724.34119/166: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:15 p.m.]
201. From Dawson. Reference Rio’s 221, September 10, 5 p.m. I called on Elío this afternoon and informed him of the substance of telegram 218, September 9, 4 p.m. from the Embassy at Rio de Janeiro to the Department. He asserted that all he knew of the matter was that the Costa Rican delegate to the Red Cross Conference when he passed through Buenos Aires some days ago informed the Bolivian Chargé d’Affaires here that he had instructions from his Government to present or support a resolution calling for the immediate release of all prisoners of war. Elío added that he understood that several other delegations had similar instructions. He insisted that Bolivia could only welcome and support such “spontaneous action” in accord with its thesis and that a resolution of this nature could not be taken as a criticism of the Chaco Conference for failing to secure the release of the prisoners but only of the Paraguayan refusal to heed the dictates of humanity. The “spontaneity” of the move is further indicated by the fact that the Bolivian Chargé d’Affaires here recently approached a member of the Brazilian Chaco delegation in an endeavor to get Brazilian support for the proposed resolution.
I stressed to Elío that the introduction of the resolution could hardly fail to endanger the present negotiations on the territorial problem. I pointed out that from the Bolivian point of view itself the wisest course would seem to be to await the declaration by the Chaco Conference that the war had terminated before even considering any steps in connection with securing the release of the prisoners, particularly, as Bolivia had itself requested the Conference to postpone action on this problem until after that time if its amendments to the August 10th proposal of the Prisoners of War Committee were not accepted.
Elío replied that he thought he had already made it clear that he would demand the release of all prisoners immediately after the declaration that the war is at an end on the ground that their retention [Page 137] thereafter would be untenable; that it was necessary to mobilize foreign public opinion against the Paraguayan refusal to entertain this; that the Red Cross Conference would terminate before the declaration could be made, and that an opportunity for continental condemnation was presented which could not be lost. It was obvious that he had made up his mind in advance and was not open to reason.
Elío added that he was becoming daily more convinced that no solution of the territorial problem could be reached in view of the Paraguayan insistence on retaining all of the Chaco now occupied by it (while he did not say on what he based his interpretation I gathered that the Paraguayans probably indicated such a stand in the latest interview between the Bolivian and Paraguayan Generals covered by Asunción’s telegram No. 61, September 8, 10 p.m. since he mentioned later that he had received disappointing news thereof). He remarked that it was obviously not to Bolivia’s interest to accept any treaty of peace on this basis and that even a continuance of the status quo would be preferable.
I commented that the possibilities of a direct agreement on the territorial problem had not yet been exhausted and that his information as to the Paraguayan demands seemed exaggerated. He then said that he hoped the Conference would before the end of the month make a definite proposal to both parties for solution of the problem which if feasible he would recommend to his Government. He stated that in the event of a Paraguayan refusal to agree to a reasonable solution, which he expected, the Bolivian course would be as outlined in our telegram No. 180, August 16, 10 p.m. He insisted, however, that Bolivia would act in strict compliance with the June 12th Protocol and had no intention of abandoning the Conference.
Repeated to Bio de Janeiro. [Dawson.]