Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Dispute Between Colombia and Peru

Dispute Between Colombia and Peru

[Communicated to the Council Official No. : C. 194. M. 91. 1033. VII. and the Members of the League.]

Geneva, March 16th, 1933.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Dispute between and :

COLOMBIA’S APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE COVENANT

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL TO THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

Geneva, March 16th, 1933. Sir, On March 1st, your Committee submitted to the Council, in accordance with its instructions, a statement regarding the dispute between Colombia and Peru, and the terms of settlement thereof as provided in Article 15, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Council adopted the statement together with the terms of settlement of the dispute. The representative of the Colombian Government informed the Council that he also accepted them. The representative of the Peruvian Government asked for a few days’ delay before giving his final reply. The representative of the Penivian Government has not since then definitely rejected the proposals put forward by the Council, but has made a series of counter-proposals which have been communicated to the Council together with the comments of the Committee thereon. On March 8th, the Committee informed the Council that it did not consider that the counter­ proposals of the Peruvian Government offered a basis of solution to the dispute which it could recommend to the Council and the Colombian Government for adoption. It therefore very reluc­ tantly suggested that it should be authorised to prepare the draft report for submission to the Council, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 15. The Council gave its approbation to this course. In the same report of March 8th, the Committee stated that it felt sure that both the Council and the Governments Parties to the dispute would understand that the possibilities of a settlement under paragraph 3 of Article 15 would not come to an end until the very moment of the adoption of the report by the Council under paragraph 4. The Committee profoundly regrets that the settlement which the Council had proposed to the Parties under paragraph 3 of Article 15 has not met with the approval of one of them. In accordance with the instructions of the Council, it now has the honour to submit the present draft report, containing, as provided in Article 15, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, a statement °f the facts of the dispute and the recommendations which are deemed just and proper in regard thereto

(Signed) Sean L e s t e r , President of the Committee of the Council.

"V 1,505 (F ‘) I *325 (A.) 3/33. Imp. Kundig. Series of Publications VII. POLITICAL 1933. VII.3. DRAFT REPORT OF THE COUNCIL PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 15, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE COVENANT, SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL.

The Council, in view of the failure of the efforts which, under Article 15, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, it was its duty to make with a view to effecting a settlement of the dispute submitted for its consideration, adopts, in virtue of paragraph 4 of that Article, the following report, containing :

I. A Statement of the Facts of the Dispute; II. The Recommendations which are deemed just and proper in regard thereto.*

I. FACTS OF THE DISPUTE.

(a) Summary of events. (1) Contractual provisions by which the two Parties are bound. (c) Endeavours to secure a friendly settlement prior to the appeal to the Council. (d) Cases of the two Parties. (e) Action taken by the Council for the settlement of the dispute. (/) Conclusions relating to the facts of the dispute, established by the Council.

(a) Summary of Events.

On the night of 3ist- 1st, 1932, a group of armed individuals of Peruvian nationality occupied the river-port of Leticia, the capital of the Colombian district of the Amazon. The population of Leticia is understood to number about 300. The assailants subsequently occupied the territory known as the “ trapezium of Leticia ”, situated between the Putumayo and the Amazon, and fortified in that territory positions on both rivers. The inhabitants of Colombian nationality had to take refuge in Brazilian territory. The Colombian Government, with a view to restoring public in its invaded territory, armed a small flotilla, which proceeded towards this territory first by sea and then by river. It called at various Brazilian ports on the Amazon and one part ascended that river in order to reach, via the Putumayo, the north of the trapezium; the other part of the flotilla proceeding south via the Amazon. The expedition consisted of about 1,500 men and six vessels. It arrived in Colombian waters on or about February 12th, 1933. Further expeditions by land and air were organised in connection with the operations contemplated by the Colombian Government. The Peruvian invaders of the Colombian territory were supported in their action by the Commandant-General of the Fifth Peruvian Military Area, who, on January 6th, 1933, sent a communication to the Colombian Consul-General at Belem do Para, , and to the Chief of the Colombian Expeditionary Forces.1 The Peruvian Commander ended this communication as follows:

“ I have taken all military measures to prevent the entry of your expedition into Leticia and to guarantee our security in the Peruvian basin of the Amazon, in order to prevent any acts of hostility against my compatriots, who are legitimately occupying the Leticia zone in virtue of the professed principles of the determination of nationality.”

On February 12th, the Colombian flotilla arrived near the frontier line between Brazil and Colombia. It was attacked by Peruvian aircraft, which in their turn were counter-attacked by Colombian aeroplanes. It has not been established whether or not these attacks took place on Brazilian territory.

* A nnex I, — Telegrams exchanged on January n t h and 14th, 1933, between the M inisters for Foreign Affairs of Columbia and Peru. A nnex I I . — Map showing the Southern Frontiers of Columbia with Brazil and Peru. 1 See Annex I: telegrams from the Colombian and Peruvian Governments dated January n th and 14th, 1933’ — 3 —

On February 14th, the chief of the Colombian expedition sent an ultimatum to a Peruvian post established at Tarapaca in Colombian territory, which was attacked on the 15th and occupied by Colombian troops. According to the Colombian Government, a considerable quantity of military stores was taken by the Colombian troops on the occupation of this post. As a result of these incidents, diplomatic relations were severed on February 15th between the Colombian and Peruvian Governments. On February 23rd, the Colombian Government reported that Peruvian military aircraft had dropped bombs on vessels of the Colombian expedition. Lastly, by letter dated February 27th, the Colombian representative stated that the Colombian forces were constantly being molested by Peruvian garrisons in the Upper Putumayo, which in that region forms the frontier between the two countries. Since then no act of hostility has been brought to the notice of the Council. The present situation is that the post of Tarapaca is again in the hands of the Colombian authorities, but that the township of Leticia is still in the hands of .

(b) Co n t r a c t u a l P r o v isio n s b y w h ic h the T w o P a r tie s are b o u n d .

