The Leticia Dispute between and Author(s): L. H. Woolsey Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1933), pp. 317-324 Published by: American Society of International Law Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2189558 Accessed: 28-11-2016 00:51 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of International Law

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms EDITORIAL COMMENT 317

THE LETICIA DISPUTE BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND PERU

The peace machinery of the world, which is being wrenched in various quarters of the globe, is receiving another strain in in the conflict between Colombia and Peru over the district of Leticia. The boun- daries between Colombia and Peru in this region were fixed by the treaty of March 24,1922, whereby Colombia acquired the Leticia district and obtained access to the . In this treaty Colombia reserved her rights in respect of the territory occupied by east of the boundary, which caused Brazil to make representations in regard to the 1922 settlement. Through the good offices of Secretary of State Hughes, a protocol was signed March 4, 1925, providing that Brazil should withdraw its objections to the settlement of 1922, that Colombia and Peru should proceed to the ratification of the treaty of 1922, and that Brazil and Colombia should sign a boundary treaty agreeing upon the line fixed in the treaty of 1922.1 These provisions were carried out; the ratifications of the 1922 treaty were exchanged March 19, 1928; the Colombia-Peru boundary was marked in 1930 and the territory duly delivered. Thus all boundary questions between the two countries were apparently settled, for Article I of the treaty declared that "there are defi- nitely and irrevocably terminated all and every one of the disputes which, because of the boundaries between Colombia and Peru, had arisen up to now, and that in the future no dispute can arise which will alter in any way the frontier line fixed by the Peace Treaty." Colombia created the Intendancy of Amazonas out of the new district with the capital at Leticia. Friendly relations were maintained across the border with the local Peruvian authorities at , and no inamicable incident oc- curred to mar the harmony. When Leticia was transferred to Colombia, there were two wireless stations, one at Leticia and one at El Encanto, be- longing to Peru. Peru sold these two stations to Colombia for 58,500 soles in June, 1932, and delivery was made by Peru in August of that year. At the same time, by an exchange of notes Colombia agreed to recognize the conces- sions made by Peru to various persons on the in the Leticia territory. The present dispute arose from the fact that on September 1, 1932, a party of men, including as second in command, Lieutenant La Rosa, Chief of the Peruvian garrison at Chimbote, and some Peruvian soldiers from that garri- son and also from the garrison at Ramon Castilla, crossed the Amazon River and attacked and took the town of Leticia in Colombian territory, imprisoned the Colombian authorities and police officers, took over the government prop- erty and funds, and undertook the administration of the town and district. It appears that the Peruvian soldiers in the expedition were in uniform and were significantly supplied with cannon and machine guns. It is said that Lieutenant La Rosa maintained communications with Peruvian territory by

1 See "Boundaxy Disputes in Latin America," this JOURNAL, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 324, 331.

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 318 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW flying back and forth in a government airplane from Leticia to Iquitos and perhaps other places on the Peruvian side of the Amazon River. Subse- quently, the fortified themselves at Leticia and Tarapaca on Co- lombian territory with trenches and field and machine guns, and continued to use airplanes to communicate with Peruvian territory. In the early exchanges during the first part of September, the officially disavowed the act, denied any connection with the expedi- tion or any participation in it by La Rosa and Peruvian soldiers, and expressed a desire to assist in restoring normal conditions and to cooperate in suppress- ing the movement, which it laid to communists. About the middle of Sep- tember, in preparation for sending a force up the Amazon, Colombia inquired of Peru whether Peruvian garrisons had been warned not to interfere with the passage of boats carrying Colombian troops to quell the uprising at Leticia. This led to an admonition by Peru that the dispatch of Colombian troops was inadvisable as it might have alarming repercussions in Peru. Colombia, however, insisted that it had the right of a sovereign to put down disorders within its own territory, and hoped that Peru would not place obstacles in the way of suppressing the uprising. Colombia added that in- terference on the part of Peru would be contrary to the Five-Power Agree- ment on internal disturbances and neutrality signed by Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela on July 18, 1911.2 By the close of September, Peru had twisted the purely local issue into one of national aspiration. In a note of September 30, while disclaiming any connection with the Leticia invasion or with a violation of the treaty of 1922, she stated that the uprising revealed a situation growing out of that treaty, for which to repress the Peruvians at Leticia would be but an ephem- eral remedy. The bonds of geography, commercial interest, nationality and blood, which exist in that district, would produce conflicts in the future. Treaties should be in harmony with the nature of things and the actual facts. Peru concluded by proposing to refer the matter to the Conciliation Commis- sion at Washington under the Inter-American Conciliation Treaties of 1923 and 1929. Early in January, however, Colombia proceeded to exercise her sovereign rights by sending a flotilla, consisting of seven or more vessels with one to two thousand troops, up the Amazon to subdue Leticia. The voyage of about 2,100 miles was made slowly to accommodate diplomatic negotiations, and the flotilla did not reach its destination until early in February. It appears that the treaty of 1928 between Brazil and Colombia provides that Colombian war ships and military transports may freely navigate the common rivers under Brazilian jurisdiction. In order to preserve her neutrality, Brazil has some 2,000 troops stationed at Manaos, about half-way to Leticia, and a

