Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1935, The American Republics, Volume IV

724.34119/272: Telegram

The Ambassador in Argentina (Weddell) to the Secretary of State

Buenos Aires, November 6, 1935—7 p.m.
[Received 11:20 p.m.]

270. From Gibson. My 267, October 30, 9 p.m.; Department’s 156, October 31, 5 p.m.; my 268, November 1, 4 p.m.

1. Bolivian and Paraguayan replies delivered in writing to the chairman of the Conference last night.⁹ Copies and translations being forwarded by airmail tonight.

2. (a) Bolivian reply is a courteous and carefully worded document. It states that as any direct agreement would be a compromise it must be based on the possessions of both countries immediately before the outbreak of the war and on the various boundary treaties negotiated in the past between Bolivia and Paraguay.

(b) It characterizes the boundary suggested in the October 15 proposal as “inequitable”; expresses “the need for a reexamination by the Peace Conference of the fundamental bases on which a direct agreement can be reached”; and states that Bolivia “considers that the direct agreement with Paraguay should recognize Bolivian sovereignty at least over the littoral between Bahia Negra and Fort Olimpo and fix the boundary in the interior by means of a straight line from the latter terminating at Fort Linares on the Pilcomayo River.”

(c) Subsidiary questions in proposal are not discussed except for a statement that the prisoners of war question cannot be linked with the territorial question and that the “ex-prisoners” who have “automatically recovered their status as free men as a result of the formal declaration that war is at an end cannot continue in captivity.”

3. (a) Paraguayan reply is a categorical rejection of the October 15 proposal couched in sarcastic and insolent terms. It expressed Paraguayan “formal dissent” to the proposal. In the following which is a careful summary of the reply, the brief quotations will indicate the tone adopted.

(b) The suggested boundary line is disposed of with a statement that it “seriously impairs” the “fundamental interests and rights of Paraguay.” It is stated that the draft is not “based on geographical, historical or juridical reasons or those of any other fundamental nature. The lines which it suggests are purely geometrical, in other words, artificial. We can see in it nothing but a purely bargaining concept.” “We are invited to give up a situation consolidated by centuries of possession and that is a great deal, far too much.”

(c) The explanatory statement accompanying the proposal is referred to: “We have carefully considered the explanatory statement accompanying the draft and we find nothing in it which serves to justify the latter”.

(d) The access of Bolivia to the Paraguay River is indignantly rejected and the following is said regarding the interior line: “The granting to Bolivia of a large zone of the interior is also unjustifiable. It has, of course, not been suggested on any other basis than that of more or less equal division, as if it were a no-man’s-land.” “It is a penalty unjustifiable that a de facto and de jure situation or state be ignored by mere diplomatic action.”

(e) The line is taken that the entire proposal is an attempt to impose Bolivian desires. “In the draft there is not the slightest correlation of the aspirations of one party and the other. From the entire tenor of its provisions arises the idea that Bolivian aspirations had greater weight than Paraguayan realities.” “The draft of the mediators offers Paraguay nothing which it does not already have and instead a loss of a large part of what she does have.” “We have searched the draft in vain for a single clause which gives moral satisfaction to our country or grants it a legitimate benefit.”

(f) The suggestion of a free port at Puerto Casado and transit facilities is referred to as another “totally unjustified concession which it is proposed that Paraguay make to Bolivia.”

The suggestion as to a demilitarized zone is disposed of by saying that it “is naturally inapplicable to Paraguay.”

(g) Only the following comment is made on other questions: “We shall say nothing as to the provisions regarding prisoners of war except that they can be usefully examined when an agreement on the fundamental problem has been reached. There is also no interest in examining other provisions of the draft in view of our absolute disagreement with everything fundamental which it contains.”

(h) The reply terminates: “The negotiations to reach a solution are to continue and it is our understanding that their point of departure should be the recognition of Paraguayan sovereignty over the entire polygon enclosed by the lines of the present positions, in other words, on the basis of the present territorial status quo, without this affecting the submission to legal arbitration of the rest of the western territory in order to establish the definitive lines of separation between Paraguay and Bolivia.”

4. Telegraphic comment follows tomorrow. [Gibson.]

Weddell

9. For texts, see Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, La Conferencia de Paz del Chaco, 1935–1939 (Buenos Aires, 1939), pp. 760–774; also Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Peace Conference Held at Buenos Aires July 1, 1935—January 23, 1939, pp. 125–134.