724.3415/4089: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Brazil (Gibson)
119. I received yesterday evening from the Bolivian Minister here the text of the Bolivian suggested modifications.30 They vary considerably from the résumé sent in your 207, September 5, 6 p.m.,31 and in the event that you have not already received them, they are as follows:
“Article I unchanged.
Add to Article II the phrase ‘emanating from the Spanish Crown’
Article III to be omitted
Article IV unchanged.
Add to Article V ‘simultaneously with conciliation agreement defining the rights of the two parties in the Chaco Boreal or with an agreement for juridical arbitration in accordance with the procedure established in the following articles. Once such agreement has been ratified by the respective Congresses of the belligerent countries, hostilities will be suspended.’
Article VI to read as follows: ‘The plenipotentiaries of Bolivia and Paraguay will form with those of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Chile, United States, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay, the Commission of Conciliation provided for in Article VI of the Anti-War Pact, whose mission it shall be to procure within the maximum period of 70 days the conciliation agreement referred to in Article X of the said Anti-War Pact.’
Article VII to read as follows: ‘Bolivia and Paraguay declare that in the event that conciliation should not prove successful, they will sign an agreement providing for juridical arbitration to determine the sovereignty of the disputed territories in accordance with the principle of uti possidetis juris of 1810 and the declaration of August 3, 1932, taking as a basis the maximum claims already advanced by the two parties, namely: by Bolivia, in the memorandum of February 28, 1933, to the Governments of the neighboring countries; and by Paraguay, in the note of her Delegate to the League of Nations dated June 6, 1933.’”
Saavedra Lamas has cabled the Argentine Ambassador here that he considers the Bolivian proposals as providing a basis for acceptance and that he has transmitted the Bolivian reply to Paraguay.
[Page 194]In the Department’s opinion, the Bolivian proposals appear to be reasonable, although the form of Article VII seems to lack clarity and to leave open to question both the arbitral tribunal to which the parties shall go, as well as the time within which the arbitration agreement would be signed and would become effective in the event that conciliation does not prosper. The Bolivian Minister has stated, however, that in his opinion, his Government would be willing to sign the proposed arbitration agreement within the period provided for conciliation and further that while it would prefer American arbitration, it would be willing to accept the arbitration of the Permanent Court. It would seem highly desirable that Article VII which is the fundamental point of the proposed agreement should be worded in such a manner as to leave no room for controversy or doubt. Please inquire, therefore, of the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs whether should the Government of Brazil share our views it would be willing to suggest to Bolivia that Article VII as now proposed by Bolivia be amended to read as follows:
“Bolivia and Paraguay declare that in the event that the conciliation is not successful, they will sign an agreement within the same period of 70 days mentioned above in Article VI, submitting to the juridical arbitration of the Permanent Court of International Justice the determination of the rightful sovereignty of the territory in dispute, in accordance with the principle of uti possidetis juris of 1810 and the declaration of August 3, 1932, the Court to take into consideration in arriving at its decision the maximum claims, and no greater claims, than those previously advanced by the two parties, namely, by Bolivia, in the memorandum of February 28, 1933, addressed to the Governments of the neighboring countries; and by Paraguay, in the note of her Delegate to the League of Nations dated June 6, 1933.”
If the Brazilian Government coincides in the desirability of this amendment, I suggest that the Brazilian Government and the Government of the United States intimate to Bolivia the desirability of such change with the understanding that the two Governments support such modification and endeavor with the assistance of Argentina to obtain the consent of Paraguay thereto.
The above suggestion is being cabled to Saavedra Lamas in order that he may express his views with regard thereto. I think it would be advisable that neither Brazil nor the United States approach Bolivia in the matter until we assure ourselves that Saavedra Lamas is likewise in accord.
Your 208, September 6, 5 p.m.32 The views of this Government, of course, are the same as those expressed by Brazil. A cable has been received this evening from Geneva stating that Najera, Chairman of the Council Committee, states that should Argentina furnish the [Page 195] League an official statement which could be made public to the effect that a satisfactory settlement at Buenos Aires was imminent, the Assembly would not take up the question for at least 1 or 2 weeks. The Department is further advised that this information has been cabled to Saavedra Lamas by the Argentine Delegate in Geneva. The policy of Avenol seems to be that if the League can justify delay by means of a public statement that success in the present negotiations is imminent, he will be willing to have any immediate action by the Council Committee or by the Assembly held off. It is further assumed that should an agreement on the conciliation formula be reached, Bolivia would be willing to withdraw her petition for action by the Assembly under Article XV.