If recourse is had to arbitration, there must be arranged by agreement the usual commitment which shall define the specific materials of the controversy and other required conditions. In the negotiation of the commitment, the participation of the mediators will be useful and necessary and it is not impossible that an agreement may be reached. But if an agreement upon the material of the litigation should not be possible, recourse could be had to the procedure specified [Page 218] in the Washington Convention of 1929 on conciliation and arbitration,44 or to some other method which might give the same result.
5. Paraguay has stated in several documents its thesis upon the exclusion from the litigation of the zone awarded in its favor by President Hayes,45 as well as of the littoral of the river, and concerning responsibility for the war, but it does not make the acceptance of these theses the conditions sine qua non for a negotiation of peace under the auspices of the mediators.
6. Paraguay regards with great satisfaction and hope the mediation of the United States, Argentine and Brazil. It does not object to the presence of other American Republics, even though it believes that the numerous groups may be an obstacle to a firm and rapid action.
7. Any mediators should propose above all the immediate cessation of the fighting. If there is a sincere desire for peace, the continuation of hostilities is not justified.”
- For text of the conciliation convention, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, p. 653; for text of the arbitration convention, see ibid., p. 667.↩
- On November 12, 1878; see ibid., 1878, p. 711.↩