Dispute Between Bolivia and Paraguay Observations Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
[Communicated to the Council Qfficial N o . Q , 3 1 4 . M. 140. 1934. VII. and the Members of the League.] Geneva, August 16th, 1934. LEAGUE OF NATIONS DISPUTE BETWEEN BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY OBSERVATIONS OF THE PARAGUAYAN GOVERNMENT ON THE CHACO COMMISSION'S REPORT Note by the Secretary- General : The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate to the Council and Members of the League the Paraguayan Government’s observations on the Chaco Commission’s report transmitted to him on July 9th by the Paraguayan delegate accredited to the League of Nations. [Translation.] Paris, July 9th, 1934. Sir, On the instructions of my Government, I have the honour to communicate to you the memorandum containing the Paraguayan Government’s observations on the Chaco Commission’s report, together with the atlas attached thereto. I shall be glad if you will kindly communicate the translation of this document to the Members of the Council and of the League. (Signed) R. V. Caballero d e B e d o y a , Delegate to the League of Nations, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Paraguay in France. Observations of the Paraguayan Government on the Report of the Special Commission of the League of Nations. The special Commission which the League Council decided, on May 20th, 1933, to send to the scene of hostilities to study the Chaco conflict, after working from November 3rd, 1933, the day on which it was constituted in the city of Montevideo, to March 12th, 1934, the day on which it announced in Buenos Aires its return to Geneva, adopted and signed, on May 9th, 1934, the text of the report which it submitted to the Council. The report1 consists of an “ Introduction ” and six chapters. The “ Introduction ” contains a general review of the Commission’s work. Chapter I deals with “ Geographical Facts concerning the Chaco Chapter II is entitled “ The Chaco Dispute ”, and contains a summary of previous diplomatic negotiations; Chapter III gives an account of “ The Commission’s Work for a Settlement of the Conflict”; Chapter IV concerns the “ Enquiry into the Responsibility for the W ar”; Chapter V gives a " Survey of the Military Situation ” ; and Chapter VI contains “ The Commission’s Conclusions”. The report actually consists of two parts : a summary of the numerous diplomatic documents >n existence concerning the Chaco conflict and an account of the efforts made by the Commission to restore peace between Paraguay and Bolivia. Both parts contain serious defects which make it absolutely impossible for the Paraguayan Government to accept the text of the report. The account of the history of the dispute is incomplete, and in many places obviously biased, predominant 1 Document C.154.M.64.1934.VII. S.d.N. 1.280 (F.) 1.000 (A.) 9/34. Imp. Kundig. Series of League of Nations Publications VII. POLITICAL 1934. VII. 6. — 2 — importance being attached to the Bolivian standpoint. As regards the description of the Commission’s work, the one aim is to Justify its draft treaty of February 22nd, 1934, and to explain its failure to hold an enquiry into the responsibility for the war, as it should have done in accordance with its terms of reference. In Justifying their treaty and explaining their action, the Commissioners have openly displayed their hostility towards Paraguay. The Commission has attached more importance to the reJection of its peace proposals than to the outbreak of the war. Bolivia, who also reJected its formula, has been tacitly exempted from all responsibility and has incurred no reproach, the whole blame for the breakdown of the negotiations being placed on Paraguay, whom the Commission repeatedly accuses of intransigence. By taking this line and insisting that its formula is the only one capable of putting an end to the war, the Commission has done small service to the cause of peace. Paraguay, which, as a sovereign nation and a Member of the League of Nations, is entitled to respect and must not allow any slur to remain on her good name, wishes to enforce that right and to discharge that duty by explaining why she is obliged to protest against various assertions in the report of May 9th, 1934, and hence to reJect it. Although she is grieved at the unJust way in which her cause has been viewed, she will make the observations which the report calls for from an obJective standpoint and with all proper respect for the high international institution to which it was submitted. I. GEOGRAPHY OF THE CHACO. The Commission has thought fit to mention the geographical facts which it regards as essential, and accordingly sets forth first the Paraguayan and then the Bolivian view. Neither account is altogether accurate. Opinions as to the extent of Paraguay’s rights have never varied. The maps and