It is the Treaty between Colombia and Peru signed at on March 24th, 1922, which fixes the frontiers between the two countries and provides for free river navigation. The exchange of ratifications of this Treaty took place at Bogota on March 19th, 1928. It was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on May 29th, 1928, and was published as No. 1726 of the Treaty Series. Although this Treaty has been communicated to the Council in document C.20.M.5.1933.VII, it would seem desirable to reproduce some of its articles here. Article 1 fixes as follows the frontier between the of Colombia and Peru :

" The frontier line between the of Colombia and the Peruvian Republic is agreed upon, settled and fixed on the terms set forth below. " From the point at which the meridian passing through the confluence of the River Cuhimbé with the Putumayo cuts the River San Miguel or Sucumbios and continues along this same meridian to the said confluence of the Cuhimbé; thence along the ' thalweg ’ of the River Putumayo to its confluence with the River Yaguas, whence it follows a straight line running from this confluence to that of the River Atacuari with the Amazon, and thence along the ‘ thalweg ’ of the River Amazon to the boundary between Peru and Brazil estab­ lished in the Treaty between those Republics dated 23rd, 1851. " Colombia declares that, in virtue of the present Treaty, the territory included between the right bank of the River Putumayo, east of the confluence of the Cuhimbé, and the line established and marked out as the frontier between Colombia and , in the basins of the Putumayo and Napo, by the Boundary Treaty drawn up between both Republics on 15th, 1916, shall belong to Peru. " Colombia hereby declares that, as regards Brazil, she reserves her rights to the territories situated east of the -Apaporis line, as agreed between Peru and Brazil under the Treaty of October 23rd, 1851. “ The High Contracting Parties declare that all disputes which have arisen in the past with reference to the boundaries between Colombia and Peru are hereby finally and irrevo­ cably settled and that the boundary line fixed by the present Treaty shall remain unaffected by any future dispute."

The fixing of these frontiers was entrusted to a Commission as provided in Article 2; this article, together with Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, lays down the procedure to be followed for the fixing of the frontier. Freedom of transit between the two Parties is defined as follows in Article 8 of the Treaty:

“ Colombia and Peru shall grant each other in perpetuity full freedom of transit by land and the right of navigation on their common rivers and the tributaries and confluences of those rivers, subject to the laws and fiscal, river and police regulations, but without prejudice to their right to accord each other extensive Customs franchises and such other privileges as may serve to promote the interests of the two States. The fiscal and police regulations shall be as uniform in their provisions and as favourable to trade and navigation as possible.”

Article 9 refers to the respect of concessions obtained by the nationals of one party in the territory of the other party, while Article 10 deals with the nationality of the inhabitants as a result °f the fixing of the new boundary line, f M Brazilian Government having submitted friendly observations concerning the Treaty 0 March 24th, 1922, an official record of an agreement was drawn up on March 4th, 1925, at the ate Department, Washington, between the Secretary of State of the of America and the representatives of Brazil, Colombia and Peru. The following solutions proposed by the secretary of State on March 4th, 1925, were accepted at this meeting: !• The withdrawal by the Government of Brazil of its observations regarding the -Boundary Treaty between Colombia and Peru; — 4 —

“ 2. The ratification by Colombia and Peru of the above-mentioned Boundary Treaty; “ 3. The signing of a convention between Brazil and Colombia by which the boundary between those countries would be agreed to on the Apaporis-Tabatinga line, Brazil agreeing to establish in perpetuity, in favour of Colombia, freedom of navigation on the Amazon and other rivers common to both countries.” In the letter in which he transmitted this agreement to the representative of Colombia, the Secretary of State of the United States of America said: 1 “ . . . Concerning my third suggestion—namely, that Brazil and Colombia should sign an agreement by which the frontier between these countries would be fixed by the Apaporis-Tabatinga line, with an undertaking on the part of Brazil to establish perpetual freedom of navigation on behalf of Colombia on the Amazon and the other rivers common to the two countries—I have the honour to inform you that naturally it is understood that the signature of this agreement will follow the ratification of Colombia and Peru of the Frontier Treaty of March 24th, 1922, between these two countries. “ In this connection, I have the honour to inform you that your communication of to-day’s date has been duly noted, in which you renew the affirmation given at to-day’s meeting that your Government will conclude the above-mentioned Treaty with Brazil immediately after Peru has ratified the Colombo-Peruvian Frontier Treaty. I am now informing the Peruvian Ambassador and the Brazilian Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of this in a note similar to the present one.” On November 15th, 1928, a Treaty regarding frontier delimitation and river navigation between Brazil and Colombia was signed at Rio de Janeiro—i.e., after the coming into force of the Treaty between Colombia and Peru. The ratifications of this Treaty were exchanged at Bogota on January 9th, 1930. Registered with the League Secretariat on March 17th, 1930, it may be found in the League of Nations Treaty Series, Volume C, page 123. The Parties also referred in their statements to the agreement concerning internal disorders and neutrality concluded at on July 18th, x g n , between Ecuador, , Peru, Colombia and , the Convention of de of May 3rd, 1923,2 and the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation signed at Washington on January 5th, 1929.3 Peru has deposited the instrument of the ratification of this latter Convention. This deposit has, however, not yet been effected by Colombia, although the Treaty has been ratified by the Constitutional Powers of this State.

(c) E n d e a v o u r t o se c u r e a F r ie n d l y Se t t l e m e n t pr io r to t h e A p p e a l to t h e Council.

In a note dated September 30th, 1932, the Peruvian for Foreign Affairs informed the Colombian Minister at Lima that the Peruvian Government had laid the dispute before the Washington Permanent International Conciliation Commission in conformity with the Convention signed in that on January 5th, 1929, and had asked that a commission of conciliation should be appointed. The Colombian Government opposed this procedure on the ground that the question was one solely of occurrences which had taken place within Colombian territory. On its side, the Colombian Government, on January 22nd, 1933, called for the intervention of the signatories of the Pact of Paris, and on January 24th of the League of Nations. In the meantime, the Brazilian Government had offered to the two contending Governments to mediate on the following bases : 4 " 1. The Peruvian Government, although it had nothing to do with the origin of the uprising of September 1st in Leticia, will give its entire moral support and will use its persua­ sive influence with its nationals residing in that region so that the territory in question may be confided to the keeping of the Brazilian Government, which will administer it provisionally through a delegate or delegates in whom it has confidence. “ 2. As soon as possible, the Brazilian authorities will replace in their positions the Colombian officials deposed by the insurrectionists. “ 3. In compensation,5 the Colombian Government agrees that immediately afterwards delegates from the two countries shall meet in Rio de Janeiro with the technicians they deem necessary for the purpose of considering the Salamon-Lozano Treaty in a broad spirit of conciliation for the purpose of finding a formula susceptible to reciprocal acceptation and which shall include economic, commercial, and cultural measures which may constitute a closer moral bond in the form of territorial statute adequate for such purpose and peculiar to that region."

