Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

723.00/11–3050: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Peru ¹

confidential   priority

Washington, November 30, 1950—6 p. m.

152. For Amb from Miller. Dept seriously concerned over intransigence Peru in demanding delivery Haya and in threatening break relations Colom order obtain its desires. At same time Colombians are adamant in not returning refugee while at same time responsible officials Colom Govt have sought Depts good offices working out any solution of matter which will serve Colom primary purpose maintaining inviolate principle of asylum.

Dept fully appreciates considerations set forth urtel 287 effect that present opinion in Govt circles and ruling class Peru wld be hostile to any tender good offices by other countries or any suggestions as to settlement of case. Nevertheless fact of matter is we are confronted with dispute on part of two countries as to meaning of decision. Regardless Peruvians contentions as to interpretation Colombians argue sincerely court has not ordered delivery of refugee and their position supported by court’s observations in opinion prior to entering into discussion of third question submitted by parties where court observed that Peruvian counterclaim did not raise question of “possible surrender of the refugee” to Peru.

Under circumstances it seems clear to us that parties have not exhausted all possible means peaceful solution of case and we also feel regardless of probable attitude of Govt circles and ruling class US Govt wld be derelict its duties and subj to censure by public opinion if it did not do everything appropriately in its power bring parties together. Accordingly you are requested unless you perceive very strong objection call on Pres Odría and deliver him on behalf US Govt stressing pers interest Secy Acheson and self fol points:

1. We are confronted with sincere dispute between Peru and Colom over interpretation court’s ruling. In approaching Peru US is not under any circumstances taking sides in favor of Colom or against Peru but is acting merely because of substance of dispute which potentially constitutes a threat to the peace or at very least threat to inter-Amer solidarity.

2. This threat comes at time when nations of Western Hemisphere and of free world are faced with one of gravest crises in all history and it is unthinkable that our united front shld be broken at time when more than ever we must do everything possible provide for common defense and security. Belligerent attitude Peru in connection Ecuadoran dispute² and charges made against Colom connection with island in Amazon³ coupled with barricading of Colom Emb and Peru’s threats break relations Colom have combined to cause deep anxiety in US Govt circles whether Peru is not putting its own natl interests ahead of far more grave internatl considerations which directly affect Peru as well other nations of hemisphere.

3. Rightly or wrongly Haya is a personage of great standing in public opinion of US and other countries and his case has had great repercussions throughout Hemisphere because of personal prestige and importance attached to it as symbolic of right of asylum. Any action on part of Peru this time which wld damage hemispheric solidarity wld cause grave adverse repercussions towards Peru in public opinion throughout free world which wld hurt its internatl standing at time when Odría Govt through sound and courageous econ policy has done much to rehabilitate Peru. You might refer this connection to our steadfast efforts assist Peru in all these efforts.

4. Accordingly in spirit of sincere friendship towards Peru US Govt suggests that every effort be made both sides reach peaceful solution of case through any means available. Suggest you repeat that in view specific statement court as to nonsubmission question relating requirement of return of refugee it seems clear parties have not exhausted all means settlement and have not even exhausted all avenues approach to solution through ICJ. While therefore wld be possible submit question to Court as one possible approach to peaceful settlement we do not necessarily suggest such procedure in view length time involved reaching decision and desirability finding solution will avoid further dragging out of asylum with consequent bitterness and tension which situation causes. Preferable solutions wld appear be acceptance good offices by say Arg, Braz and US or mediation or conciliation.

You might in your discretion mention that we believe Colom Govt might accept approach along these lines toward peaceful solution.⁴

Repeating this tel to Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires and instructing our Embs there to suggest to Braz and Arg Govts that they instruct their Embs in Lima to make parallel but not joint approaches Peru Govt along same lines.⁵ [Miller.]

Acheson

1. This telegram was repeated to Rio de Janeiro as 383 and Buenos Aires as 325 and for information only to Bogotá as 178.
2. For information regarding this dispute, see pp. 855 ff.
3. Documentation, not printed, regarding the controversy over Amazon Island is contained in files 723.00 and 621.23 for 1950.

4. According to a memorandum by Mr. Krieg of a conversation held November 30 between himself and Dr. Misael Pastrana, Minister Counselor of the Colombian Embassy, the latter responded favorably to an outline of a U.S. proposal similar to that in this telegram, though he had considered it unlikely of acceptance by Peru. (723.00/11–3050)

   In a memorandum dated December 11 of a telephone conversation held two days earlier with Mr. Miller, Lester D. Mallory, Chargé d’Affaires of the Embassy in Buenos Aires, wrote in part: “[Mr. Miller] said that Peru’s principal preoccupation appeared to be a fear that should they agree to go along with any proposal that Colombia would not give up the gentleman. Mr. Miller said that the Department of State had a promise in writing to the effect that Mr. de la Torre would be delivered, I understanding that this naturally would take place following suitable arrangements or negotiations.” (723.00/12–1150). Additional information regarding this “promise” or its date has not been located in Department of State files. The original provenance of the document just cited was the Buenos Aires Post File.

5. Telegraphic correspondence between the Embassy in Buenos Aires and the Department leaves uncertain the degree to which Argentina responded to this request. (file 723.00 for December 1950)

   In telegram 739 from Rio de Janeiro, December 2, 1950, Ambassador Johnson said in part that after acting on the Department’s instruction he had been informed by the Foreign Office that since the suggestion of good offices by friendly powers had already been made to Peru by the United States the Peruvian reaction should be awaited. He had been further told that it was Brazil’s tradition to lend, but not to initiate, good offices. (723.00/12–250)