Office of the Historian

724.3415/4125: Telegram

The Ambassador in Brazil (Gibson) to the Secretary of State

Rio de Janeiro, September 15, 1934—5 p.m.
[Received 11 p.m.]

226. Bolivian Minister here informed Foreign Office today that Bolivia did not ask the League to postpone action in view of the request made by Lamas to the Bolivian Minister in Buenos Aires on the ground that he, Lamas, was against such postponement. The Foreign Office is inclined to discount this information.

2.
Foreign Minister feels that this situation is complicated by the fact that (despite repeated Brazilian suggestions) Bolivia has failed to ask, on its own initiative, postponement of League action. He has the impression that Bolivia, in order to save her own face, is now trying to promote misunderstanding between Brazil and Argentina as to responsibility for present difficulty. He expresses determination not to allow himself to become involved in difficulty with Argentina on this subject.
3.
Minister feels that this question can still be disposed of if Bolivia will ask League to postpone action. As Brazilian representations have thus far been ignored he hesitates to try again but submits for your consideration the possibility of your making the suggestion.
4.
Foreign Office further states that the Bolivian Minister was extremely depressed at the prospect of the Chaco question being dealt with by the League without the presence of Brazil and the United States.
5.
Argentine Ambassador here has received telegram from Lamas in substance as follows:
(a)
He has not taken one step or sent one note without previous consultation with American and Brazilian Ambassadors, with whom he is in daily contact.
(b)
He feels that as the problem is not ripe for solution a pause is essential. Otherwise failure will result. It was therefore desirable to take advantage of the meeting of the Assembly of the League. For this reason Cantilo stated that the matter was now in the hands of the League.
(c)
Time having been gained in this way, it is desirable not to abandon the common front of the tripartite mediation.
(d)
Taking account of the effect of Cantilo’s first speech, he has been instructed to speak again, setting forth the details of the Argentine proposals, approved and supported by the United States and Brazil. It is felt that the League will find the Argentine proposals so sensible that no improvements can be suggested, and it is believed that the League will take no initiative along different lines. If it does it will, of course, assume all responsibility and will at the same time afford us an opportunity to determine our own course of action.
Gibson