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

724.34119/309: Telegram

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

Buenos Aires, December 12, 1935—11 p.m.
[Received December 13—5:35 a.m.]

295. From Braden. My 294, December 6, 8 p.m.

1. Developments in the last 24 hours make possibility that prisoners and securities questions can be settled at this time seem remote.

2. The Paraguayan delegation has received further instructions from President Ayala taking definite stand that Paraguay will under no circumstances consider return of prisoners unless (a) provision is made for maintenance of security measures and lines of separation until “conclusion of treaty of peace” and, (b) prisoners and securities questions are covered in a single formal protocol, (c) to be ratified by the Bolivian and Paraguayan Congresses. In discussing his instructions Zubizarreta has made it clear that the intentions of his Government are as indicated in paragraph 7 of my 283, November 23, 4 p.m. He has even urged wording the protocol to the effect that lines of separation would be maintained “in the same manner as an international frontier”.

3. The present Paraguayan stand is thus a reversal of the more conciliatory one previously taken ad referendum by the Paraguayan delegation (see my 290, November 30, 6 p.m.; and 293 December 4, 1 p.m.). In his conversations with us Zubizarreta has appeared disconcerted with Ayala’s present position which is in effect a disavowal of Zubizarreta. Ayala’s attitude seems open to the implication of bad faith since his delegation more than 2 weeks ago accepted in principle the Conference formula of December 2nd transmitted with my despatch No. 95 of December 4, 1935¹⁶ and yet we have only now been advised that he considers the three points mentioned above, which alter it completely, as a sine qua non.

4. It is our impression the change in the Paraguayan stand is the result of internal political considerations. According to press reports Ayala left Asunción 2 days ago on what amounts to a political tour of Paraguay and our information is that he is actively working for an extension of his term. His intransigence in the defense of Paraguayan aspirations is valuable vote getting material while he can hardly seriously believe that the Bolivians would be willing in effect to trade the prisoners for the solution of the territorial problem desired by Paraguay. If Ayala does in fact desire to retain the Presidency he has maneuvered Zubizarreta, a potential rival, into the position of being willing to concede more to Bolivia than Ayala.

5. The Paraguayan delegation claims not yet to have received a reply from its Government to our suggestions that the Paraguayan claim for a net payment for return of prisoners be lowered. The Bolivian delegation has received additional instructions from President Tejada categorically reiterating the stand that the Bolivian Government will not pay more than 1,800,000 Argentine pesos.

6. Elío is thoroughly disheartened and confidentially informs me that regardless of developments he intends to return to La Paz about December 25. He says he will exert every effort to have the Bolivian offer increased if other points of divergence between Bolivia and Paraguay can be settled and believes he would be successful. He has gone so far as to state he would make a personal issue of the matter.

7. So far as the Paraguayan desiderata are concerned he has accepted point (b) and says that if Paraguay insists upon point (c) he would work for ratification by the Bolivian Congress of a protocol provided it was along the lines of the December 2nd formula and that he believes such ratification could be secured although with difficulty. However, he insists there would be no chance of Bolivian acceptance of the maintenance of the lines of separation until the “conclusion of treaty of peace” unless some provisions were inserted making resort to arbitration effective within a definite time limit failing direct agreement.

8. If we cannot get the Paraguayans to return to a wording on the securities measures and lines of separation similar to that in the December 2nd formula, that is, that they “will be maintained as long as the Peace Conference does not dissolve” there seems to be no way out of the impasse at this time. The Bolivian insistence on such language is based on the moral protection which linking the maintenance of the lines of separation to the life of the Conference would give them against the strategy which Paraguay apparently intends to pursue; the Bolivians feel that under these circumstances the Conference could not countenance Paraguay’s taking advantage of the guarantee of the status quo to refuse to make a settlement of the territorial question, whereas, if they accepted the Paraguayan wording they would be completely at Paraguay’s mercy. If Paraguayans really intended to seek direct agreement on the territorial question or arbitration thereof the December 2nd language would be the equivalent of that put forward by them since the June 20th [12th?] Protocol obligates the Conference not to dissolve until this is accorded.

9. None of the neutral delegates see any hope in the present or any possibility of accomplishment on the various pending questions until after the Presidential succession in both Bolivia and Paraguay has been settled. Not only Elío but Zubizarreta has announced his departure for home by the end of the year. The majority of the neutral delegates are worn out and have frayed nerves due to long and trying months of unproductive labor here.

10. The Paraguayan attitude has so incensed some of the neutrals that at a meeting this afternoon to discuss possible courses of action Nieto, the Uruguayans and to some extent Saavedra Lamas urged that the Conference, under article 1, paragraph 3, of the June 12th Protocol, declare direct agreement impossible, summon the two ex-belligerents to draft an arbitral compromise and, if as anticipated Paraguay refuses to submit the entire territorial question to arbitration, to declare that Paraguay is violating the terms of the Protocol and dissolve the Conference. I strongly oppose this program with Brazilian and Peruvian support, maintaining that the original plan should be followed for the renewal of our formal efforts to reach a solution of the territorial question once the political problems within the two countries are settled. The recent Paraguayan reports of the dispute with Argentina on the Pilcomayo boundary is undoubtedly a contributory factor in Saavedra Lamas’ annoyance with Paraguay.

11. Despite the suggestion of more drastic action the consensus of opinion among the neutrals after consideration is that unless there is some unforeseen change the Conference should take a recess after making a public statement of accomplishments to date along the lines suggested in paragraph 7 of Gibson’s 277, [267] October 30, 9 p.m. and in general terms of the efforts made to solve the prisoners question and the difficulties encountered, thus counteracting unfavorable press publicity; the plan to have visits made to Asunción and La Paz by neutral delegates outlined in paragraphs 8 to 10 of Gibson’s 279, November 15, 8 p.m. would be followed but necessarily under the pretext of discussing the solution of the prisoners question rather than of supervising their return.

12. The great danger is that there will be no effective neutral supervision of the lines of separation. We will of course endeavor if the prisoners and securities negotiations fail to have the Bolivians and Paraguayans reach some modus vivendi on this point but are far from sanguine of success. It is my opinion that we should send neutral military representatives to the zone of separation to exert moral influence to avoid possible incidents between the armies even if granted no actual powers by the contending parties. After the return of the Neutral Military Commission from the Chaco one Uruguayan officer remained there as an observer but he was withdrawn by his Government after the break-down of the negotiations with Paraguay on the question of police (paragraphs 7 and 8 of Gibson’s 271, November 6 [7], 7 [9] p.m.).

13. Saavedra Lamas today showed me a telegram he is sending to Espil instructing him to discuss with you a possible reaffirmation by the American Republics of the August 3rd, 1932 declaration¹⁷ with the object primarily of influencing the League of Nations against Anglo-French formula but incidentally in order to put Paraguay on notice once again that when territorial discussion is renewed she may not expect to remain at present lines. I told him that while I recognized that such a restatement might be helpful in the Chaco situation, nevertheless, we had placed ourselves definitely on record by signing the August 3rd declaration and that I did not believe there was anything substantial to be gained by repeating the declaration; I did not believe we would sign reaffirmation but at his special request I agreed to cable you informing you regarding our conversation.

14. Repeated to Rio de Janeiro by telegraph, to La Paz and Asunción by mail. [Braden.]

Weddell

16. Not printed.
17. Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, p. 159.