721.23/1540: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 6—6 p.m.]
164. My 163, April 5, 8 p.m. At meeting of Advisory Committee on Leticia this afternoon, the British and Italian representatives informed the Commission that Calderón, Peruvian representative, had spoken to them today with regard to new instructions which he had just received from his Government; that these permitted him to say to them that while his Government was in no position to make formal proposals he was able to indicate privately and confidentially that perhaps his Government might be able to enter into discussions for a settlement of the Leticia affair on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee of Three of February 25 (see page 8 of League Document C 194 M 91, 1933, VII March 16). According to the British and Italian representatives Calderón gave them to understand that his Government was quite willing to evacuate Leticia in connection with any settlement along the above lines.
Lester explained privately later that as a matter of fact the Peruvian Government had also approached the British and Italian representatives at Lima with the idea of a settlement based upon the proposals of February 25.
An extended discussion followed of the best method of handling this new situation and fitting it in with the question before the Committee of a reply to the letter of the Peruvian representative of March 30 (see my 163, April 5, 8 p.m.). On the one hand the president of the Committee was empowered to follow the further development of [Page 513] the matter raised by the communication of the Peruvian representative to the British and Italian representatives. On the other hand a reply to Calderón was drafted and approved which took this new situation into account, comment upon certain recent statements by the Peruvian and Colombian Governments regarding the free passage of the Putumayo and the present possession of Güepi by the Colombian forces and at the same time confirmed the mandate which the Committee was giving to its President to follow the further development of the question of a settlement of the dispute in general.
It seemed to be the sense of the Committee, as the phraseology of the resolution and the letter indicated, that it should be made clear to the Peruvians that any consideration of a settlement must be based upon the execution of the recommendations of the Council of the League of March 18.
Neither Brazilian nor American representatives took part in the discussion.
Although it seemed perfectly understood that the United States were not to be considered as participating in the resolution or the letter mentioned above I took the precaution of speaking privately about the matter with the president of the Committee at the end of the session. He entirely confirmed the above impression of our nonparticipation. I also made this point clear to the newspaper men in the course of a press conference after the meeting.
Translations of resolution and letter will be telegraphed as soon as available.