Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1935, The American Republics, Volume IV

723.34119/230: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell)

Washington, October 17, 1935—4 p.m.

144. For Gibson. Your 244, October 12, 4 p.m. The Argentine Ambassador has communicated to me the instructions received by him from Saavedra Lamas, which correspond in general to the statements made by the latter to you.

In my first conference with the Ambassador on the subject, I said that the suggestion of Dr. Saavedra Lamas was one of such importance that I desired to have some time in order to give the matters involved the full thought and study which they merited. In a further conversation with the Ambassador today, I requested him to transmit to his Government the following views of this Government with regard to the approach made by Saavedra Lamas:

1) The initiative of the President⁹⁷ was contemplated last July at a time when the Protocol of June 12th had recently received the formal approval of both belligerents and the atmosphere resulting from such approval was highly favorable. A definite agreement had been arrived at between Paraguay and Bolivia providing for a pacific settlement of the dispute. The President’s initiative did not contemplate that the proposed inter-American conference should deal with the Chaco dispute. On the contrary, it was premised upon a prior agreement between the two belligerents for the settlement of the dispute in the belief that such agreement for the settlement of the sole remaining open controversy between two American republics would provide the most favorable possible moment for the consideration by all of the American republics of the steps which they might jointly take to safeguard themselves, so far as it might be possible, against the danger that future controversies might result in warfare between American states. Consequently, if the President now proceeded with the initiative which he has had in mind before it is known whether the proposal which has been addressed by the Buenos Aires Conference to the two belligerents looking towards a direct agreement is accepted, or, should this proposal be rejected by one or both of them, before an arbitral compromise has been agreed upon by Bolivia and Paraguay, the original purpose of the suggested inter-American conference would now presumably be completely transformed and the suggested conference would merely result in an enlargement of the present Mediation Conference at Buenos Aires.

2) Furthermore, it was pointed out to the Ambassador that in view of the exclusion of certain important American states, such as Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, from the present Buenos Aires Chaco Conference, it might be exceedingly difficult to persuade those states now to take part in an inter-American conference called to deal with the Chaco dispute after the present conference had failed in its objective.

3) I also called to the Ambassador’s attention the wording of the third paragraph of Article I of the Protocol of June 12th, which, in the judgment of this Government, lays upon all of the states represented at the Buenos Aires Chaco Conference the moral obligation to continue in session, should negotiations for a direct agreement fail, “as long as the arbitral compromise is not definitely agreed upon”. I stated that I was sure the Argentine Foreign Minister would agree that in view of the wording of this paragraph, no single one of the mediators now represented in Buenos Aires could assume the responsibility of “having the question go back to Europe” as Dr. Saavedra Lamas fears judging from his statement to you as quoted in your cable 244. I made this statement to the Ambassador in view of the action taken by Dr. Saavedra Lamas in September 1934,⁹⁸ although without explicitly referring to that incident.

4) The Ambassador inquired whether this Government would support the holding of an inter-American conference to deal with the Chaco dispute in the event that the present suggestion for a direct agreement failed and in the event that no agreement upon an arbitral compromise could be reached. To this inquiry, I replied that, of course, this Government would not at this time close the doors to any means whatsoever of obtaining a satisfactory pacific settlement of the Chaco dispute and that if, in its judgment, at some later date, the holding of a special inter-American conference seemed to be the only remaining hope, it would naturally be disposed to give such proposal favorable consideration. I emphasized, however, the fact that in the opinion of this Government that moment had not yet been reached and could not, in our judgment, be reached until every effort to obtain a solution under Paragraph 3 of Article I of the Protocol of June 12th, had been conscientiously made.

5) In conclusion, I stated that it seemed to this Government that the Protocol of June 12th, in the formulation of which Dr. Saavedra Lamas had had so important a share, provided the best possible means of promoting a satisfactory pacific settlement of the Chaco dispute, and that it further appeared to call for the continuous session of the present peace conference at Buenos Aires so long as an agreement had not been arrived at.

It would presumably be helpful if you reiterated these views to Dr. Saavedra Lamas personally whenever you deem the moment opportune. Please cable the result of such conversation.

Hull

97. See pp. 1 ff.
98. For report of instruction by Saavedra Lamas to Argentine representatives for attitude of passive observance with respect to the League of Nations Chaco Commission, see telegram No. 170, September 30, 1934, from the Ambassador in Argentina, Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. iv, p. 91.