722.2315/2704: Telegram
The Ambassador in Peru (Norweb) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 24—5:20 a.m.]
712. For the Under Secretary. My telegram No. 710, December 23, 10 a.m.44 The Brazilian Ambassador received instructions this morning to insist upon Peruvian acceptance, prior to the Rio de Janeiro meeting, of the 1936 line as the basis for a definitive settlement: the withdrawal of troops from the province of El Oro; the agreement of the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the boundary question at Rio de Janeiro but outside the conference; and Peruvian agreement to a meeting at Buenos Aires or some other place after the Rio de Janeiro meeting in order to reach a final settlement with Ecuador. I am also told that the Argentine Ambassador and I would receive similar instructions but these have not yet reached us.
The Argentine Ambassador, who leaves Lima tomorrow, reviewed the whole situation with the President and Minister for Foreign Affairs in order to be able to give the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs the latest report. The President was unyielding in his refusal to accept the 1936 line as the basis for negotiations in the Oriente and insisted that Ecuador recognize that line in the Oriente as its maximum aspirations while Peru would agree to its present line of advanced posts as its maximum aspirations and the zone between would be the subject of negotiations.
This is a discouraging development, although a definitive settlement in the west along the 1936 line and the withdrawal of Peruvian troops from El Oro appear entirely feasible with Ecuadoran agreement. The report of the Peruvian Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro that the opposition of the Peruvian Ambassador in Argentina to the 1936 line probably are responsible for the present situation. Peru seems less concerned about the Rio de Janeiro meeting in connection with the boundary dispute. It is possible but not probable that, as the Brazilian Ambassador believes, Peru may intend to withdraw troops from El Oro before the meeting. The Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs is going to Buenos Aires and will travel from there to Rio de Janeiro with the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Argentine Ambassador thinks that the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs may feel that he and Ambassador Benavides will be able to obtain some advance commitment from Argentina favorable to the Peruvian point of view. I think that Peru may feel that it will have a good case if there is a definitive settlement and withdrawal of troops in the west, since it can claim that advances in the Oriente have [Page 252] been made by both parties and that Peruvian advances are into territory in dispute and not into Ecuadoran territory.
Will it now be possible for the three mediatory Governments to instruct their representatives at Lima and Quito to submit a specific proposal for an early and definitive settlement? A proposal for a complete settlement on the basis of the 1936 line most probably would be rejected by Peru. The alternative would be immediate and definitive settlement in the west along the 1936 line; and agreement upon the basis of negotiations in the Oriente, possibly defining the zone in litigation there as that included between the 1936 line and the present line of Peruvian outposts.
- Not printed.↩