824.01/978: Telegram
The Chargé in Bolivia (Woodward) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:55 p.m.]
1259. The information contained in official Bolivian communiqué concerning the formal granting of recognition to the Bolivian Government by various other Governments as reported in this Embassy’s press telegram number 1258, June 23,6 provides an approximate outline of these formalities as they will have occurred up to the evening of June 23. In addition the Ecuadoran representative presented a note of recognition at 11:30 a.m.
It will be noted that the Vatican which authorized its Nuncio in La Paz to present a note in March 1944 seemingly granting recognition [Page 470] to the Bolivian Provisional Government (reference this Embassy’s telegram 705, March 21 [22])9 has now [apparent omission] a further note of recognition which was explained to me by an officer of the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as now bringing about de jure recognition as compared with former de facto recognition. Neither of the two notes mentioned either of these terms. Likewise it is of interest that this note by the Vatican was presented on June 22 rather than June 23.
The Bolivian [Chilean?] Embassy at La Paz has evidently encouraged the newspapers to emphasize the fact that Chile was the first to persuade other than Argentina to recognize the Bolivian Provisional Government by virtue of the early appointment which Ambassador Cohen10 had today at 9:30 a.m. for this purpose. Moreover, I understand that Ambassador Cohen did not present a note or mention the word recognition in his oral message evidently endeavoring to imply that the hiatus in formal relations between Chile and Bolivia had been something less than “nonrecognition”.
The British representative in La Paz11 was instructed by his Government to present a note of recognition after such presentation by the representative of our Government. Because of these very specific instructions the British representative was considering presenting his note June 24 but I commented to him that I saw no reason why he should not present his note June 23 after the presentation of our note and that this might be more desirable to add to the simultaneous nature of recognition.
I believe the Department will be interested in noting that the Spanish Government now appears to be maintaining the thesis that there has never been any interruption between Spain and Bolivia. The Spanish Chargé d’ Affaires12 has just telephoned me to state that he did not give the Bolivian Foreign Office a note verbale and that while in compliance with instructions from Madrid he did inform the Bolivian Foreign Minister orally that his Government, consistent with the Estrada Doctrine,13 considered that there had never been any interruption in its relations with Bolivia, he had not presumed to make any comment which might reflect on the attitude of any other Government on the recognition question such as the unauthentic “the change of a fair Government is an internal question et cetera.” The Spanish Chargé mentioned that he did not communicate formally with the Bolivian Foreign Office on any subject from December 15 until near the end of May at which time he sent a note on some routine [Page 471] subject as though there had never been any interruption in relations between the Bolivian Government. He also added the comment that he yesterday transmitted to Madrid the Bolivian request for an agrément for Eduardo Portillo to be Minister to Spain. (Reference this Embassy’s telegram 875, April 15, noon.)14
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Benjamin Cohen, Chilean Ambassador in Bolivia.↩
- Anthony Ashton, of the British Legation.↩
- José del Castillo.↩
- A doctrine concerning recognition set forth in 1930 by the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs, Genaro Estrada. See American Journal of International Law, 1931, vol. 25, Supplement, p. 203.↩
- Not printed.↩