1 Translation from the French text supplied by the Colombian delegation. 2 League of Nations Treaty Series, Volume X X X III, page 25. 8 League of Nations Treaty Series, Volume C, page 399. 4 Documents C.71.M.28.1 9 33.V II, C.87.M.31.1 9 3 3 .VII, C.97.M.36.1933.VII: these bases, set out in the communication of January 27th from the Government of the United States of America to the Secretary-General, are the same as those given in the other two documents above mentioned from the representative of the Colombian Government. 5 With regard to the expression “ in compensation ", the Brazilian Government gave, on February n th last, to the Colombian Government the following explanation: The Brazilian Government states that “ the expression in com­ pensation means in consequence of the two previous clauses or in turn or even moreover ", — 5 —

These bases of negotiation were accepted by the Colombian Government without reservation. The Peruvian Government1 accepted the mediation of Brazil, provided certain alterations were made in the procedure proposed by the Brazilian Government.2 The Peruvian Government asked that the Brazilian Government should be jointly authorised by the Peruvian and Colombian Governments to administer the territory of Leticia provisionally. The Colombian authorities would only return to Leticia in a private capacity. If the negotiations failed, Leticia would revert to the administration of Peruvians. Colombia rejected this interpretation of the Brazilian proposal for mediation.3 On January 25th, 1933, the Secretary of State of the United States of America wrote to the Peruvian Government, at the request of the Colombian Government as a signatory of the Paris Pact. After expressing his own views with regard to the dispute, he supported the Brazilian proposal for mediation. The Government of the United States of America made another effort in this direction on January 30th. Nevertheless, mediation was declared by the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs on February 3rd to be at an end.

(d) C a s e s o f t h e Two P a r t i e s .4

1. The Colombian Government’s Case. On the night of August 3ist-September 1st, 1932, the Colombian authorities of the township of Leticia were assaulted and imprisoned by a group of armed persons, including soldiers and officers of the Peruvian army. Other acts of aggression were committed against Colombian territory. They were committed by Peruvian military forces from the (Peru). Those forces entrenched themselves in the invaded , and likewise at Tarapaca, on the River Putumayo, also in Colombian territory. They brought guns and machine-guns, and had gunboats belonging to the Peruvian Government, as well as military aircraft. The Peruvian forces expressed the intention of resisting any steps the Colombian Government might take to restore the Colombian authorities and put an end to the occupation. The Colombian Government, which had demanded the withdrawal of the Peruvian military forces from Colombian territory, armed a flotilla with the sole object of re-occupying its own territory. These forces were to avoid conflicts with the Peruvian military forces unless the latter offered resistance. The situation created by the occupation of Leticia is of an exclusively internal nature and cannot afford a basis or pretext for any other State to dispute the effectiveness of an established legal order.5 The Colombian Government declares that the Boundary Treaty of 1922 is valid and, accord­ ingly, that Leticia belongs to Colombia. On no previous occasion has the Peruvian Government made any observation as to the 1922 Treaty or any of its consequences or reactions. This Treaty was accepted by the Peruvian Administration which concluded it, and by the latter’s successors, as the basis of the relations between the two countries. It has thus been explicitly recognised by all Peruvian Governments from 1928 when the Treaty came into force down to the present date. It is a legally perfect instrument concluded in a loyal and sincere manner by the Governments, which, in doing so, had in mind the permanent interest of the two countries, and aimed at establishing a regime of friendship and collaboration in the . Once Colombian sovereignty is restored at Leticia and in the adjacent territory, if there is then any other question that the Peruvian Government desires to discuss, the Colombian Government will be prepared to do so in a genuine spirit of conciliation. It would then be possible to reach an agreement by direct diplomatic negotiations, or through the good offices of some third Government, or by the means provided by the treaties in force between the two countries.

2. The Peruvian Government’s Case.6 Neither soldiers nor officers on the active list of the Peruvian army took any part in the events at Leticia: the occupation arose merely from action undertaken by private individuals who endeavoured by their own initiative to realise an irrepressible patriotic aspiration of the Department of Loreto. It was not the that occupied the town of Leticia and still retains it. These Peruvians, however, could not be abandoned to the uncertainty which threatened them as the result of the despatch of Colombian military forces. This explains the precautionary measures subsequently taken by the military authorities of Loreto. The Peruvian Government has not increased its river fleet, which is on the same peace footing as it was on September 1st, whereas the Colombian Government has improvised a large naval ivision, whose advance constitutes not merely a provocation, but a preliminary measure of

1 Document C.89.M.33.1933.VII. “ Document C. 104.M.39.1933.VII. Document C.97.M.36.1933.VII. *\ff ’ ^f6, *n ■^‘nnex I» the telegrams exchanged on January n th and 14th, 1933, between the Ministers for Foreign

11 t", T x and Peru, > Ogiving S an outline of their respective cases. Document C.20.M.5.1933.VII. See Annex I. — 6 — aggression. The Peruvian Government has refrained from mobilising all or any of its naval forces from the Pacific towards the Amazon. In its anxiety to arrive at a peaceful settlement, the Peruvian Government requested the Colombian Government not to proceed to military mobilisation for the purpose of subduing the agitation at Leticia. From the same motives, it endeavoured to reach an amicable arrangement through the Conciliation Commission at Washington. The Peruvian Government recognises the validity of the Boundary Treaty of 1922 and expresses its determination to abide by that Treaty. Its sole endeavour is to modify the frontier-line set up thereby and not to abolish or cancel the Treaty itself. Under the Treaty, inhabited areas were ceded without the desires of the inhabitants being consulted. The Treaty was concluded at a time when the dictatorship had abolished the fundamental liberties in Peru.1 In order to repair the serious injustice committed in separating Leticia from Peru, states the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Peruvian Government is prepared to offer adequate territorial compensations. To these arguments the Peruvian delegate, in his note to the Secretary-General dated January 20th,2 adds, inter alia, “ that the has an international significance exceeding the interests of any one country. . . . The Treaty was not executed in full, as Colombia was unable to effect the transfer of the zone of San Miguel or Sucumbios to Peru ”.

(e) A c t io n t a k e n b y t h e C o u n c il f o r t h e S e t t l e m e n t o f t h e D i s p u t e .

