Office of the Historian

724.34119/610: Telegram

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

Buenos Aires, September 19, 1936—noon.
[Received 1:40 p.m.]

194. From Braden. My 193, September 13, 2 a.m.

1.
Both the publication of the Paraguayan note and the danger of any impetuous action by Bolivia in the near future appear to have been removed thus relieving the tension of the last week.
2.
As a result of the intensive study occasioned by the presentation of the Paraguayan note the Conference is absoutely satisfied that it has the right and obligation under the protocols to reassume control (command of police forces) between the “lines of separation” in accordance with our August 20 resolution, my 169, August 20, 12 p.m. paragraph No. II. Both for the purpose of the record and in order to get an accurate statement of facts and an exact unified expression of Conference opinion there will be set forth in the Conference minutes a detailed account of the developments, application, and interpretation of the protocols by the Conference, the parties and the Neutral Military Commission. I believe this account will be conclusive although the Paraguayans may not admit it.
3.
Our deliberations will be handicapped by the considerations referred to in paragraph number III and IV of my telegram under reference.
4.
What reply if any will be made to the note is undecided. Ramírez refused requests by Argentine, Brazilian and Uruguayan delegation that he withdraw his note but now is considering Rodriques Alves’ suggestion that he substitute therefor a more conciliatory memorandum. Such a procedure would enable the Conference in collaboration with the ex-belligerent commands to draft a mutually satisfactory regimentation [reglementation] for the Conference control between the “lines” which would obtain the practical ends sought while avoiding an acrimonious discussion on the principle involved.
5.
I have proposed that we counter Ramírez’ note by insisting upon the immediate consideration of the territorial question and that should we not reach an agreement promptly we demand the drafting of an arbitral compromise. My colleagues feel that this procedure is too precipitous and I am not insisting upon it at present.
6.
My 192, September 12, 1 p.m. Weeks leaving for Chaco today. [Braden.]
Weddell