723.2515/1037: Telegram

The Ambassador in Chile (Collier) to the Acting Secretary of State

63. Have had many recent conversations with President of Chile, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Interior, diplomatic colleagues and well-informed persons. All agree that unanimous adverse report of Foreign Affairs Committee to be presented Thursday means material amendments and reservations to protocol. Last Friday Alessandri addressed public meeting of labor unions and students denouncing opponents of the protocol and asserting determination to prevent rejection. Senate considering this an attack on Constitutional privileges has called extra session. Cabinet crisis narrowly averted, still possible. Opposition much increased. In all conversations I have emphasized that the slightest modification in protocol is practical rejection because undoubtedly unacceptable to Peru, also that it perpetuates ancient dispute without possibility of any future pacific settlement. I have said it is useless for me to consider any proposed modification of protocol. Nevertheless, unknown to Chilean Government, I report and recommend as follows:

Utterances attributed to President of Peru, Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Delegate Porras, and manifestoes of various Peruvian organizations that settlement of Tacna-Arica question does not imply abandonment of efforts to recover Tarapaca, cause Chile to consider Peru as violating basis of agreement to participate in recent conference and to feel that ratification of protocol and any proceedings resulting therefrom may possibly sacrifice Chilean interest without establishing South American harmony and that should Peru win plebiscite Tacna-Arica would become base for future military attack on Chile.

[Page 510]

I recommend that you or I either officially or in strict confidence give to Chilean authorities the statement made by you to President of Peru early in the conference to the effect that Tarapaca is settled question and add that the United States would consider any armed attempt to recover it as unjustified.

Numerous expression[s] of Peruvian statesmen and press that arbitrator will declare plebiscite improper because of alleged expulsions cause belief here that nation is to be arraigned on what may be considered a criminal charge and this is inconsistent with national dignity. While I believe there have been some expulsions in past years and some connivance by officials with private persons in acts tending to cause Peruvians to leave, reports have been grossly exaggerated and some excuses can be made in most instances. … Assuming wrong has been done I regard it as a case where it cannot be wholly undone without serious injury to existing parties, namely, the progressive people who have now settled in the provinces. Respectfully suggest that very much weight should be given to their right of self-determination. If justice requires inquiry into alleged expulsions it can be fully satisfied by granting vote to those who show illegality of procedure and prove intention to reincorporate themselves in the provinces by actual settlement within time to be prescribed. Although realizing impropriety of any prejudgment of the case I feel that if Chileans could be reassured that Peruvian claims that plebiscite will not be ordered are unfounded and if assurance could be given that present inhabitants can exercise self-determination great obstacle to ratification would be removed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Referring to cables September 732 and 933 sent you at Rio de Janeiro, Chilean fear that arbitrator will permit women and illiterates to vote is said to be based upon report made by Mathieu of statement by you during conference that qualifications in plebiscites held by League of Nations would be applicable. This fear is one of greatest obstacles to approbation of the protocol. Might be partially removed if either official or strictly confidential statement could be made that Mathieu misunderstood you and wholly so if intimated that in case of plebiscite qualifications for general elections in Peru and Chile which exclude such persons would be applied. …

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Collier
  1. Not found in Department files.
  2. See telegram no. 56, Sept. 10, from the Secretary of State, on Special Mission in Brazil, p. 508.