722.2315/1012a
The Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs (Duggan) to the Assistant Secretary of State (Welles)
Dear Mr. Welles: During the last week I have made an endeavor to familiarize myself from both the Ecuadoran and the Peruvian point of view with the boundary negotiations. Both delegations admit that little has been accomplished to date, but neither delegation is willing to take any responsibility for the situation.
The major difficulty has been to find some common point of departure. The Peruvians suggested that the principle of nationality, as Dr. Belaunde expressed it to me, the principle of self-determination, be used as a starting point. The Peruvian idea seems to be that a determination should be made, first of all, of the nationality of the inhabitants in the disputed area, and then with this information before them the delegation should proceed to draw a line. The Peruvians have emphasized to me that they do not expect that the final line would conform at every point to the division between Ecuadoran and Peruvian citizens, that they are ready to compromise and, in fact, feel that the principle of nationality could not be followed strictly without some inequity.
[Page 123]The Ecuadorans profess to me to be willing to discuss on any basis, including the basis of nationality, but I am inclined to feel that they are less anxious to discuss on the nationality basis than on almost any other. The fact is that there are several thousand Peruvians in the disputed area and relatively few Ecuadorans. Apparently in order not to decline entirely to discuss on the nationality basis, the Ecuadorans have maintained that it is necessary to go back to the time when the two republics won their independence. At that time it is persumed there were few Peruvians and few Ecuadorans, indeed if there were any of either nationality, in the disputed area. There have been discussions as to whether the period 1809 to 1811 should be used as dating Ecuadoran independence, or whether a later date should be used.
The Ecuadorans are in favor of carrying on the negotiations by discussing some line. The Peruvians assure me that they have not declined to negotiate on that basis but feel that since it is the Ecuadoran preference that a line be discussed, the suggested line should be proposed by Ecuador. The Ecuadorans contend that just before he died Dr. Porras informed the Ecuadoran Minister in Lima that he had a line in mind. The Ecuadorans desire that this line be used as the point of departure. Although I have not checked with the Peruvians, the Ecuadorans state that in their meetings the Peruvians have maintained that the Foreign Office has been unable to locate the line said to have been drawn by Porras,—that the line must have been on a map included with Dr. Porras’s personal papers which the Peruvian Foreign Office no longer has.
The question of the basis of negotiation has been sidetracked for ten days because of a discussion regarding the acta. About ten days ago it was decided that it would be well to formalize discussions so far in an acta. Accordingly a full session of all delegates was held at which their respective points of view were set forth in detail. A subcommittee was then appointed composed of Drs. Ponce and Belaunde to prepare the acta, summarizing what had been said. The subcommittee met, but instead of agreeing upon the exact language of the acta, merely agreed upon the points the acta should cover. Another formal session was then held at which the two delegations read their respective minutes of the session. The minutes did not coincide and for the last five or six days the two delegations have been struggling to agree upon what was said. The Ecuadorans claim that the Peruvians are being obstructive, that they want the acta to be so short that it will be impossible for the points of view of the two delegations adequately to be set forth. The Peruvians think that the acta should be as brief as possible, inasmuch as nothing has been accomplished. Privately the Peruvians tell me that they feel that the Ecuadorans want an acta so that they can produce it publicly on a [Page 124] later occasion to show that nothing has been accomplished as a result of direct negotiations and that the matter should be turned over to the President for arbitration.
Dr. Belaunde’s boy who had pneumonia has now recovered but is in Coral Gables, together with other members of Dr. Belanunde’s family. He is going down to Florida, therefore, for the holidays. The Ecuadorans point to this as just another of a series of procrastinations.
In my opinion the situation is not as hopeless as might be inferred from the above remarks. The two delegations have held a number of meetings and to a limited extent have cleared the ground for advance. Moreover, I think that both delegations and their Governments have had their eyes upon the conference at Buenos Aires. What has occurred there cannot but have impressed both countries with the interest that the American nations have in a peaceful settlement of their longstanding boundary dispute. On the other hand, it seems to me that if the discussions here are not to be interminable, ending in possible failure, a degree of assistance will be necessary. Just as the Bolivian-Paraguayan negotiations24 have been assisted by the mediatory nations, so I believe the negotiations here would be facilitated by some outside and impartial person or group who would act as a friend to both countries and endeavor to keep the negotiations moving along profitable lines. Possibly a single observer could perform this function, but I doubt whether it would be advisable for such a person to be a citizen of this country in view of the possibility that the matter may, in part at least, go before the President for arbitration.
I think you will be interested in the attached speech by Secretary Wallace,25 particularly from page 4 on to the end.
Sincerely yours,