2This agreement provides, among other things, that "At no time shall there be fomented in their territorial jurisdiction, revolutions, enlistments or expeditions, nor carried out against any of the contracting nations."

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms EDITORIAL COMMENT 319

flotilla of naval craft on the upper Amazon. It is reported that some 3,000 Peruvians were stationed on the Putumayo River, supported by several air- planes and three gunboats. Iquitos, a city of 30,000 inhabitants 250 miles above Leticia, is Peru's headquarters. On January 6 the commanding general in eastern Peru notified the com- mander of the Colombian flotilla that he would take military measures to prevent Colombian forces from entering Leticia. Consequently, in a note of January 11, Colombia requested that Peru withdraw her forces from Colom- bian territory in order that the legitimate authorities might be reinstated there. She said that her forces would avoid any conflict with Peruvian troops, and added that after the restoration of the district to Colombia, she would be willing to discuss matters in the most ample spirit of conciliation. Peru replied in a note of January 14, admitting the adoption of military measures by Peruvian authorities for the defense of the invaders, and stating that they could not be abandoned to the menacing uncertainty of the ap- proaching Colombian troops. At the same time Peru reaffirmed the valid- ity of the treaty of 1922, but insisted on a modification of the frontier so as to correct the "grave injustice committed in separating Leticia from Peru." As was to be expected from the course of events, the opposed forces could not abstain from hostilities. The first conflict occurred on February 14, when Peruvian planes attempted to bombard the Colombian flotilla on the Putumayo and were fought off by Colombian planes. On the next day a Colombian landing force captured the town of Tarapaca in Colombian ter- ritory, after bombardment by the gunboats and planes. As a result, diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed on February 15, when the Peruvian Minister at Bogota obtained his pass- ports, and the Colombian Minister at Lima requested his. The conflicts occurring between the opposite forces aroused feeling at home, and before the Colombian Minister could sail, a mob broke into and set fire to the Colom- bian Legation at Lima and destroyed or carried away the furniture and automobiles without hindrance by the police. The Minister and the Con- sul and their families escaped the next day, without their baggage, by air- plane to Guayaquil. Meanwhile, Colombia, under the implied sanction of the League of Na- tions Council, has been proceeding to take Leticia. As Leticia is located on a cliff commanding the river, with Peruvians stationed on the opposite shore, the task of recapture has not been easy. Besides, the river at this point is full of islands and it is impossible to make a naval attack without firing from neutral waters or getting into the range of cross-fire. Apparently the strategy, therefore, has been to clear the way for a land attack from the north. To this end it was reported on March 27 that the had captured the Peruvian town of Guepi on the Putumayo River, the first town to be attacked by Colombia beyond her borders. During these increasingly critical events various instrumentalities of the

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 320 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