1. Before the Appeal in Accordance with Article 15 of the Covenant.

On January 2nd, the Secretary-General was informed by the Colombian representative “ of incidents which have occurred as a result of the disturbances of order in a part of Colombian territory on the Amazon ” and was also notified of the facts which had given rise to the Leticia incident. The information received by the League of Nations showed that the question was more and more likely to lead to a serious conflict between the two countries. On January 14th, therefore, the President in Office of the Council asked the Parties for information and at the same time expressed the conviction that the two Members to the dispute would refrain from any action not in conformity with the Covenant. The two Parties replied on January 16th, Colombia pointing out in particular that the sole object of her Government was to restore public order which had been transgressed in part of her territory, while the Peruvian Government claimed, inter alia, that its attitude was exclusively defensive, that it would take no action contrary to the League Covenant, and that appropriate territorial compensations could be accorded for the modification of those points of the 1922 Treaty which had proved inapplicable. Both Governments recognised the validity of this Treaty. In a telegram dated January 23rd, the Peruvian Government requested the Council to order the suspension of all measures of force. In view of this telegram, the Council placed the dispute on its agenda and discussed it on January 24th, 1933. The Council was informed of the steps taken before its meeting, and its attention was called to the communication made by the Secretary-General to Members on Novem­ ber 21st, 1932, containing a statement by the Chancellory of Ecuador to the American Chancellories regarding certain difficulties that had arisen between Colombia and Peru. The object of that statement was to confirm the rights claimed by Ecuador in the Amazon basin. The Council entrusted the study of the dispute to a Committee consisting of the representatives of the Irish Free State, and . At its meeting on January 26th, the Council approved the text of the following two telegrams to the Parties which had been submitted to it by its Committee : 3

T 0 Peru. — “ The Council thanks you for your telegrams and expresses its appreciation of the assurances to the effect that Peru will not take any action contrary to the Covenant of the League. The Council having studied the documents submitted to it on the subject and, in particular, the telegram addressed to you by M. Urdaneta on January nth, and your reply dated January 14th, feels bound to draw the attention of the Peruvian Government to the fact that it is the duty of Peru, as a Member of the League, to refrain from any inter­ vention by force on Colombian territory and to ensure that all necessary instructions are given to the Peruvian commanders concerned to the effect that the military forces of Peru should take no action beyond the defence of Peruvian territory and should not hinder Colom­ bian authorities from the exercise of full sovereignty and jurisdiction in territory recognised by treaty to belong to Colombia. I have to-day communicated to the Colombian Government a copy of this telegram with the following message from the Council." [Text below.]

1 Minutes of the Council, seventieth session, P.V.2(i). 2 Document C.58.M.23.1933.VII. 3 Document C.69.1933.VII. — 7 —

To Colombia. — “I have to-day addressed the following telegram to the Foreign Minister of Peru [text given above]. The Council trusts that, in the exercise of their legitimate rights, the Colombian Government will take stiictest precautions, not only to avoid the violation of Peruvian territory, but also to make clear to the Peruvian Government that it is not the intention of the Colombian Government to commit any such violation. The Council further trusts that, in the act of restoring order, the Colombian authorities will exercise all possible clemency and limit their action strictly to the preservation of order in their own territory.”

The Committee of the Council devoted itself, meanwhile, to studying various documents submitted to it by the representatives of the two Parties. In reporting progress on February 3rd, the Committee submitted to the Council a further telegram addressed to the Peruvian Government, which was adopted by the Council. The latter reiterated the view set out in the telegram of January 26th, as the telegram of February 2nd from the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs merely confirmed the attitude taken up from the outset by that Government in voicing the sentiments of the Department of Loreto and asking for a rectification of the frontier. The Peruvian Government was informed that the Colombian Government had given assurances that it would strictly conform to the recommendations contained in the Council’s telegram of January 26th. The Council asked to be kept informed of the result of the Brazilian Government’s proposals for mediation, which it trusted would be successful. The Council authorised its Committee to take all necessary action in the interval between meetings. After the Council session had closed, the Committee kept in touch with both Governments. On the approach of the Colombian forces sent to restore order in the territory of Leticia, the Committee on February 16th felt it its duty to apply to the Peruvian Government and ask for information about the incidents notified by the Colombian Government, and on February 17th about the presence of Peruvian military posts at Tarapaca—i.e., on Colombian territory. The Peruvian Government replied on February 16th to the first telegram that the serious events which were taking place were due to the aggression of the Colombian forces against the Peruvians occupying Tarapaca. The Peruvian Government denounced the action of the Colombian Government to the Members of the League of Nations for the application of the Covenant. The Peruvian Government replied to the second telegram on February 17th and stated, amongst other things, that Tarapaca and Leticia belonged to the same territorial zone; against the unjustified cession of which to Colombia the Department of Loreto protested and decided to recover it, occupying it on its own account.

2. After the Appeal in accordance with the Terms of Article 15.

On February 17th, the representative of the Colombian Government requested the Secretary-General, in the name of his Government, to summon an extraordinary meeting of the Council in virtue of Article 15 of the Covenant for the purpose of examining the situation set up by the aggression of which Colombia complained. The Council met in extraordinary session on Tuesday, February 21st. In calling this meeting together, the President had also in view the last paragraph of the Peruvian Government’s telegram of February 16th. At this meeting, the Council heard the representative of the Colombian Government make his statement. This statement and the notes and other statements referred to in document C.139.M.63.1933.VII constitute the statement provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Covenant. The Council also took cognisance of the action taken by the Secretary-General in accordance with paragraph 1 of that Article. At the same time, the Secretary-General informed the Council that, according to a telegram received from the Peruvian delegate, the memoranda and statements presented by him to the Council constituted the substance of the Peruvian statement according to paragraph 2 of Article 15. The Secretary-General also communicated to the Council a telegram from the Peruvian representative regretting his inability to be present at the meeting of the Council. The President of the Council regretted the absence of the representative of the Peruvian Government, but this could not interrupt the Council's proceedings, The Council accordingly decided to entrust to the members of the Committee of the Council, assisted by the representatives of Colombia and Peru, the task of endeavouring to secure a settlement of the dispute in the manner provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Covenant. On March 1st, the Committee of the Council submitted a report, which was adopted by the Council at its meeting on that date. The report explained in detail the efforts made by the Committee in compliance with the instructions given to it by the Council : 1

“ The Committee noted the agreement of the Parties that the territory was under the absolute sovereignty of Colombia in virtue of a treaty. This territory having been occupied by Peruvian subjects, the question arose what action should be taken in order to secure an agreement between the Parties which would be in harmony with the Covenant of the League and with the principles set out above.

1 Document C.158.M.78.1933.VII. — 8 —

“ The Committee wished to recall to the Parties the statements made by the Peruvian delegate at the Council meeting of December ioth, 1931, when he said that:

“ ‘ (1) No State has the right to effect the military occupation of the territory of another in order to ensure the execution of certain treaties ; “ ‘ (2) No State is entitled to oblige another—having invaded its territory—to enter upon direct negotiations on the bearing and legal value of treaties previously existing between the two States ; “ ' (3) The exercise of the right possessed by each State to ensure the protection of the lives and property of its nationals must be limited by respect for the sovereignty of the other State ; no State being entitled, in order to provide such protection, to authorise its military forces to penetrate into the territory of the other for the purpose of carrying out police operations ; “ ' (4) The fact that a State has certain rights, claims, economic concessions, etc., in regard to another State does not entitle the former to effect the military occupation of the territory or to seize the property of the debtor State. Any recovery of debts by compulsion is illicit, in accordance with the principles accepted by the Second Peace Conference (The Hague, 1907).’

