723.2515/3494
The Bolivian Minister (Diez de Medina) to the Secretary of State59
Excellency: The Government of Bolivia has addressed the following Circular to its Legations abroad which, on its instructions, I make known to the Government of the United States of America:
“Circular No. 327. La Paz, August 1, 1929.
Mr. Minister: Confirming the rumors which have been circulating that a secret protocol had been agreed upon between Chile and Peru which would fundamentally affect Bolivia in her policy of maritime restoration, the said agreement has just been officially published, the [Page 814] secrecy of which was frustrated by the knowledge thereof which American public opinion succeeded in gaining.
The recently published protocol reestablishes one of the clauses of the Treaty regarding the division of the provinces of Tacna and Arica, a clause the text of which is given below and which was withdrawn from the Preliminary Agreement on account of timely suggestions from the Government of the United States of North America which, having mediated in the solution of the dispute, believed its maintenance inexpedient for the future of the negotiations which Bolivia might open.
According to the additional agreement, the Governments of Chile and Peru shall not be able, without a previous accord, to transfer to A Third Power the whole or a part of the territories which, in conformity with the Treaty of the same date, remain under their respective sovereignties, nor shall they be able, without this prerequisite, to construct new international rail routes across them.
This provision was covenanted directly against Bolivia, for which reason the additional agreement arouses our formal reservations, which we wish to make known to the chanceleries of sovereign States, and to international organizations, confident that they must find them rightful and legitimate.
Bolivia, who was forced into the war of 1879 by the military occupation of its port of Antofagasta by Chile, shared the vicissitudes of the campaign with her ally Peru, and Chile being victorious, our country, as a result of an unjust war which it did not provoke, suffered the dismemberment of all its coast along the Pacific Ocean, which amounted to an extent of two hundred miles.
Since that time she has never, on any occasion, renounced her right to have her maritime sovereignty restored, always appreciating that, the free communication of nations by the sea—which is common to all the people of the earth—is an inalienable and imprescriptible attribute of the sovereignty of every independent State. This principle, applicable today in International Law, even to nations which do not have seaports of their own, is applicable with greater reason to a State such as ours which had had an extensive and rich littoral withdrawn from its dominion as the result of a war of conquest.
The fact that, as a consequence of the same war, the territories of Tacna and Arica had remained in the possession of Chile, without defined sovereignty, caused Bolivia, who always considered herself a principal party in the settlement of the dispute which had occasioned her so much injury, to open various diplomatic negotiations to recover her maritime sovereignty through Arica.
The Republic always took into consideration the fact that, through the Treaty of Peace signed at Ancón between Chile and Peru, in 1883, Chile, who acquired sovereignty over Tarapaca, would not be likely to consent easily to the restoration of our maritime sovereignty, through a zone which was not north of the conquered territory.
These negotiations, more than once met with a favorable reception with the Governments of Lima and Santiago, the aspirations and rights of Bolivia culminating in the suggestion which the Secretary of State of the United States of North America, Mr. Kellogg, made on November 30, 1926, proposing that the territories of Tacna and Arica should be transferred as a whole to Bolivia by the two countries which were contesting their jurisdiction.
[Page 815]Chile accepted this suggestion in principle, declaring that the proposal of the Department of State “involves the definitive cession of the disputed territory to the Republic of Bolivia” “and harmonizes with the often repeated desire expressed by the Government of Chile, to assist in the satisfaction of Bolivian aspirations.”
Peru did not accept the Kellogg suggestion, but, in referring thereto, expressed the following ideas: “This rejection, however, does not mean an intention to obstruct any other solutions. Far from that, Peru has accepted the partial or complete internationalization of the provinces and has accepted the division of them, freely giving a narrow passage to the shore to Bolivia and an inlet on it, on conditions which permit of its being converted into a large, convenient and safe port.”
President Leguia, in his Message to Congress in 1926, stated further: “The problem of the Pacific can not be solved without invoking the right 01 Peru and, in any case, our fraternal willingness to aid Bolivia in securing an exit to the sea which she claims with such great need.”
Such eloquent and solemn declarations, coming from the Governments which participated in the struggle of 1879, did not seem destined to be cast into oblivion.
It may, however, be observed that these acknowledgments of our right encountered a serious obstacle in the indetermination as to the sovereignty of Tacna and Arica. For that reason, when Chile and Peru concluded the Treaty recently ratified, which provides for the division of those territories, we Bolivians thought that the obstacle of indivision and the lack of a definite sovereignty was finally disappearing, it being always easier and more possible to come to an understanding with the State possessing the port of Arica, which should expedite the solution of the problem of our maritime restoration, because therein lie the historical and economic antecedents which have their root in the war of 79, and which have created the landlocked situation of Bolivia which keeps, and will always keep alive the fire which feeds her ideals for the recovery [of her maritime sovereignty].
If the negotiators of the recent factum had been seeking the reign of peace, harmony and justice on the continent, they should not have closed their eyes to the case of Bolivia, forgetting their former solemn declarations, and a high American duty imposed on them the obligation freely to open the way to the satisfaction of our rights and needs. If they were endeavoring to settle the consequences of the war of 1879, as Bolivia participated in it, losing extensive and rich territories, and her maritime sovereignty, there was nothing more essential than to have taken care of that reparation.
Far from acting thus, they have given new life to the obstacle which was formerly invoked as insurmountable for any just solution. They have agreed upon an imperfect condominium of the territories in question, meant to have efficacy only when Bolivia is concerned.
Peru has chosen to limit her sovereignty over the province of Tacna, renouncing in perpetuity the right to construct an international railroad towards Bolivia, in order to have the right of veto in any negotiation which we may attempt regarding Arica; and, reciprocally, Chile has given this right to Peru in order to maintain her influence [Page 816] over the two contiguous regions, as well as the advantages which the key to the Arica-La Paz railroad secures to her.
This policy is not one of real international cooperation, and is capable of producing profound resentment in Bolivian consciousness in the present and in the future.
The unfriendliness of the agreement is made patent by the very secrecy with which it was wished to surround it, in spite of the fact that both contracting States, as members of the League of Nations, have promised not to make secret treaties.
Withal, and in spite of the new difficulties created for Bolivia by the additional Chilean-Peruvian pact, we want world opinion to know that we are persisting and shall persist in the policy of restoration of our maritime sovereignty. We are not renouncing the repossession of our free communication with the world, by way of the Pacific Ocean. We proclaim before the juridical consciousness of the world, today already quite strong, where yesterday it was imperfect and weak, that we do not consider the situation created by an unjust war, not provoked by us, to be juridically irrevocable or intangible, and that, either through direct negotiations, if there is occasion for them, or through the means which International Law and new organizations recognize, we shall maintain our right in all its entirety and, with the assistance of just spirits, we shall resort to the channels for reparation which international justice may point out to us. The postulates of that justice, in condemning wars of conquest, open up the revision of indefensible pacts and the rule of removing, through pacific means, every notorious injustice, the basic principle of private law, and which, if it does not govern between nations, will make peace impossible of realization, which, in order to be unalterable, must be founded on justice, and justice will not be justice as long as all States may not co-exist as persons in their own right and with the fullness of their attributes—that rule will not be long in taking root on the field of International Law, so plentifully nourished by the thousands of victims of the last great war.
Please forward these considerations for the information and examination of the friendly Government near which you are accredited, and of the organizations which may be interested in the reign of peace and justice in the world. (Signed) Tomas Manuel Elio—Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
Please accept [etc.]
- Acknowledged September 5, 1929.↩