724.3415/3811: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:55 p.m.]
142. 1. Chaco question substance of the dispute. At a meeting of the Council held yesterday afternoon the President in closing the present session enjoined the two parties to submit their statements under article 15 as soon as possible and suggested that July 1 be considered as the time limit for their submission. He laid emphasis on the circumstance that the procedure of conciliation under article 11 remained open and was likewise provided by paragraph 3 of article 15. The Committee of Three was instructed to pursue its efforts on that basis and was authorized to ask in its discretion for the convocation of an extraordinary session of the Council. The Bolivian and Paraguayan representatives confined themselves to stating that [Page 258] they would immediately inform their Governments of the Council’s proceedings, the Bolivians, however, referring to the arms embargo made complete reservations respecting any action outside article 15.
2. As was the case in connection with Bolivia’s possibly accepting the Commission’s report (Consulate’s 89, paragraph 485), the impression grows that Bolivia if her military position be adverse at the time would accept any report that the Council might make, her tactics in this being if possible to place Paraguay in the position contemplated under paragraph 6 of article No. 15. With this in mind the Council would exercise great care respecting the terms of its report (note Consulate’s 61, April 28, 11 a.m., paragraph 386). Depending on the military situation Paraguay will undoubtedly delay the submission of its report as long as possible. Another element of delay is the possibility of action under paragraph 15 of the article. In this complex situation developments here are at least not very promising and at most are difficult to forecast.
3. Consulate’s 131, paragraph 2(b).87 With regard to the technical situation the difficulties of the arms embargo question being brought before the Council are increased by Bolivia’s appeal under article 15 in that either disputant could contend that the application of sanctions previous to the action envisaged under paragraph 4 of the article in question would constitute an improper prejudgment of the case particularly as theoretically at least the final determination of the Council under that article might select only one of the disputants as the subject of sanctions. This would be a position probably juridically impossible to contravert and thus would doubtless receive the support of other Council states.
4. Arms embargo proposal.
(a) Consulate’s 131, paragraph 2(a). Najera before the Council meeting showed me a draft “undertaking” which after repeated modifications had reduced to a minimum the obligations which the states might take individually in the matter of embargo measures. He told me that Italy not only objected even to so attenuated an undertaking but also to its being brought forward. He interpreted Italy’s objection to its being presented to her desire not to be placed in the position of having her attitude in the matter being made so unequivocally explicit.
(b) Faced with this situation Najera nevertheless called a meeting of Council states (Consulate’s 135, paragraph 388) in which he presented his draft undertaking. The text which was amended in [Page 259] the meeting I am transmitting in a following telegram. It represents the technical essentials of the development in this matter to date. As to the status of this document or of the document in the final form into which it may evolve I can only say that it must speak for itself. Due to its nature and the indeterminate character of the meeting which is passing upon it its status here is consciously entirely undefined.
(c) The meeting of Council states was private but yesterday evening in giving me the draft undertaking Najera informed me of developments in the meeting substantially as follows. All the Council states (except Panama which was absent) accepted the proposal except Italy and France. Some states declared their readiness to sign immediately. Italy took the technical position that she must wait for the replies from Germany, Japan and Russia. France expressed readiness to accept upon Italy’s acceptance but mentioned that she understood the embargo of the United States omitted reference to airplane and airplane parts including motors. Italy’s general attitude and the question of the Italian reservation in its reply respecting existing contracts, although the latter was not mentioned in the meeting, were the chief obstacles to an agreement. The present program is that the draft undertaking probably after some amendments will be again discussed in a similar meeting this afternoon.
(d) Najera informed me that he believed that Italy’s position was determined by the existence of Italian contracts with one or both of the belligerents providing for future shipments of munitions over an extended period. He also felt that Italy was governed in the matter by complex political considerations the character of which he could not determine.
In this connection I would say that there would seem to be ample evidence that Italy has been playing some special role in the Chaco affair for some time. The obstructive attitude of the Italian member of the Commission seems to be notorious both in the field and in drafting the Commission’s report in Geneva. Note in this connection Consulate’s despatches 613, political, June 6, 1933, page 15, and 632, political, July 14, 1933, page 11.89
(e) In private conversations the Italians here assert that their only objection to the embargo is a skepticism of states applying it honestly. The French declare that their attitude is based upon the circumstances that unless Italy modifies her position an embargo would be useless and merely give Italy all the advantages in munitions sales.
My estimate of the situation is that Great Britain is now pressing the matter hard and that France is mildly supporting or at least not objecting. The Italians are uncomfortable under a continuing [Page 260] general pressure and modification of Italy’s position appears at least possible.
(f) Consulate’s 131, paragraph 5. There is no apparent progress in this plan.
(g) Consulate’s 136.90 I have heard of no renewal of suggestions on this schedule and have naturally refrained from discussing it.
(h) I have been told informally by several delegates that I would be welcome in the meeting of Council states as an observer simply in order that I might have first-hand and more definite knowledge of the developments. I do not anticipate that this will be definitely raised and I am merely informing the Department of it in case it has any views to express.