“ The Committee agreed that the Peruvian Government should apply these principles in the case at issue.”

The report contained a chapter placing on record the support which the Governments of the United States of America and of Brazil had given the League throughout its efforts to find a solution for this dispute. The attempts at mediation by Brazil were referred to above. The United States Government made a point of supporting both the mediation of Brazil and the efforts of the League. The Council placed before the Parties the following proposals, which had already been communicated to them officially by its Committee on February 25th: 1

“ 1. The Council’s previous resolutions remain intact. “ The proposals hereunder, however, are formulated with a view to the settlement pro­ vided for in Article 15, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. “ 2. A League Commission to take charge of the territory. “ The territory to be completely evacuated by the Peruvian forces. “ 3. Colombia to place forces at the disposal of the League Commission ; these to become international forces for the duration of the negotiations. “ The Commission to have power to attach to the international forces any other personnel it may think necessary. “ 4. These forces and personnel to be responsible for maintaining order in the territory during the negotiations. “ 5. The details of the execution of this programme to be settled by the Commission mentioned in No. 2. “ 6. The two Parties shall decide as to the method of carrying on the negotiations, which will be undertaken for the purpose of studying in a conciliatory atmosphere the whole of the problems outstanding, and the best manner of reaching a solution of them which shall be just, lasting and satisfactory. “ The negotiations shall be begun and carried out with all expedition. “ The Council is ready, at the request of either of the Parties, to give its good offices in case of disagreement, whether as to the method of negotiation or as to any point of substance which may arise.”

The letter in which these proposals were sent to the representative of Peru contained the following paragraph :

“ The Committee understands that your Government equally agrees that, if Peruvian military elements and material are on Colombian territory, they should be withdrawn as speedily as possible, subject to the necessary arrangements regarding modalities of such withdrawal, and all attacks on that territory discouraged.”

These proposals, though accepted on February 27th by the representative of Colombia, have not so far been approved by the Peruvian Government. In reply to a letter from the Peruvian representative of March 2nd, the Committee gave the following interpretation of these clauses : 2

“ 1. The Colombian delegate has given assurances that the Colombian troops which are in far-distant posts have received instructions to take no action which can be considered as an act of provocation or hostility towards the Peruvian garrisons. “ The Peruvian Government, on the other hand, has undertaken to cease hostilities pending the present negotiations.

1 Document C.158.M.78.1933.VII. 2 Document C.168.1933.VII. — 9 —

“ The Committee understands that Peru binds herself to take no act of hostility or provocation against the forces of Colombia in Colombian territory ; and that Colombia binds herself to take no act of hostility or provocation against the forces of Peru in Peruvian territory. " It further understands that each side will strictly respect the legitimate rights of navigation on the River Putumayo possessed by the other. “ The Committee cannot formally require the to refrain from enforcing its authority in its own territory unless and until the proposals for settlement have been accepted. It has reason to believe that, as a matter of fact, no contact between the Colombian forces in the region of Leticia and any Pervuian forces which may be on that territory is likely while the procedure of conciliation is in course. “ If and when the proposals made by the Committee are accepted by the two Parties, the Colombian forces will remain outside Leticia until the International Commission draws upon them for the maintenance of order in the territory. “ 2. The Committee considers that international forces are forces placed under the sole authority and control of the Commission. “ 3 and 4. Subject to the third condition laid down in the Committee’s proposals to the Parties of February 25th, the question of the elements which may be attached to the international forces thus constituted is left entirely to the discretion of the Commission. “ The word ‘ elements ’ does not imply the use of additional forces, but will allow the Commission to utilise the services of a certain number of military or other experts should it so desire. “ The Committee desires to point out that this exchange of letters must not in any way be regarded as affording a ground for a further extension of the few days’ delay requested by the Peruvian Government on March 1st and agreed to by the Council.”

The representative of Colombia accepted this interpretation, as may be seen from his letter dated March 3rd, 1933: 1

“ The Colombian Government has always considered and understood that ‘ the inter­ national forces ’ referred to in paragraph 3 of the conciliation formula submitted to the two Parties by the Committee on February 25 th would be those forces which Colombia would ' place at the disposal of the League and which would become international forces for the duration of the negotiations ’. The ' third condition ’ mentioned by the Chairman of the Committee in his letter to the Peruvian delegate is indeed precisely that the international forces should be ‘ the forces which Colombia would place at the disposal of the League ’. “ As regards the powers of the Commission ‘ to attach to the international forces any other elements it may think necessary ’, Mr. Lester states : ‘ The word " elements ” does not imply the use of additional forces, but will allow the Commission to utilise the services of a certain number of military or other experts should it so desire ’. This explanation is entirely in conformity with the point of view of my Government. “ My Government notes with satisfaction that the sense of the formula of settlement proposed by the Committee and accepted by Colombia is entirely clear and leaves no room for any misunderstanding. The note from the delegate of Peru which you have been good enough to communicate to me is a complete justification of the explanations which I gave before the Council with the object of defining clearly the attitude of my Government. “ You are aware, as are also the members of the Committee, that the acceptance by Colombia of the Committee’s proposal is not, as stated by the Peruvian delegate, ‘ a purely outward and verbal one ’. We have accepted precisely what was proposed to us by the Committee. There is not the slightest difference of opinion between the Committee and the Colombian delegation as regards the interpretation of the suggested formula, and, during the discussions which I have had the honour to have with the Committee, it has been made abundantly clear that my statements as to the interpretation of this formula were in perfect agreement with the exact and clear meaning which the Committee itself gave to the wording of its proposal. “ I have therefore the honour to infonn you in conclusion that my Government accepts in every particular the explanations given in the letter sent by Mr. Lester to the Peruvian delegate on March 2nd.”

On March 6th, the representative of Peru informed the Chairman of the Committee of a few modifications which his Government desired to introduce into the formula recommended by the Committee to the two Parties on February 25th. The representative of Peru wrote :2

■ . The presence of Colombian troops in the territory, even under the name of international forces, would be likely to prevent pacification in the district in question. Such troops would indeed be an element likely to produce further trouble. They would be tempted to carry out reprisals against the population which has revolted and which has

1 Document C.169.1933.VII. 1 Document C.174.M.86.1933.VII. — 10 —

expelled the Colombian authorities. Furthermore, the international forces appointed for the maintenance of order do not in reality possess this character. They are Colombian forces to which the Commission will be entitled to attach military or other experts. The Commission may, or may not, avail itself of this right. “ Furthermore, a breakdown in the negotiations is to be feared if the formula itself does not prescribe definite rules with regard to the negotiations which are to be opened. Such a failure might create doubts as to the sincerity of the procedure of conciliation and as to the very meaning of any future settlement of the conflict.”

