723.2515/1344
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Chairman of the Peruvian Delegation (Porras), July 6, 1922
Dr. Porras called with a representative of the Embassy as interpreter, the appointment being arranged by Ambassador Pezet. Mr. Phillips was present at the interview.
Dr. Porras expressed his appreciation of the endeavors of the Secretary to aid the parties to reach a settlement. He said that the Peruvian Government felt deep concern with regard to the contingency which would arise in case the arbitrator should decide that a plebiscite should not be held. It was feared that in that case, Chile being in possession, the direct negotiations would not be successful. Therefore, it was desired that if the parties were unable to reach an agreement, it should be agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. Dr. Porras elaborated the point, following the arguments that had been previously used by Ambassador Pezet in the former interview.
[Page 496]The Secretary said that the difficulty with that proposition was that it was substantially the same as the original proposition of Peru, that in the event that the arbitrator decided that a plebiscite should not be held the disposition of the territory should be referred to arbitration. This was so because Peru, under the suggestion made by Dr. Porras, could by refusing to agree force the arbitration and thus accomplish its original purpose. The question, therefore, was whether an agreement to arbitrate the disposition of the territory in the proposed event could be insisted upon. The Secretary repeated what he had formerly said that, while he considered the proposal of Peru to be fair and generous to submit such a matter to arbitration, the question had to be considered also from the standpoint of the other party to the controversy. Chile had always insisted that the only question was with reference to the plebiscite and had absolutely refused to submit to arbitration the question whether a plebiscite’ should be held. Now that Chile was willing to submit that question to arbitration, she was entitled to say that she had made this concession and that the contingency in case the arbitrator decided that a plebiscite should not be held would involve a new situation, and there should be opportunity for the parties to reach a settlement by direct negotiations. It could be pointed out that in that event there would be no principles or standards that could be invoked which an arbitrator should follow; that it was not a matter for arbitration because of the lack of any standards that could be resorted to.
The Secretary read to Dr. Porras the substance of his instruction of July fifth to the American Chargé at Lima in answer to President Leguia’s objections to the Secretary’s suggestion. The Secretary pointed out that it was a mistake to say that Chile would be better off under the suggestion than she would otherwise. If the plebiscite were held, the latter matter would be disposed of. If the arbitrator decided that the plebiscite should not be held, Chile would no longer be in possession subject to the provision for a plebiscite, but there would be an entirely new situation and Chile would not be able, in the light of the opinion of the world, to refuse to endeavor to reach an agreement as to the disposition of the territory. The Secretary pointed out that the alternative was the entire failure of the Conference, and this would leave Chile in full possession, with the assertion that she had done her best to meet Peru by waiving her original objection whether a plebiscite should be held. To end the Conference in this way would be greatly to the disadvantage of Peru. On the other hand, if the proposed arbitration did not result in the disposition of the entire matter, still there would be a great gain in the settlement of the question which had been up to this time the principal contention.
[Page 497]Dr. Porras said that he appreciated the arguments of the Secretary and that he agreed with them. He said, however, that his Government did not desire to be left in the position of conducting direct negotiations in case of a decision that the plebiscite should not be held, without any aid to make the negotiations effective. Dr. Porras said that in that event he thought there should be an agreement that both parties should have recourse to the good offices of the United States.
The Secretary said that in his original proposal he had said to both parties that the United States would be glad in the supposed contingency to offer its good offices if these were welcome to both Governments. The Secretary said that, of course, “good offices” were distinct from arbitration; that in the nature of things they were friendly offices. But the suggestions made could be refused. Dr. Porras said he understood that.
The Secretary said that it would be rather delicate for him to make a suggestion that the parties should agree to resort to the good offices of the United States, but he thought the suggestion was an entirely reasonable one and that the Secretary would be willing to say so to Chile.
The Secretary asked whether he could say to Chile that Peru was willing to make an agreement upon this basis, that is, to accept the Secretary’s original suggestion with the qualification that in case the arbitrator decided that a plebiscite should not be held, the parties should promptly enter into direct negotiations, and if they could not reach an agreement, to invite the United States to use its good offices. Dr. Porras said he was authorized to say that this would be acceptable to the Peruvian Government. The Secretary made it clear that he did not wish to make such a suggestion as to the use of good offices on his own initiative, and Dr. Porras said that he could state that it was suggested by the Peruvians to meet the difficulty which had been raised.