723.2515/2412: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Consul at Arica (Von Tresckow)
For Lassiter. Ambassador Collier reports25 that important conferences of President and Cabinet with members of Foreign Affairs Committees of both Houses of Chilean Congress and heads of all [Page 472] political parties are being held at Santiago in an effort to agree upon some basis of settlement for submission to Plenipotentiaries in Washington for consideration. Collier reports that it is stated these conferences can not be concluded in time to submit results here until Thursday. Ambassador Cruchaga on instructions from Chilean Government asked me Sunday evening to postpone the meeting of the Plenipotentiaries set for Monday until Thursday. I declined, but held a meeting yesterday afternoon at which Cruchaga presented telegram from Chilean Government requesting a postponement. The next meeting of the Plenipotentiaries will be held Wednesday morning, but it is to be doubted if full report of action at Santiago will be available at that time although Cruchaga has requested definite word by tonight.
You will observe that Chile is asking for delay in negotiations here at same time that Edwards is demanding immediate action in Arica. I have forcibly pointed out inconsistency of such a course and yesterday Cruchaga volunteered to telegraph Chilean Government to urge that appropriate instructions be given Edwards to agree to further postponement of some sort in Arica. Ambassador Collier is also dealing with matter directly with Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is evident that Chilean policy is both unsettled and inconsistent as result of factional differences within the Government and the Congress; and under these conditions Edwards will, perhaps, continue to follow his own course without interference.
While at this moment I can not regard prospects of settlement as bright, and while Chilean attitude at Arica and in Washington gives little encouragement at this juncture to idea that Chile is seeking real solution of problem in good faith, I think that it must be recognized by all of us that there is conflict of opinion on question in Chile and that Collier’s appeal for time to allow matter to be fought out at Santiago can not be wholly ignored. Final record should leave no room for assertion to be made that we have closed door at very moment when parties are making serious effort constructively to adjust their differences. If resolution quoted in my telegram of June 3, 5 p.m., is so introduced, preliminary record should show clearly that Chilean member of Commission has flatly refused all further delay and has precipitated final action by Commission on the plebiscite.
In regard to procedure at meeting of Commission on Wednesday, I make following suggestions:
- (1)
- It seems advisable that facts and conclusions set forth in Edwards’ speech last Saturday before Commission should receive some comment from you if you have not yet made any. It will not be necessary to make long or detailed statement. Only point is, that these facts and conclusions, with which I understand you do not at all agree, should not be allowed to stand unchallenged on the record. [Page 473] Yesterday Ambassador Cruchaga handed me copy of Edwards’ speech,26 and fact that it has been telegraphed here points significantly to intention to give it out shortly for wide publicity.
- (2)
- If on Wednesday Edwards maintains his uncompromising attitude and insists on a decision, I do not see why you should not say that you are advised that negotiations in Washington are going ahead at request of both Chile and Peru; that Chile, in particular, has shown intention to submit to the Plenipotentiaries some definite proposal of settlement and has requested few days’ delay for that purpose; and that in these circumstances Peru and Chile should carefully consider whether their best interests would not be served by this brief delay and thus avoid for a few days the creation of a new situation. It is my idea that this suggestion should be framed in such a way as to place responsibility squarely upon the disputing parties, and especially upon Chilean member of the Commission, to say that despite critical state of negotiations Chile insists upon action by Commission.
- (3)
- After having exhausted every reasonable expedient to obtain postponement and having fixed responsibility as indicated under (2) above, introduction of your resolution would then appear to be inevitable. You will appreciate that introduction of resolution, even though Chilean Commissioner then requests time to consult his Government before acting upon it, will be practically equivalent to its passage as far as public is concerned. I should be pleased if events took such a course as to permit introduction of resolution to go over until another meeting, but Edwards may force action and it is important to see that record is plain if he does force it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .