LEAGUE of NATIONS. Tcominunicated to the Council D Members of the League,- ' Geneva, January 24 Th, 1933'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEAGUE OF NATIONS. tCominunicated to the Council d Members of the League,- ' Geneva, January 24 th, 1933' COMMUNICATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU. Note by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General has the honour to circulate to the Council and Members of the League the following communication, dated January 20th, which he has received from the Government •f Peru, Sir, You have brought to the notice of my Government, and to the Members of the Council of the League of Nations, the letter sent you by the Colombian Government on January 2nd concerning the situation at LETICIA. In conformity with instructions just received, I have the honour to transmit to you the requisite details concerning the events which occurred in this town and the present divergencies between Peru and Colombia. The occupation of LETICIA by a group of Peruvians on September 1st, 1932» and the expulsion of the Colombian authorities is the origin of the present dispute. LETICIA, a port on the river Amazon, was founded by Peruvians more than a century ago. It has always been inhabited by Peruvians, but was ceded to Colombia under the Salamon-Lozano Treaty which, in I9 2 8 , fixed the frontier between the two countries. The accusations brought by the Colombian Government against the assailants are absolutely unfounded. The object of these (1} See Document C.2O.M.5 .I9 3 3 .VII. - 2 - || c. ecus' tiv>ns is to obscure the disinterested char a ct or of t no movement. Faced with a situation which ;vas bound to trouble the friendly and neighbourly relations between P. u and Colombia, my Govern ment informed the Colombian Government in certain statements which it has had occasion to confirm, that it had nothin--, what ever to do with thvse events which had originated and developed without its knov aedge. On September 30th, 1 9 3 2 , M* Savala- Loayza, the peruvi: n Minister for Foreign Affairs, actuated by motives ci sincerity, sent the Colombian Minister at Lima a note requesting him to be good enough to draw his Government’s attention to the invincible movement of sympathy that these events had aroused in the Department of Loreto, which forms a geographical and moral unit known as the Peruvian Orient. He asked him to consider the dispute calmly and broad-mindedly. It would not be sufficient, the Peruvian Chancellor wrote, to reduce the insurgents of LETICIA by force and thus create an impermanent situation maintained by constraint and violence: it was necessary to create a new and more stable order, which would take into account ’’the relations of geographical continuity, the commercial interests and the ties of' nationality and blood uniting the population whose territory was ceded to Colombia by the Treaty and the rest of the population of the Peruvian Orient." Such a policy would obviate fresh troubles in the future and the rousing of feelings of animosity and distrust. In its note of September 3 0 th, the Peruvian Government announced that it had laid the dispute before the Permanent Inter national Conciliation Commission at Washington, in conformity with the Convention signed in that city on January 5 th, 1929, and had requested it to set up a Conciliation Commission. - 3 - It did not then appeal to the League of Nations under Article ig of the Covenant because it desired to show that it had entire confidence in the "comprehending spirit-' of the Colombian Government. In approaching the Permanent Commission at Washing- tion, Peru was respecting her contractual obligations and remained true to her diplomatic tradition. Both in the most brilliant and in the more sombre periods of her history she has always condemned imperialism and war, defended conci liation and advocated understanding and friendship. * * * The nations of Latin America are, within the frame- v orh of the League of Nations, bound by special agreements a. understandings which may be termed regional, though they draw their inspiration from the Covenant, and which have been pre pared, enlarged and ratified by successive Pan-American con ferences. Among these may be mentioned the 19^3 Convention of Santiago-de-Chile and the 1929 Washington Convention which institute international commissions of conciliation. At the time of the creation of this procedure, the Colombian delegate stated on behalf of his Government that he would sign the Washington Convention without reservations of any kind. * * * The Colombian Government has shown itself averse from the above-mentioned procedure in the present instance. It claims that the Leticia incident is a purely internal affair and that it is for Colombia herself without any in tervention in the interests of peace, to re-establish her authority in the disturbed area. And yet, for this purpose - 4 * it applies to jurists of other nations for assistance, engages foieign crews, seeks to recruit mercenaries and utilises a waterway, the Amazon, to which Brazil, who is deeply attached to the ca.se of American peace, could deny Colombia access. Though shrinking from the intervention of the Washington Conciliation Commission which has an inter- American regional range of action, it emphasises the inter national importance of the conflict "by addressing a note concerning Leticia to the League of Nations, an institution whose range of action is universal. Moreover, this aspect of an incident, which exceeds the interests of any on country, has just been officially recognised by the representative of the Colombian Government in Europe, who in a letter to the League - an act which itself invalidates the argument he upholds - notes the special character of the troubles at Leticia which affect a frontier region. The special character of these events is, of course, that they are a matter of international inter-: st. Thus, Colombia cannot escape an inconsistency im posed upon her by the very nature of events. Police opera tions of a purely domestic nature have to 'be carried out with the assistance of foreign elements and aim, in the light of "the Colombian Government’s own actions, assuming more - no core an international character. - 5 - The Salomon-Lozano Treaty, which was not prompted by a spirit of caution and moderation, instead of removing the existing difficulties, crcated a state of war. As soon as it was ratified, it caused Ecuador, a neighbouring and friendly country which had been carefully kept aloof from the negotia tions, to break off diplomatic relations with Colombia. This Treaty was intended by the negotiators to settle "finally and irrevocably,T, as stated in Article 1, disputes between the two countries regarding frontier questions, but it aroused the strongest opposition and the deepest misgivings in Peru. The circumstances which led to its preparation and which it is desirable to recall are sufficient to explain these sentiments. They relate to the character of the Peruvian Government in power at the time, to the excessive concessions contained in the Treaty, to the non-execution of one of its claus.s and to the transfer of populated territory without previous consultation of the inhabitants. The dictatorial re'gime set up in 1919 suppressed the fundamental liberties. It was established with no makeweight to and with no control over its authority, in defiance of democratic principles and the independence of the other powers in the State. Once the Treaty was signed in 1922 the Peruvian Government observed the strictest possible secrecy on the matter and did not submit it to Congress until the end of 1924, although the latter was notoriously the henchman ox the dictatorial regime. The Chairman of the Diplomatic p e r missions, being aware that the Treaty was detrimental to Peru, postponed the drafting of their reports sine ctie^ In 1927 two of the Chairman of those Commissions resigned* Every possible means was employed to prevent the discussion of the Treaty and efforts wera made no stifle the opinion of Loreto oy vident meveur c. The important pamphlet published by :i, Julio C. i.r.v:a.-., oenator of Loreto, was seised. h. Arana hims If vus prosecuted for his opposition to the anti-patriotic clauses in the. Tr aty. All the towns of the region signed strong protests against those clauses. In tii" protest of the town 01 Caballococha, the capital of the district which, with LUTICIA, formed the "trapeze” between the Putumayo and the Amazon transferred to Colombia, this arrangement was described as iniquitous. In this atmos phere of silence- and terror the Treaty was approved by Congress. On i.ugust 17th, 15,50, vhe northern territories of the former district of Lor.to, which had always belonged to it, were handed over to Colombia. The latter came into possession of an area comparable in extent with Belgium or Greece ; the establishments of Caraparana and Igaraparana, with tn-ir huts, ports and wire less stations. In addition to these unjustifiable transfers of territory the Treaty caused very grave economic and military prejudice to Loreto. In exchange for these concessions Colombia was to transfer to P--.ru the zone of San lïi *u 1 or Sucunbios, of which she. alleged herself to be in possession, as a matter of feet she. wan unable to effect this transfer and merely asserted that in future P ru could exercise sovereignty over a region to which the latter had no access. On the one side, therefore, there was a r al transfer and on the other a theoretical assignment. The non—execution of a clause laying down the principl- oi t rritorial compensation should, in strict law, involve tlr nullity oi the legal bond - 7 - Moreover, 17,000 inhabitants of the Loreto region oame under foreign rule without having been consulted, as required by the law of nations, and despite their protests of fidelity to Peru.