Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1938, The American Republics, Volume V

738.39/291

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State (Welles)

[Washington,] January 12, 1938.

The Ambassador of Peru came to see me this morning primarily to inform me that the Government of Peru had fixed December 9, 1938 as the date for the opening of the Inter American Conference.¹² I told the Ambassador that as he already knew any date which was agreeable to the Peruvian Government would be entirely acceptable to this Government.

The Ambassador then discussed briefly the Haitian-Dominican controversy and the duties of the Permanent Commission of which he is a member. He said that he did not feel that the Permanent Commission should assume any responsibility for the terms of any agreement which might be reached between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and that in that he disagreed with the Guatemalan Minister who was the Chairman of the Commission. I remarked that my own understanding of the problem was that while the Haitian Government was willing to reach a prompt settlement with the Dominican Government, it nevertheless believed that unless this settlement was formally reached under the auspices of the Permanent Commission it would not be worth the paper it was written on because the Dominican Government would not live up to any of the commitments it made therein and that the desire of the Haitian Government was to have the Permanent Commission exercise its conciliatory functions as a result of which a direct agreement would be made and that then the Permanent Commission could officially take notice of the agreement reached and announce that in view of the fact that an agreement had been reached the controversy was now ended. The Ambassador said that if this was the case it would be entirely satisfactory with him but that he did not feel that the Commission should take any responsibility for the terms of the agreement when the members of the Commission were not in a position which would really enable them to pass upon the merits of the controversy. I remarked that it seemed to me that his point of view was very well taken but that of course the questions involved would have to be determined by the members of the Permanent Commission and that it seemed to me unwise for this Government to express any opinion with regard to the procedure adopted.

The Ambassador then said that, as I knew, Dr. Concha, his Foreign Minister, was a very warm personal friend of mine who had complete confidence in the impartiality of this Government with regard to the pending Ecuadoran-Peruvian boundary dispute;¹³ that when Dr. Concha had recently become Foreign Minister he had instructed Dr. Tudela, the head of the Peruvian delegation in Washington,¹⁴ to keep me advised of the progress made in the boundary negotiations. I said that I was very happy to know that this was the case and that I had had a very interesting conversation with Dr. Tudela when the latter had called some ten days ago to tell me of the course he intended to pursue in these negotiations. The Ambassador said that since I knew Dr. Concha’s attitude I would understand that he was not expressing any personal disquiet in a cable which he had sent the Ambassador a few days ago remarking upon press despatches which had come from Washington relating that the delegates of Ecuador had come to see me twice last week and had discussed the boundary negotiations. The Ambassador said that apparently a great deal of prominence had been given in the Peruvian press to these reports and that Dr. Concha had asked him to inquire of me the nature of these conversations.

I told the Ambassador that I was not only most happy to tell him of the conversations but that I only regretted that he and Dr. Concha had not been in the room at the time. I said that Dr. Viteri¹⁵ had called to see me solely in order to tell me that he was now very optimistic as to the way in which the negotiations were proceeding; that he felt that the personal talks which he was having with Dr. Tudela were the only practical way of handling the negotiations and that he was now convinced for the first time that the Peruvian Government really desired to reach a satisfactory settlement through these negotiations. I said to the Ambassador that the only reason why these gentlemen had come to see me twice was that the first time they called I was very much pressed for time and that since, as the Ambassador knew, Dr. Viteri was a gentleman who talked at very considerable length, what he wanted to tell me had to be in two conversations instead of in one. I added that I wished that he would tell Dr. Concha exactly what I had said and that I regretted the press publicity given to these visits but that it was difficult for me, under our system, to avoid it. In conclusion I said that the attitude of this Government was perfectly well known to the Peruvian Government, namely that it was taking no part whatever in the conversations but that if either side wanted to tell us what was going on we could hardly avoid, as their host and as an impartial friend of both, listening to what they cared to say.

The Ambassador said he fully realized the circumstances and that he knew beforehand that this was what I would say. He said he was only afraid of undue publicity in Lima and that he thought that Dr. Concha might prevent the Peruvian press from giving exaggerated importance to something which had no importance in principle.

S[umner] W[elles]

12. See pp. 1 ff.
13. See pp. 217 ff.
14. Francisco Tudela y Varela, Chairman of the Peruvian delegation to the Washington conferences for the arbitration of the boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru.
15. Homero Viteri Lafronte, Chairman of the Ecuadoran delegation to the Washington conferences for the arbitration of the boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru.