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

724.34119/281: Telegram

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

Buenos Aires, November 15, 1935—8 p.m.
[Received 10 p.m.]

279. From Gibson. Department’s 158, November 11, 6 p.m.

1. Negotiations on prisoners question have been proceeding slowly but we believe we are making progress. We have concentrated on the Paraguayans who have constituted the greater obstacle and are trying to draw up a formula which will satisfy them before submitting it to the Bolivians although we have necessarily kept the desiderata of the latter clearly in mind.

2. In general, the plan is for an agreement between Bolivia and Paraguay (1) providing for repatriation of all prisoners in return for a lump sum payment by Bolivia to Paraguay which would be represented as the balance between the amounts expended by both countries on the maintenance of prisoners and (2) containing a restatement of the security measures stipulated in article No. 3 of the June 12th Protocol making it clear that they are to remain in effect until the conclusion of a definitive treaty of peace. The repatriation would be under the supervision of agents of the Conference and take some months because of limited means of transportation. Payment would probably be in installments so spaced as to have all prisoners returned before final payment is made. The idea of a money payment is desired by Paraguay so as to have a justification before its public opinion for receding from its opposition to returning prisoners. Bolivian delegation acquiesces in principle provided the sum is not unreasonable.

3. Elío yesterday informed me that his Government was considering asking the Department to authorize the American Minister at Asunción to represent Bolivian interests in Paraguay with particular regard to the protection of prisoners. I discouraged the idea on the ground that we were hard at work on the prisoners question and hoped to have a solution satisfactory to both parties shortly. In this connection, the formula we have discussed with the Paraguayans includes the resumption of diplomatic relations between Bolivia and Paraguay.

4. Our information is not in accord with the Department’s belief that the views expressed in its telegram No. 156, October 31, 5 p.m., are shared by the Argentine and Brazilian Governments. Saavedra Lamas has for some time openly and clearly advocated adjournment in conversations with all mediators and the belligerent delegates; there is no doubt that he formulates and directs Argentine foreign policy which President Justo leaves strictly to him.

5. So far as the attitude of the Brazilian Government is concerned our information from both Rodrigues Alves and Frost is that it is similar to that expressed in my 267, October 30, 9 p.m., and 271, November 7, 9 p.m. The following is quoted from a telegram of November 13, 7 p.m., from Frost:

“With reference to the adjournment of the Conference Macedo stated this afternoon that he did not feel this should take place until (a) some pretext for adjournment which would satisfy world public opinion had been carefully arranged and, (b) the question of the repatriation of the prisoners had been taken care of.

He stated that in his opinion any adjournment now should necessarily be for at least 8 months duration, inasmuch as it would not be practicable to reopen negotiations 3 or 4 months hence when both countries would be in the midst of their Presidential campaigns.”

6. On going over our recent exchanges of the telegrams, a question arises in my mind as to whether I have sufficiently stressed the fact that so far as the mediators are concerned adjournment does not signify a suspension of work. It is unanimously agreed that once the prisoners question is solved we will have for the present exhausted the possibilities of working in meetings and should substitute for our profitless discussions another method of work which enables us to proceed under more favorable conditions and free from the machinations of our chairman. We are convinced that we should exhaust every effort formal or informal for direct agreement, even if this takes months, before going on to the arbitral compromise.

7. A breathing spell at this point is highly desirable in order to enable the delegates of both the contending parties and the mediators to get in personal contact with their Governments and to coordinate activities. The heads of the Bolivian and Paraguayan delegations have been here, respectively, for 6 and 4 months without a return to their countries and they are out of touch with changed conditions. They both express the desire for a visit home.

8. During the recess it would be our purpose to use every possible means to break down Bolivian and Paraguayan intransigence and get them to recognize that their real interest lies in early and direct agreement. One important phase of this which has been under consideration for some time would be the sending of carefully chosen delegates of the mediatory group to carry on informal conversations on the territorial question in La Paz and Asunción under leisurely conditions. Fortunately a convenient cover for carrying out such visits without having undue importance attached to them is afforded by the fact that the delegates best fitted for these soundings are included in the group now dealing with the prisoners of war question. They could make their visits to La Paz and Asunción during the period consumed in the repatriation of prisoners with the ostensible purpose of discussing matters connected with this operation.

9. No definite plans have been adopted but the general line of thought is that Nieto del Rio should go to La Paz and Planchet [Podestá?] Costa or Rodrigues Alves to Asunción. It will be recalled that the first two successfully carried out the negotiations in La Paz and Asunción, respectively, which led to the convening of the mediatory group¹² while Rodrigues Alves has an excellent standing in Paraguay as the result of his 5 years’ residence there as Brazilian Minister.

10. Obviously these visits should be coordinated but the very factors which make each of the gentlemen mentioned useful in one capital would hinder him in the other. Nieto del Rio who definitely contemplates a visit to La Paz under any circumstance has expressed to me the hope that Braden will be able to go with him, and Rodrigues Alves has told me that he would like Braden’s collaboration if he should go to Asunción. I think it would be of great value if this could be done as the contending parties generally recognize that we are the most impartial of the mediating powers and as Braden’s fresh point of view unaffected by 5 months of pounding over the same problems would be most useful in coordinating the results of the two visits. After the preliminary visits to Asunción and La Paz it would be possible to determine future movements, no rigid plans being laid down at this time.

11. Macedo Soares has extended invitations to Estigarribia and Elío to visit Rio de Janeiro, the initiative for the invitation coming from the two latter. Zubizarreta has also intimated that he would like an invitation to visit Rio after returning to Asunción. These contemplated conversations at Rio can be of great assistance if properly handled. In view of my personal relations with Macedo Soares, it is felt that my presence there can be useful in keeping him in line and making the utmost of the opportunity. [Gibson.]

Weddell

12. See pp. 46 ff.