723.2515/1334
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a
Conversation with the Chilean Ambassador (Mathieu), June 16, 1922
June 16, 1922
The Chilean Ambassador called pursuant to appointment and left with
the Secretary a memorandum,12 in Spanish, stating the
course of the proceedings at the Conference and the difficulties
which had been encountered. The Ambassador did not ask for the good
offices of the Secretary, but said that he was simply instructed to
give him information as to the state of affairs. As it was evident
that the Ambassador desired to talk informally and to have any
suggestions that the Secretary might care to make, the Secretary
said that he was glad to receive the information, and that if in a
personal and informal way he could be of assistance he should be
glad to give it. The Ambassador then spoke of the tentative
suggestions that had been outlined in conversations between Dr.
Izquierdo and Dr. Porras. The Ambassador said that these had not
been submitted to the Chilean Government. As the Peruvian Government
had refused them there was no occasion for such submission, but that
so far as Dr. Izquierdo and Dr. Porras were individually concerned
they had been able to reach this basis. The Secretary asked for a
copy of this tentative arrangement. The Ambassador said that Dr.
Rowe had one and that he would have it sent to the Secretary. The
Secretary made it clear that he would like to take it up in a wholly
individual way and that he and the Ambassador could discuss the
matter quite frankly in order that, if possible, means of solving
the problem could be considered. The Ambassador said that this was
exactly what he desired and expressed the opinion that it was very
important that this should be done as this was now the “only hope”
of reaching a settlement.
In the course of the interview, in referring to the Peruvian
suggestion that the question should be arbitrated whether a
plebiscite could be held, the Ambassador said that Chile had always
insisted that the plebiscite should be held and that this was the
way of carrying out Article 3 but that there was no objection on
Chile’s part to Peru arguing before the arbiter against the view
that the plebiscite should be held. The Ambassador further stated
that Chile could not consider the submission to arbitration of the
question of the disposition of the territory.
It was then arranged that there should be a further interview on the
following day.
[Page 472]
The Chilean
Embassy to the Department of
State
Memorandum
1. The Embassy of Chile believes that the time has come to inform
the Department of State of the present condition of the
Chilean-Peruvian negotiations, since the delegation of Chile is
compelled to regard as exhausted its efforts to arrive at a
direct agreement with the delegation of Peru.
2. The delegation of Chile, in the course of the meetings,
proposed five formulas for a solution, within which, in the
opinion of its Government, the only subject of discussion
between the two countries has always been, namely, the
conditions under which the plebiscite stipulated in article 3,
not yet executed, of the Treaty of Ancón should be executed. The
five formulas of Chile were flatly rejected by the delegation of
Peru. They are as follows:
- (a)
- Carry out the plebiscite in accordance with the
agreements of the Huneeus-Valera negotiations of
1912;15
- (b)
- Carry it out in accordance with the counter proposal
submitted by Senor Porras as Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Peru to the Legation of Chile at Lima, under date of
November 5, 1909,16 together with
the modifications suggested by the delegates of
Chile;
- (c)
- Submit at once to arbitration all the conditions of
the plebiscite over which there may have been no
previous agreement between the two Governments, or
concerning which there may have been conflicting
propositions;
- (d)
- Begin a discussion of the bases of the plebiscite
without reference to any previous negotiations, points
of disagreement being referred to arbitration;
- (e)
- Concurring in the purpose manifested by the Peruvian
delegation to seek the way to execute article 3 of the
Treaty of Ancón, and considering that the first
proposition of its formula subjects to the possibility
of elimination the judicial principle of consulting the
inhabitants of Tacna and Arica for a decision as to the
final sovereignty over those territories, under
circumstances requiring that consultation by universal
law and as set forth in a treaty the full force and
observance of which form the foundation of the American
invitation, the Government of Chile accepts the third
proposition of the Peruvian formula and proposes to the
Government of the United States that it fix the form in
which the plebiscite consultation is to be made.
The propositions a, b, c, and d were offered as optional to the
Peruvian delegation. Proposition e was
made as a counter proposal to formula b
proposed by the delegation of Peru.
[Page 473]
3. The delegation of Peru, for its part, has proposed the
following two formulas:
- (a)
- That article 3 of the treaty be applied so as to
establish a presumption of the will of the inhabitants
of Tacna and Arica in 1894, and that that will being
known, the plebiscite be regarded as having been held
and the provinces be returned to Peru;
- (b)
- For the purpose of determining the manner in which the
stipulation in article 3 of the Treaty of Ancón should
be carried out, let the question be referred to
arbitration as to whether or not it is proper under the
present circumstances to put the plebiscite into effect.
If it is not proper, to which country does the final
sovereignty over Tacna and Arica belong and under what
conditions? If it is proper, under what conditions shall
the plebiscite be carried into effect?
4. The delegation of Chile regrets its inability to accept either
of the two formulas of the delegation of Peru because it
believes that they are not intended to carry out the Treaty of
Ancón, besides departing from the terms of President Harding’s
invitation, which were accepted by the two Governments and
which, in the opinion of the Chilean delegation, established a
tacit agreement regarding the matter open to discussion in this
conference and upon the question of eventual arbitration
contemplated in the same invitation.
5. The Embassy of Chile, in placing on record the failure of the
efforts of the delegation of its country towards reaching the
agreement sought, renews, in the name of its Government, its
offer to accept any formula of solution that is kept in
conformity with the execution of the treaty and with the
conditions of President Harding’s invitation.
Washington, June 15, 1922.
