Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1922, Volume I

723.2515/1339

Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Chilean Ambassador (Mathieu), June 28, 1922

June 28, 1922

The Ambassador said that certain questions had arisen with respect to the interpretation put upon the Secretary’s suggestions, and he feared that there had been some misunderstanding. The Secretary said he did not see how there could have been any misunderstanding as he had been very clear in the suggestions he had made and had made exactly the same statements to both parties. The Ambassador said that the suggestion had been made that there should be an arbitration in case a plebiscite could not be had and that he had not understood this to be the Secretary’s suggestion. The Secretary said there was no basis for any such statement; that he had not suggested that there should be an arbitration in the event—quite the contrary. The Ambassador said he had understood, in case it were decided the plebiscite should not be had, the arbitrator should not attempt to determine the disposition of the territory, but that the parties should be free to enter into negotiations on that subject. The Ambassador left with the Secretary a memorandum, in Spanish,²¹ of what he had advised his Government upon this point. The Secretary said that there was no question about his suggestion that in the event stated Chile and Peru should enter into direct negotiations and, of course, this meant that they were free to negotiate. The statement, however, that they were free to negotiate at their convenience seemed to carry with it the idea that the negotiations could be undertaken or not as they pleased or could be indefinitely postponed. The Secretary said that this was not a proper construction of what he had said; that he had stated clearly that if the arbitrators decided that there was to be no plebiscite the parties would have to adjust the matter by direct negotiation, but this meant that they would be in honor bound to enter into these negotiations. It was true that they were free to negotiate in the sense that they were not bound in advance by any agreement as to the method of the disposition of the territory which would be ultimately decided upon. It did not mean, however, that they were free not to negotiate. The territory in the case supposed would remain to be disposed of and it would not belong to either; that Chile, of course, would be in possession, but would not be in possession as a final owner but simply because it was left in her possession pending some practical disposition, the provision for the plebiscite having failed. The Secretary pointed out that Chile, being in possession, she might not be disposed to negotiate and that there might be a failure to reach a settlement because of Chile’s indifference. The Secretary said he could not believe that such an attitude would be taken by Chile as she would be bound in good faith to enter into negotiations in order to effect a reasonable plan of settlement. The Secretary said, however, he thought this apprehension of Peru should be removed and that it could be removed by having the parties agree in their protocol or in an exchange of notes as they might think convenient, that they should enter into negotiations within a stated period, and that they should conduct their negotiations between a conference of delegates which could be held in Washington.

The Ambassador said that that would raise a point of great difficulty; that Chile had expected that the fact that there would be no principles to be applied in case the plebiscite were not held would constitute a powerful argument before the arbitrator that he should decide in favor of the plebiscite, and that if they agreed in the matter suggested as to what should be done in case the decision were against the plebiscite it would detract from the force of this argument. The Secretary said that he did not see that it would detract from the force of any legitimate argument that could be raised upon this point. The fact that the parties had agreed to enter into negotiations or to meet in conference for the purpose of negotiating would not necessarily assure any particular sort of agreement as to the disposition of the problem and this could be urged before the arbitrator if they desired to urge it as one of the reasons for deciding in favor of the plebiscite. Certainly they were not at liberty to urge before the arbitrator that, if a plebiscite were not decided upon, they were free to ignore the duty to negotiate and try in good faith to effect a settlement for they would not have such liberty as a matter of honor. Hence, they would not be prejudiced as to their argument before the arbitrator in any way. The Ambassador called attention to the public opinion of his country and the difficulty they would have if they were tied down in the way proposed with respect to negotiations. The Secretary called attention to the fact that there were two parties to the controversy; that each had difficulties with public opinion in its country; and that these difficulties would have to be resolved by a reasonable agreement. The question was then: Was it reasonable for Chile to remain in possession and not bind herself to negotiate in an appropriate manner promptly with respect to the disposition of the territory in the event supposed? The Secretary did not think that this was a reasonable attitude and the Secretary pointed out that he did not desire either party to be in a position to resist the efforts at settlement upon the ground that it had been asked to commit itself to anything unreasonable. For this reason he had opposed the Peruvian suggestion for a broad submission to arbitration because he thought that Chile’s answer to that suggestion that there were no principles to guide the arbitrator in the contingency supposed would be a reasonable answer. On the other hand, when the Peruvians expressed their apprehensions with respect to Chile’s attitude as to negotiations, in case there were no plebiscite, he was bound to conclude that it was entirely reasonable that Chile should be asked to agree with respect to the promptness and method of their negotiations upon that subject.

The Ambassador said that he would like very much to have the Secretary give him a memorandum of the points of his suggestions and he could take them up with the Chilean delegates. The Secretary said that he would do so and accordingly sent to the Chilean Ambassador the attached memorandum on the same afternoon.

[Annex]

Memorandum of Suggestions Made by the Secretary of State²²

1. That the recital with respect to the purpose of the present Conference should be as follows:

“for the purpose of arriving at a settlement of the long standing controversy with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon.”

2. That the scope of the proposed submission to arbitration should be defined as follows:

“The questions arising out of the unfulfilled provisions of Article 3 of the Treaty of Ancon.”

3. That the parties, to leave no question as to the exact scope of the submission to arbitration should agree by an exchange of notes, or in their protocol, as they might think convenient:

(A) That the Arbitrator should determine whether under present circumstances a plebiscite should or should not be held; and

If the Arbitrator should decide that a plebiscite should be held, the Arbitrator should then determine completely the conditions of the plebiscite as well as the manner of holding the same.

(B) That in case the Arbitrator should decide that the plebiscite should not be held, the Arbitrator should not be authorized to determine the disposition of the Tacna-Arica territory—in view of the absence of juridical principles which could govern such a decision—but that the Governments of Chile and Peru should promptly, in that event, undertake the settlement of this question by direct negotiations.

It is further suggested, for the purpose of defining appropriate procedure for carrying out the last mentioned provision of the agreement, that the Governments of Chile and Peru should agree that in the supposed contingency they should undertake the negotiations within a time stated and through delegates to a conference, which, it is suggested, might well be held at Washington.

21. Not found in Department files.
22. Marginal note by Mr. Hughes: “Sent to Chilian Ambassador on June 28/22 and returned by him to the Secretary on June 29/22 … C. E. H.”