824.00/8–3149: Telegram
The Chargé in Bolivia (Espy) to the Secretary of State
494. Late yesterday afternoon, I received telephone call from Apostolic Nuncio, Dean Diplomatic Corps. Informed me proposed diplomatic corps issue through him statement based humanitarian grounds calling on fighting elements respect lives prisoners. A report circulated during day that two or more government pilots in hands of rebels had been murdered by their captors. I then telephoned Chilean Ambassador, sponsor this action, who said that wife Colonel Terrazas, Chief of Staff, had urgently appealed to him for intervention by diplomatic corps save life her relative who pilot and held by insurgents at Cochabamba. I informed him questioned propriety this intervention. Chilean Ambassador insisted was purely humanitarian step, and in no way intervention in internal affairs country. A meeting was scheduled for 8:30 last night to consider communiqué to be issued.
At meeting corps presented with communiqué, which to my amazement and alarm, so phrased as to be appeal to “combatants” as if they were on equal standing and had status of belligerency. Chilean Ambassador explained “we cannot be standard bearer for either side”.
I felt that this implied recognition belligerency MNR revolutionaries so important that I must take immediate issue. British Chargé d’Affaires was of same opinion. I said that, although I wholeheartedly supported humanitarianism, I was strongly opposed wording communiqué which would seem give tacit diplomatic corps recognition revolutionary forces; that I and other members of corps [Page 532] were representatives to duly elected constitutional democratic government of Bolivia, and that we had no right intervene in affairs of country, particularly such manner appear give impression other than that unlawful rebellion those seeking overthrow government, I further raised question implication communiqué proscribing government punishing rebels, as in case some army officers guilty treacherous treason. I added finally that report re murdering two pilots at Cochabamba had not been established and I wondered whether we should not wait until definite confirmation received. (Today’s press reports prisoners not killed.)
To my and others amazement, we were then told that communiqué had been handed three hours before to radio stations for broadcast, and that two ambassadors, those Argentina and Peru, and Papal Nuncio, had felt matter such emergency that they believed they should not wait for approval text by rest of corps. British Chargé d’Affaires and I took strong exception pointing out all members corps could been reached during afternoon for consultation.
Argentine Ambassador then launched into discussion his views matter. He said he had given communiqué to radio stations, and also assisted in its drafting. He spoke of the “two bands” of combatants, never once using words revolutionaries, rebels or insurgents and asserted that this was case civil war in which both sides had rights. I interrupted him to say that legally it was not civil war as had not been so designated by government and, therefore, considerations pertaining that basis could not be applied. Ambassador stated he had every right speak for corps as he spoke for majority, even though no prior expression their views except Ambassadors of Chile and Peru. He had effrontery say to us, those who disagreed communiqué could disassociate selves from it. At this point, Minister Colombia intervened, pronounced strong disapproval action in publishing statement before acceptance entire corps, said his opinion text inappropriate and suggested certain changes. These made altering communiqué appeal avoidance cruelty and respecting lives prisoners humanitarian grounds which broadcast last night and carried this morning press. Meeting ended assurance Nuncio no repetition this incident.
This morning I called on Chilean Ambassador express hope no misunderstanding my point view last night. In our friendly chat, Ambassador said that he thought I had been entirely right, and that he had not had his eyes fully open to force of implications communiqué other than its intended humanitarian approach. He mentioned that Argentine Ambassador, in doing part drafting, had insisted statement “must be forceful”. My and British Chargé’s [Page 533] opinion Argentine Ambassador seized opportunity twist context communiqué deliberately express tacit support rebels.1
Sent Department 494, repeated Santiago, Buenos Aires, Lima.
- The text of the Department’s reply, contained in telegram 230, September 2, to La Paz, read as follows: “Reurtel 494, Aug 31. Dept strongly approves your position on proposed statement Diplomatic Corps.” (824.00/8–3149)↩