724.3415/4423: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 13—12:40 p.m.]
386. 1. The Department’s telegram No. 128, December 11, 5 p.m. was exceedingly useful in reaffirming the Department’s pertinent basic policy which I have consistently employed as background and more specifically in stating its application to the technical point in question. This opportunely enabled me yesterday morning before the Committee meeting to discuss with Avenol (without however disclosing to him all of the Department’s preoccupations) the possible machinery of our [Page 130] being kept informed and at the same time to suggest to him the desirability of preventing if possible any untoward discussion in the Committee of the American position in this matter.
2. The following is a summary of the Committee’s report which was handed me by the Secretariat.
- (a)
- —The Committee met to take cognizance of the Bolivian reply and the United States’ letters of December.
- (b)
- —Noted that the Bolivian reply constitutes an unreserved acceptance of the Assembly’s recommendations and decided to inform the representative of Paraguay thereof.
- (c)
- —Was “happy to note that the Government of the United States declares its willingness to cooperate on the conditions stated in its letter with the Neutral Supervisory Commission and with the Buenos Aires peace conference. It accepted the United States Government’s proposal that contact should be established between the members of the Committee and the United States Consul in Geneva and instructed its Bureau (the Secretary General and the Chairman) to take the necessary steps for this purpose”.
- (d)
- —Took cognizance of the Paraguayan telegram of December 11 and despatched the reply quoted in my number 385, December 13, 10 [9?] a.m.89
3. The Secretariat also apprised me orally as follows:
The Bolivian representative who was present in the Committee assumed an attitude which was easily forecast by the general atmosphere of the Bolivian position here to the effect that her acceptance of the recommendations in a sense morally relieves her of responsibilities respecting the Chaco. Specifically the Bolivian representative:
- (a)
- —Asserted that after December 16 (6 days following the date of Bolivia’s acceptance) all responsibility for loss of life in the Chaco would rest with Paraguay. The Committee merely pointed out that the import of the pertinent provision in the report was that the 6 days would run after the acceptance of the revised text by both parties.
- (b)
- —Notified the Committee that he would raise the question of the arms embargo after the 20th. The Committee thereupon decided to reconvene on December 20.
- (c)
- —Asked that the meetings of the Committee be public in order that the Bolivian position might be generally known. The Committee took no action but the matter may come forward at its next meeting.
4. It was originally intended that the meeting of December 12 should take the place of that which had been scheduled for December 20. The reason alleged for this was that the presence of a large number of delegates in Geneva to the Extraordinary Council would render the former date more convenient. The Bolivian statement respecting the embargo cited above rendered technically necessary the holding of an additional meeting on December 20. I may comment however that [Page 131] upon the abandoning of the original plan to hold the meeting on the 20th rumors were current here that this move was instigated by Argentina presumably with the thought that the Paraguayan material position in the Chaco would be more advantageous by January 11 when the Committee would have next convened simultaneously with the January Council which is now scheduled for that date.
5. I learn from other sources that the following also occurred in the Committee respecting the American position:
(a)—The Advisory Committee. Madariaga took issue with the phrase “informal contact” asserting that there could neither juridically nor appropriately be an informal relationship with a responsible official body. He felt that there should be a clearer definition or interpretation of the American position. Citing precedents of our presence in similar bodies in the Sino-Japanese and Leticia affairs he interpreted the present American external attitude as a substantive change in policy.
Najera90 assisted by Avenol finally achieved the adjustment of the Committee’s leaving the matter of contact with the United States to be arranged with me as stated above.
(b)—Supervisory Commission. Guani (Uruguay) took exception to the phrasing in our communication “representatives of American States meeting on American soil” asserting at some length that it by inference misinterpreted the character of the Commission which was a League organ. He likewise suggested that political motives including the Monroe Doctrine lay back of our whole relationship to this matter of which the phrase in question was illustrative.
6. I am not informed whether other representatives took part in the discussion on the two points mentioned above and it may be that the information as I received it is an over-statement. I gather the impression that the general attitude of the Committee members is to make light of these matters and to regard them as inconsequential.
7. In conversations with the Brazilian representative here I told him that in view of the similarity in our status I would keep him informed of such attitudes as we might adopt here. He said that he would be glad to do the same. Later he told me that he had informed his Government of my “very helpful offer”. I mention this solely because the Brazilians might speak of it. I trust that the Department will understand that I would only inform him of what was appropriate.