723.2515/2212: Telegram
The Ambassador in Chile (Collier) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:45 p.m.]
116. Your No. 67, April 26, 4 p.m., last sentence. Nothing that I have said could be construed as advice or instigation. My few and brief conversations with the Bolivian Minister here convince me that President Siles’ telegram to President Coolidge was thought by the former to be a natural, proper, and timely step for Bolivia to take in view of your alternative proposition of April 15 and of the repeated assurances given by both Chile and Peru that Bolivia could have a port on the Pacific. The Bolivian-Chilean situation as it exists today helps rather than hinders your negotiations, in my opinion. The repeated public declarations made by Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs that Bolivia’s aspirations would receive consideration and that Chilean-Bolivian conversations were proceeding favorably were intended to defeat any solution except a plebiscite, first, by winning the support of Bolivian voters in Arica; next, by causing Bolivia to hold off until Chile had won Arica and would be in position to name her own terms; and lastly, by holding in check the Chileans who are demanding that commercial arrangement be made, immediately under your good offices while Chile has still at least a claim to the provinces and that it be not delayed until she may have lost the plebiscite or it has been annulled. Chilean Ambassador’s annoyance is evidence to me that Chile’s position has been weakened by Bolivia’s action and that she will have to yield. If you can first get Peru to accept plan set forth in my No. 110, April 25, I believe that there will be no difficulty about an agreement being reached by Chile and Peru.