geographical texts referred to by the Commission have never had any official character, and the statements of M. Caballero de Bedoya were made simply for the Commission’s information. The maps which place Paraguay’s boundaries beyond parallel 160 30' merely do so in accordance with a tradition which is centuries old. The 17th and 18th century maps in the possession of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which will be found in the annex, will show the League Council how baseless are the Commission’s assertions regarding the antiquity of Paraguay’s claims to the northern part of the Chaco. During the colonial period, Paraguay’s possessions, authorised by titles from the Spanish Crown, extended beyond the Rio Negro or Bahia Negra, in which vicinity Governor Irala established Puerto de los Reyes in 1543. Those boundaries, which were left unsettled for a long period, reached as far as the Amazon region, as is proved by an enormous quantity of documentary evidence and maps. When the Treaty between Spain and Portugal was signed in 1777, the northern frontier of Paraguay was fixed at the River Jaurû, a name which then appeared for the first time in colonial political geography. From that time onwards, the frontier remained unchanged ; it was known to and respected by the Spanish rulers, and was maintained after the Declaration of Independence, as is proved by numerous documents signed by the Dictator of Paraguay, Dr. José Rodriguez de Francia. The western bank of the river, from the Rio Negro as far as the Jauni, having been occupied by the Portuguese, the Governments at Asuncion made several attempts to recover this bank prior to 1811, and the same claim was mentioned in Paraguay’s declaration of war on Brazil in 1864. In the dispute with Bolivia, Paraguay maintained these same rights, as is proved, among many other documents, by the note from Chancellor Cancio Flecha of January 8th, 1902, and the memorandum from the Paraguayan delegation to the Washington Conference regarding a pact of non-aggression, dated January 18th, 1932. The views of the Paraguayan nation as to its northern boundaries have not changed : the same views are held to-day as were held by Governor Lâzaro de Ribera in 1803 and by Dictator Francia during his rule, which lasted from 1814 to 1840. Although the Commission admits that Bolivia’s tendency has been to reduce the boundaries of the Chaco as far as possible to the angle formed by the Rivers Paraguay and Pilcomayo, it appears to ignore the innumerable variants of the Bolivian official view, never definite, as to the frontiers of the territory claimed. To confine ourselves to a recent period, we would point out that, from 1928 to to-day, Bolivian diplomatic allegations have changed no fewer than six times. At the Buenos Aires conference held in that year, those frontiers were longitude 59° and latitude 22°; in 1931, they were the median line of the 1879, 1888, and 1894 Treaties ; at the 1932 Washington Conference, they were the Rio Verde; in the reply to the Mendoza proposals (February 1933), they were latitude 21° and longitude 590 55'; in the reply to Chancellor Mello Franco’s proposals (September 1933), they were the parallel running 25 km. south of Bahia Negra and longitude 61°. Finally, it appears that the Bolivian delegation proposed to the Commission a line different from any of the above. The Commission endeavours to draw inferences unfavourable to Paraguay from the discre pancies it has found to exist between certain modern texts and maps of an unofficial character. On the other hand, it appears to attach no importance to the divergencies between the Bolivian official allegations as to the boundaries of the territory claimed, although the most superficial analysis would show that this uncertainty affords the best proof of the vagueness of the titles put forward. — 3 — The Chaco is a geographical and historical unit. It has always had natural arcifinious boundaries. To attempt to delimit it by straight lines would be absurd and nonsensical. Admittedly, these natural boundaries are indefinite and confusion exists as to their limits. The exact determination of those frontiers which have, up to the present, remained uncertain, constitutes the essence of the dispute between Paraguay and Bolivia. The Chaco is not the “ green hell ” described by certain writers, thanks to the efforts made by P araguay. The possession exercised by Paraguay is not only de facto, but also de jure, being based on titles, an arbitral award, and recognition by neighbouring countries. As a result of this possession, large-scale development works have been undertaken which are the Just pride of the Paraguayan nation, since they afford indisputable proof of its civilising abilities. The description in the Commission’s report of the zone exploited by Paraguay is incomplete and presents but a pallid reflection of the truth.