The Chairman of the Committee replied to the representative of Peru, on the same day, that the Committee was not prepared to alter the proposals of February 25th unless by mutual agreement between the two Parties. He continued: 1

It desires, however, to call Your Excellency’s attention to its letter of March 2nd, in which it gave a formal interpretation of certain points which Your Excellency considered as insufficiently clear. “ Your Government, while expressing its appreciation of the good-will and impartiality of the Committee—an appreciation for which the Committee is grateful—now asks for further modifications. Although these modifications go considerably beyond those mentioned in the first paragraphs of Your Excellency's letter, the Committee has nevertheless given them careful consideration. “ The Colombian forces to which you refer will be placed under the strict control and authority of an International Commission appointed by and responsible to the League of Nations. They will be international forces constituted for the sole purpose of maintaining order. They cannot, therefore, be an element which will produce further trouble, nor can they be used to exercise reprisals against Peruvian inhabitants complying with the injunctions of the Commission. " Further, the Committee is unable to admit that such forces are not international, whether or not the Commission makes use of the right conferred upon it to add military or other experts."

With regard to the other point raised by the representative of Peru, the Committee called his attention to paragraph 6 of the report adopted by the Council on March 1st. On March 7th, the representative of Peru communicated to the Secretary-General the following new proposals made by his Government : 2

“ 1. That order be maintained in the territory by the population itself, the Commission selecting for that purpose such personnel as it may think necessary ; " 2. That the success of the negotiations be ensured by a suitable procedure.”

On the same day, the Secretary-General replied to the representative of Peru, on behalf of the Committee : 3

"... This letter has apparently crossed that which the President of the Committee addressed to you yesterday, which contains replies to the various points raised therein, except as regards the proposal that order should be maintained in the territory by the population itself, the International Commission choosing for this purpose such elements as it may consider necessary. “ In this connection, the Committee desires me to point out to Your Excellency that, in the memorandum sent to you by it on March 2nd, it is stated that ‘ the Colombian forces will remain outside Leticia until the International Commission draws upon them for the maintenance of order in the territory’, and the Committee does not feel able to add anything to this statement. The Committee has, however, at once transmitted Your Excellency’s letter to the Colombian representative and invited an expression of his views thereon."

These proposals were rejected by the delegate of Colombia at the Council meeting on March 8th. On the same day, the Council adopted the Committee’s report,4 in which it was stated that the Committee did not consider that the counter-proposals of the Peruvian Government offered a basis of solution of the dispute which they could recommend to the Council and the Colombian Government for adoption. After the adoption of that report, the Peruvian Government,5 through its representative, proposed on March 8th that the whole subject-matter of the dispute between Colombia and Peru should be submitted to arbitration, as it regarded that dispute “ as coming within the category of disputes suitable for submission to arbitration It therefore requested the application of Article 13 of the Covenant.

1 Document C.174.M.86.1933.VII. 3 Document C.175.1933.VII. 8 Document C.176.1933.VII. * Document C.179.1933.VII. 6 Document C. 177.M.87.1933.VII. — II —

The Peruvian Government’s request having been laid before the Committee of the Council, the Secretary-General replied to its representative on March gth by the following letter : 1

“ . . . The Committee of the Council has given particularly careful consideration to that communication and has elucidated the legal aspect of the question. “ The Committee has unanimously concluded that the arbitration provided for in the Article referred to would not be possible unless Colombia agreed to it. This conclusion is strengthened by the considerations that prevailed at the second session of the Assembly, which was called upon to pronounce upon proposals for the amendment of Article 13. “ Moreover, the Committee could not but recognise that, in this particular case, Colombia has submitted the dispute to the Council, thus pursuing one of the lines of conduct open to her under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Covenant ...”

Such is the present position. The Council has been unable to bring one of the Parties to accept the solutions proposed for the settlement of the dispute in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Covenant.

(/) C o n c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e D i s p u t e .

The Council reaches the following conclusions:

1. That both Parties agree :

(a) That the Treaty of March 24th, 1922, between Colombia and Peru is in force ; (b) That, in virtue of that Treaty, the territory known as the “ Leticia Trapezium ” forms part of the territory of the Republic of Colombia.

2. That that territory has been invaded by Peruvians, who ejected the Colombian authorities from their posts. 3. That those Peruvians have been supported by the military authorities of the Department of Loreto (Peru). 4. That a Peruvian post had been established at Tarapaca on Colombian territory; that this post was later captured by Colombian forces. 5. That the township of Leticia is still in the hands of the Peruvians. 6. That the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his telegram of February 17th, states that the Department of Loreto has decided to re-claim that territorial zone by occupying it on its own account. 7. That the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated, in his telegram of February 2nd, " that it cannot be an obligation upon Peru not to interfere with the attack on Leticia, where there are Peruvians who, voicing the sentiments of the whole Department of Loreto, have gone there to protest against the iniquity which separated them from their country of origin regardless of the will of the inhabitants of the territory that was being dismembered and of their rights as a political minority”. 8. That the terms of settlement of the dispute proposed by the Council in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 15 have been accepted by the Colombian Government and rejected by the Peruvian Government.

In view of these conclusions, and it having proved impossible to settle the dispute as provided in Article 15, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Council makes the following recommendations, which it deems just and proper in regard thereto :

II. RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE COUNCIL DEEMS JUST AND PROPER IN REGARD TO THE DISPUTE.

Ihe provisions hereunder constitute the recommendations made by the Council in accordance with Article 15, paragraph 4, of the Covenant :

The Co u n c il , !• Seeing that the situation resulting from the presence of Peruvian forces in Colombian erritory is incompatible with the principles of , with those of the Covenant of , e League of Nations and of the Pact of Paris, which are binding on the two Parties, and to which e settlement of the dispute must conform ; . *^nd that it is necessary to establish as speedily as possible a situation in harmony with those

1 Document C.186.M.90.1933. VII. — 12 —

And that, moreover, the Government of Colombia has accepted the proposals made by the Council in its telegram dated January 26th, 1933, to the effect that the strictest precautions should be taken to avoid any violation of Peruvian territory and, in proceeding to the re-establish­ ment of order, the Colombian authorities should show the requisite moderation :

R e c o m m e n d s t h e c o m p l e t e e v a c u a t io n b y t h e P e r u v i a n F o r c e s o f t h e t e r r it o r y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e L e t i c i a T r a p e z i u m , a n d t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f a l l s u p p o r t f r o m t h e

P e r u v i a n s w h o h a v e o c c u p i e d t h a t a r e a .

