724.3415/1974: Telegram
The Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Gutiérrez) to the Assistant Secretary of State (White)
[Received 7:52 p.m.]
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the courteous cable-graphic note of the 3rd, bearing the honored signature of 19 neutral and friendly nations. In that note the representatives of the American Republics unite in declaring that respect for law is a tradition of the American nations and that they are opposed to the solution of controversies by force, that all territorial disputes have been settled by pacific means; they invite us to make a solemn declaration in the sense of stopping troop movements in the disputed territory. In replying to the note we must take into account the declarations contained [Page 162] therein which interpret with perfect accuracy Bolivian thought which for half a century has been protesting against wars of conquest. They are inspired by the ideas underlying American public law which does not admit occupation by usurpation as a title of ownership. Bolivia, isolated in the heart of South America, and reduced to international vassalage by well known causes, receives with enthusiasm the new doctrine being initiated in America, that force does not confer rights. That is her thesis and she will maintain it because it protects her territorial integrity. In the Chaco dispute the same thesis is applicable.
Bolivia, sovereign of that heritage by historic titles according to Hispanic-American public law, considers that force and usurpation, taking advantage of geographic proximity, have appropriated the bank which belongs to it on the Paraguay River. Welcome to the doctrine that force does not confer rights. The declaration to the effect that the nations of America will not recognize territorial acquisitions which are obtained by occupation or conquest by force of arms, is a doctrine which does not affect us, because Bolivia has neither conquered territories before nor is she attempting to occupy them now. Today she is pursuing in the Chaco the recovery of what historically and juridically belongs to her. We are asked for peaceful settlement. We have proposed them several times in formal treaties which have not been ratified by Paraguay. We wish to terminate the Chaco question, the country being resolved to make even bloody sacrifices in defense of its territory. The nation needs to break the barrier which prevents access to its bank on the Paraguay River in order to have communication with the world. This is one of the bases for a solution which must be required for Paraguay to insure the peace of America. As to the responsibilities for the encounters which have occurred in the Chaco we have already replied to the representatives of the five neutral countries acting in Washington. We are asked to stop troop movements in the disputed territory. Bolivia is mobilizing her forces in her own territory in full exercise of her sovereignty. In view of the active mobilization of Paraguay she must take her precautions and prepare herself for defense. We have stronger reason to maintain our forces in the Chaco if it is considered that to transport our contingents we cover a distance five times as great as that covered by the Paraguayan contingents. We should be grateful to the neutral countries which are acting in favor of peace if they would use their valued influence with Paraguay to succeed in making that peace a reality by means of solutions looking to the end mentioned. I repeat the assurance of my high esteem.