724.34119/1378: Telegram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:10 p.m.]
137. From Braden. At Conference session this morning Zubizarreta maintained with considerable violence of temper that the Paraguay River must be excluded from discussion and that this exclusion was an “irreductible” condition on the part of his country. Mediators replied that the protocol of June 12, 1935 provides for resolution of differences in the Chaco as a whole and Paraguay cannot change the provisions of that instrument now by excluding one of the elements.
Paraguayan delegates were called to order several times by Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs for their digressions from the subject under discussion and the tone used. It is noteworthy that the Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs was completely silent throughout the session. But on leaving the meeting he informed reporters Paraguay had said their last word on the question of the river and port.
Peruvian Ambassador made excellent point saying that previous Paraguayan treaties with Bolivia had all contemplated ceding portion of the river much larger than what we proposed indicating clearly Paraguayan intention which is not invalidated by subsequent lack of ratification. He further recalled statement in 1934 presentation to League of Nations the town of Bahia Negra “is most advanced baluarte of Paraguayan sovereignty” on the river.
Zubizarreta stated that we had not the right to repeat our insistence on cession along the river. He said Paraguay’s objection is due to need of military security, Paraguayan settlements and interests near Bahia Negra and sentimental reasons. Military officers testimony showed military security already afforded by Conference line can be easily insured by forbidding in the treaty alteration by Bolivia of present military status on the river. Paraguayan military expert’s half-hearted defense of Zubizarreta’s thesis on security made no reference to non-fortification suggestion.
I pointed out that discussion between military officers present showed Paraguay would have complete security against any possible aggression; on no basis would approximately 6 kilometres given Bolivia along the river be worth much and certainly would not justify loss of life; while respecting Paraguayan sentimental valuation these are outweighed by peace; furthermore opinion of America would be scandalized to know when the time came that negotiations had failed [Page 132] on account of 6 kilometres of swamps. I concluded without contradiction by Paraguayan delegation that we had the right and would exercise it of mooting any phase of the Chaco settlement; and moved that debate be concentrated on specific points of security and economic value to Paraguay involved in the cession along the river.
Zubizarreta opposed my motion reiterating that irrespective of any arguments produced Paraguay would not cede anything south of Otuquis.
Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs did not attend meeting this morning. I have twice warned the Chilean delegate that his absence from Conference will be interpreted either as lack of interest on his Government’s part or his own fear of failure. Interview with the President of the Argentine Republic was postponed until today and is to include Baez,39 Arbo40 and Zubizarreta. Conference meets tomorrow morning with Paraguayan delegation.
Your 71, June 1, 4 p.m.41 Messages from all mediatory Presidents have been made public as well as Bolivian and Paraguayan replies except those to President Roosevelt. I suggest the replies be given to the press.
My 132, May 30, noon.41 Help urgently needed but no instructions received yet. [Braden.]