2. Seeing that the Council has recognised the necessity for negotiations on the basis of the Treaties in force between the Parties for the purpose of discussing all the problems outstanding and the best manner of reaching a solution of them which shall be just, lasting and satisfactory; And that the discussion of these problems will include the examination of any legitimate Peruvian interests :

R e c o m m e n d s t h a t t h e negotiations b e b e g u n a n d c a r r i e d o u t w i t h a l l e x p e d i t i o n , AS SOON AS SUITABLE MEASURES SHALL HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO CARRY OUT THE FIRST RECOM­ MENDATION. *

The Council declares that, once the two Parties have stated their intention to comply with the above recommendations, it will be ready, at the request of either Party, to lend its good offices in case of disagreement as to any point either of procedure or of substance which may arise.

* *

Each of the Parties is requested to inform the Secretary-General of the action it may take in compliance with the recommendations of this report.

*

The Council is confident that the Members of the League of Nations will refrain from any act that might prejudice the execution or delay the application of these recommendations. The Council recalls that, at its meeting of March nth, 1932, the Assembly of the League of Nations declared that it is incumbent upon the Members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris. It also recalls the provisions signed at Washington on August 3rd, 1932, by nineteen American States, including Colombia and Peru, whereby the signatory States declared themselves opposed to force and renounced it both for the settlement of their differences and as an instrument of national policy in the relations between American States. The American nations declared in the same document that they would not recognise the validity of any territorial acquisitions that might be obtained by an occupation or conquest effected by force of arms.

The Secretary-General is requested to send a copy of this report to the Members of the League and the Governments of the United States of America, the United States of Brazil, , and Ecuador.

Annex I.

I . T e l e g r a m t o t h e M i n i s t e r f o r F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f P e r u f r o m t h e M i n i s t e r fo r

F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f C o l o m b ia . Bogota, January n th , 1933.

The Government of the Republic of Colombia considers it indispensable and urgent, in order to safeguard friendly relations with the Government of the Republic of Peru, to announce in the most formal and solemn manner the following facts : Since the night of August 3ist-September 1st, 1932, when the Colombian authorities of the town of Leticia were assaulted, imprisoned and deported by a group of armed persons, including soldiers and officers of the Peruvian army, acts of aggression against the territory, which is under — 13 — the dominion of Colombia in virtue of public treaties now in force, have repeatedly been committed by the Peruvian military forces of the Department of Loreto. Those forces have constructed trenches in the invaded area, not only in the Colombian town of Leticia and its environs, but also at Tarapaca on the River Putumayo, in territory which is also indisputably Colombian. They have brought guns and machine-guns into both these places ; they have organised armed resistance with military vedettes belonging to the Peruvian Government ; they have brought their military aircraft into Colombian territory, and the military authorities of the base at"’of have communicated with the Peruvian garrisons of the area, informing them that their Government will hold the town of Leticia by force and will similarly prevent those who have attacked it from being dislodged from it. In short, the military forces of Peru have organised an invasion and have aggravated it by repeated acts of war, evincing an intention to oppose resistance to the measures taken by the Colombian Government to restore the lawful authorities and put an end to a violent occupation which nothing can justify or excuse. On the 6th instant, the Commandant-General of the Fifth Division of the Peruvian Army at Iquitos, Colonel Victor Ramos, sent to General Alfredo Vasquez Cobo at Manaos (Brazil) and thé Colombian Consul-General at Belem do Para the following communication :

“ Iquitos, January 6th, 1933, “ I, the Commandant-General of the Fifth Division in Eastern Peru, noting the march of the expedition under your command towards the Amazon, am in duty bound to inform you that hitherto the Division under my command has confidently hoped for a pacific solution, for which my Government has been negotiating since the incident of September 1st, 1932; but the entry of the Colombian expedition into the Amazon region and its march on Leticia can only mean the outbreak of hostilities which we have been trying to prevent. In consequence, I have taken all military measures to prevent the entry of your expedition into Leticia and to guarantee our security in the Peruvian basin of the Amazon, in order to prevent any acts of hostility against my compatriots, who are legitimately occupying the Leticia zone in virtue of the professed principles of the free determination of nationality.

“ Victor R a m o s , Colonel, Commandant-General of the Fifth Division.”

The acts I have just mentioned are contrary to the Frontier Treaty between the two Republics and to other Conventions in force between them. Since the illegal invasion of Leticia, the Peruvian Government, by a note to the Colombian Government dated September 30th, has admitted the validity of the Frontier Treaty of 1922 and in consequence the fact that Leticia belongs to Colombia. Further, the acts of the Peruvian forces and the telegram from the Commandant-General of the Fifth Division of Eastern Peru to the Colombian Consul and to General Vasquez Cobo constitute a clear violation of the Treaty condemning war as an instrument of national policy (the Briand-Kellogg Pact). The Colombian Government takes note of this fact by the present commu­ nication and, in the exercise of its sovereign right and its duty, it will take all necessary measures to restore public order in its territory, to re-establish the lawful authorities and to maintain its sovereignty in the territory, which belongs to it and which has been recognised by Peru as belonging to Colombia. My Government, sincerely desirous of maintaining peace with the Government of Peru, is to-day addressing to it by the present communication a request to withdraw the Peruvian military forces from Colombian territory in order to enable the lawful authorities to be restored there without violence. The Colombian Government declares that, in any action that might prove necessary in the Leticia area, its forces will simply be re-occupying Colombian territory and will prevent the continuance in that area of the scandalous violence which has caused a breakdown of law and order there in breach of public treaties. The Colombian forces which will be used for that purpose will avoid conflicts with the Peruvian military forces unless the latter oppose the Colombian forces in their work of restoring the lawful authorities of Colombia. The Colombian Government requests the Peruvian Government, on the basis of the friendly relations which have existed between them for so long, to take all necessary measures to ensure that the Peruvian officials, forces or other agents will not oppose these legitimate operations on the part of the Colombian forces, which are necessary for the rightful maintenance of Colombian sovereignty. The Colombian Government, in making the above declaration, is dealing with a question in regard to which there is no dispute between the Governments of Colombia and Peru—namely, the title and legal authority of Leticia. My Government reiterates the assurances already given that, once Colombian sovereignty is restored at Leticia and in the adjacent territory, if there is then any other question which the Peruvian Government desires to discuss, the Colombian Government will be prepared to do so in a genuine spirit of conciliation. It would then be possible to reach ‘ln agreement by direct diplomatic negotiations or through the good offices of some third jovernment or by the means provided by the treaties in force between the two countries. A certified correct copy of the present cable has been sent to the Peruvian Legation at Bogota.

R . U r d a n e t a A r b el a ez, Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs. — 14 —

2. T el eg ra m se n t to t h e M in is t e r for F o r e ig n A ffa ir s of C olom bia b y t h e M inister for F o r e ig n A f f a ir s o f P e r u . Lima, January 14th, 1933.

