723.2515/1333
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a
Conversation with the Permian Ambassador (Pezet), June 7, 1922
June 7, 1922
The Ambassador called on the Secretary at 1529 Eighteenth Street at
6.30 p.m., and said that the Peruvian Government thought that it had
made a very fair proposal for the arbitration of the Taena-Arica
controversy; that Chile had made a very unsatisfactory reply and
that a deadlock had been reached; that it was the understanding that
the Ambassadors should respectively state their cases to the
Secretary. The Peruvian Ambassador had asked for an appointment
because he was leaving for New York, and he supposed the Chilean
Ambassador would call on the next day. The Ambassador left with the
Secretary memoranda of what had taken place,10 which are annexed. The Secretary made
no comment, saying that he did not desire to make any suggestion
until he had heard from both Governments and understood fully the
entire situation.
[Annex]
Statement by the Peruvian
Delegation
In to-day’s session the Chilean Delegation declared that it did
not accept the Peruvian proposals—wherein arbitration is
proposed to determine whether, under present circumstances, a
plebiscite should or should not be held, to decide to whom
possession of the provinces of Tacna and Arica should be given,
and under what conditions,—and proposed that the Government of
the United States, as arbitrator, should decide upon the third
point alone of the Peruvian proposition; that is to say, to
decide upon the conditions for the holding of the
plebiscite.
The Peruvian Delegation, while accepting of course the choice of
the arbitrator, regrets that the Chilean Delegation should have
given an unfavourable reply to its conciliatory proposition, in
which due regard was given to the aspirations of both countries.
The Peruvian Delegation considered that the Chilean Delegation
maintained a point of view which left out of account all
feelings of concord and justice, since its decision implies the
intention of overlooking present circumstances and also the
consequences of the actions of the Chilean authorities during
the 28 years which have elapsed since the date
[Page 470]
upon which the plebiscite should
have taken place, as well as a disregard for Peru’s right to
demand that an impartial judge should examine the case
fully.
The Peruvian Delegation therefore, maintained in its entirety its
proposals as formulated on the 27th. of May.11