During the night of Wednesday, January nth, I had the honour to receive the important telegram from Your Excellency in which you refer to the circumstances preceding the occupation of Leticia on September 1st last by a group of armed individuals, who turned out the Colombian authorities of that place. After reproducing a communication addressed on January 6th by the General commanding the Fifth Division at Iquitos to the Chief of the Colombian Expedition, General Vasquez Cobo, and the Consul-General of Colombia at Belem do Para, Your Excellency states that these acts are contrary to the Boundary Treaty between Peru and Colombia of March 24th, 1922, and to the Paris Pact of Non-Aggression and requests, in the name of your Govern­ ment, that the Government of Peru shall withdraw the Peruvian military forces from Colombian territory in order that the lawful authorities may be re-established there without any disturbance. Your Excellency’s Government declares in this connection that, in the course of the action which it will be necessary to take in the Leticia area, its forces will merely re-occupy Colombian territory and prevent the continuance of the scandalous situation of violence which has developed there and that, further, the Colombian forces will avoid any conflict with those of Peru unless resistance is offered by the latter. The Colombian Government concludes by requesting my Government, on the basis of the friendly relations which have so long existed between them, to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the Peruvian officials, forces and all other representatives shall not in any way oppose the legitimate operations of the Colombian forces in the just mainte­ nance of its sovereignty; on the assumption that there is no dispute between our respective Governments as regards the title to and legal authority over Leticia, Your Excellency’s Government repeats the assurances already given that, when once Colombian authority' has been re-established at Leticia and in the adjacent territory, the Colombian Government would be prepared to deal in the widest spirit of conciliation with any other matter which my Government might desire to discuss, and that it would then be possible to reach this agreement by direct diplomatic negotiations, or by the good offices of a third Government, or, finally, by the methods provided for in the treaties in force between the two countries. I note that an authentic copy of this telegram has been forwarded to the Peruvian Legation at Bogota, and I have the honour to give the following reply to Your Excellency. As has been explained on more than one occasion in the communications from my predecessor to the Colombian Legation at Lima, the events at Leticia on September 1st surprised my Govern­ ment as well as that of Your Excellency, and it has been proved that neither soldiers nor officers on the active list of the Peruvian army took any part in these events, which arose merely from action undertaken by private individuals, who endeavoured by their own initiative to realise an irrepressible patriotic aspiration of the Department of Loreto. The precautionary measures which the military authorities of Loreto were subsequently obliged to adopt were the consequence of the large-scale preparations made by Colombia for forcibly overcoming the occupants of Leticia, who, in view of the fact that they were Peruvians and had been actuated by the desire to regain national territory, could not be abandoned to the uncertainty which threatened them as a result of the despatch of Colombian military forces with instructions to reduce them to submission. The attitude of the military officers at Loreto was entirely defensive: its object was to avoid surprise and to give to our nationals the protection due to them; and it may be remarked that, whereas the Peruvian river fleet has remained and is at present upon the same peace footing as was the case previous to September 1st, without the addition of a single unit, the Colombian Government has on the contrary at considerable expense made purchases which have enabled it to improvise a large naval division, whose advance constitutes, not merely a provocation, but a preliminary measure of aggression, and which is advancing with numerous troops on board in the direction of the waters of the Peruvian Amazon. The determination of my Government to come to a peaceful settlement of the difficulty is evidenced, not merely in theory by its unvarying support of international peace and American brotherhood, but also in practice by its definite action towards the strengthening of peace in the continent ; this spirit has led us to request Your Excellency’s Government not to proceed to military mobilisation for the purpose of subduing the agitation at Leticia. From the same motives, my Government has endeavoured to reach at Washington by means of the Conciliation Commission an amicable arrangement, though such an arrangement could not be realised owing to a deliberate distortion of the dispute by conferring upon it a non-existent domestic character; the same motives have led my Government to abstain from mobilising all or any of its naval forces from the Pacific towards the Amazon, and even from making any increase in its naval forces. I was not aware of the declarations which Your Excellency assures me have been made by the authorities of the Iquitos barracks to the Peruvian garrisons in this military area, to the effect that my Government would retain Leticia by force and would offer the same resistance to any attempt to dislodge those wrho have occupied it, or, further, that, in the opinion of Your E xcellency and your Government, the only declarations of any official authority are those made by this Ministry or its authorised representatives; I feel bound to draw Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that it is not possible to speak of a forced retention of Leticia by my Government in view of the fact that it is not my Government which has occupied this town and which still remains in possession of it. Neither is it possible to rely upon communications such as that of the General commanding the Fifth Military Area—which were perhaps due to excess of zeal, and were in any case preventive and defensive acts, in no respect provocative—such communications being sent — 15 — without the knowledge, authority or approval of the Government, which had declared once more its views regarding the validity of the Boundary Treaty of 1922 and its determination to abide by it as also by all the other treaties at present in force, among which is the Paris Pact of Non-Aggression mentioned by Your Excellency. So much is this the case that my Government's sole endeavour is to modify the frontier line set up by the Treaty of 1922 and not in any way to abolish or cancel the Treaty itself, and, furthermore, in order to repair the serious injustice committed in separating Leticia from Peru, my Government is prepared to offer adequate territorial compensations. The urgent desire of Your Excellency’s Government to maintain peace is identical with that felt so strongly by the Government of Peru, and we will leave no stone unturned to bring about the realisation of this desire ; we believe, however, that it would show a lamentable misapprehension as to the best methods to be adopted if improper measures of violence were preferred to the quiet and reasonable discussion of a generous and satisfactory agreement, which would remove an avoidable injustice and bind the friendship of the two countries on the unshakable bases of their respective rights and interests. Such a policy would be in entire harmony with the assurances repeated by Your Excellency in the name of your Government—assurances which as a representative of my Government I both welcome and share—that you will be prepared to discuss with the Govern­ ment of Peru in the fullest spirit of conciliation any matter on which discussion is desired. All that is necessary is to abstain from irregular preliminary action wrhich makes more difficult instead of facilitating that agreement which we are so anxious to reach for the consolidation of brotherly friendship between Peru and Colombia; such action also nullifies the unselfish efforts made by the Government of a great nation which is our friend and neighbour and whose intervention, already accepted by our two countries, may bring to a friendly understanding the differences which separate us. In return for the courtesy of Your Excellency, I have not failed to forward to the Colombian Legation at Lima a copy of the present telegram. J. M. Ma n z a n il l a , Minister for Foreign Affairs of Peru.

Annex II.

S o u t h e r n F r o n t ie r s of C olombia w ith B razil a n d P e r u .

70 65

Teffe

200 300

65

Top View