peace machinery were resorted to by the disputants. As indicated above, Peru appealed in a note of October 3, 1932, to the Permanent Commission sitting in Washington by virtue of the Gondra Treaty of 1923, to organize a Conciliation Commission, "so that there may be submitted to it in full de- tail the acts which recently took place in the east of Peru and their conse- quences, from which have arisen divergencies between the governments of Peru and Colombia as to the best application of the treaty made between the two countries in 1922 and executed in 1930." The note designated a Peruvian and a Brazilian as the Peruvian members of the commission. Colombia in a note of October 12, 1932 (and in subsequent correspon- dence), declined to submit the matter to the Conciliation Commission as proposed by Peru, on the ground that there was no international contro- versy pending between the two countries, and there could be none under Article I of the treaty of 1923, which declared that all frontier disputes were definitely and irrevocably terminated. She declared that the invasion of Leticia was a purely domestic question of internal public order to be settled by Colombia, and therefore did not come within the competence of the Con- ciliation Commission. Moreover, she concluded, the Conciliation Conven- tion of 1929 was not in force between the parties, since ratifications thereof had not been deposited as required by Article XVI. Both parties, however, had deposited ratifications of the Gondra Treaty of 1923, which was in force between them. But Peru did not appeal to the Commission of Inquiry established by that treaty, but to the Conciliation Commission authorized by the treaty of 1929. They were both the same commission, the Commission of Inquiry being given the powers of a Con- ciliation Commission by the treaty of 1929. By Article I of this treaty the signatory Powers agreed to submit to conciliation procedure "all contro- versies of any kind which may arise between them for any reason and which it may not have been possible to settle through diplomatic channels." This appeal to conciliation raised the interesting point whether the Leticia mat- ter was a proper one for submission to conciliation under this treaty, and led to the consideration of the difference between an international question and a domestic question,3 with the consequences above indicated. In this con- nection reference may be made to the distinction made by Mr. Hughes, at the Washington Conference of American States of 1929, before the Commit- tee on Arbitration. Referring to an exception in the Arbitration clause, he said:

3For a discussion of this subject with reference to paragraph 8 of Article XV of the League Covenant, see Advisory Opinion, Series B, No. 4, of the Permanent Court of International Justice; Habicht, Post-War Treaties, p. 997; Professor Brierly, "Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction," British Yearbook of International Law, 1925, pp. 9-19; Professor Fenwick, "The Scope of Domestic Questions in International Law," this JOURNAL, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 146. For remarks on the scope of Art. I of the 1929 treaty, see Proceedings of Interna- tional Conference of American States, 1929, pp. 288, 290, 296, 364.

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms EDITORIAL COMMENT 321

When we say in the first exception: "And are not controlled by inter- national law," we have obvious reference to those situations in which matters which would otherwise fall within the domestic jurisdiction as, by reason of an international transaction, through treaty, for example, become the subject of international consideration because they import international obligation.

The Conciliation Treaty of 1929 does not preclude the tendering of good offices or mediation. Consequently, Brazil on January 8, 1933, proposed to Colombia and Peru that with their agreement she would be prepared to take over the disputed territory from the Peruvians upon their withdrawal, to replace the Brazilian authorities as soon as possible by Colombian officials, and to call immediately afterwards a conference of delegates of the two coun- tries at Rio de Janiero for the purpose of reconsidering the treaty of 1922 in a broad spirit of conciliation. The United States supported the proposal through the American Ambassador at Lima. Colombia accepted the pro- posal, but Peru's acceptance was conditioned on Brazil holding the territory until Peru and Colombia had decided its final destiny. Peru objected to Colombia again exercising authority over the Peruvians in Leticia. It ap- pears, however, that Brazil feared that her retention of Leticia until the negotiations were concluded might entangle her in the dispute, and there- fore, she seemed unwilling to hold the town any longer than necessary to effect a peaceful transfer. The next effort toward peace was the appeal of Colombia on January 23, 1933, to the United States and other signatories of the Pact of Paris. In the note to the United States, the Minister of Colombia, Dr. Lozano, who had signed the Boundary Treaty of 1922 on behalf of Colombia, made a full presentation of the background and the facts of the . He stated that Colombian forces were then proceeding up the Amazon River to restore public order in Leticia, during which there had been diplomatic exchanges with Peru, particularly those of January 11 and 14, from which it was apparent that Peru was supporting by military force the Peruvian citizens who had seized Leticia, that Peru refused to withdraw the Peruvian troops now in this territory and supporting the invaders, and that Peru pro- posed to resist by force the efforts of Colombia to reinstate her authorities. By these acts, he said, Peru is violating the Pact of Paris and therefore should be denied the benefits of that treaty as therein provided. On behalf of his government, the Minister requested Secretary Stimson to call Peru's attention to the obligations under the Pact of Paris. In response to this appeal, Mr. Stimson dispatched a telegram on Janu- ary 25, 1933, to Peru reviewing the facts as presented in the diplomatic com- munications. Inasmuch as the Peruvian Government had affirmed that it had not occupied Leticia and that it intended to abide by the treaty of 1922 and other treaties in force, Mr. Stimson hoped that Peru would urge the Peruvians not to oppose the peaceful reestablishment of Colombian author-

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 322 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

ity in Leticia. However, certain statements in the Peruvian note of Janu- ary 14, and also in the instructions to the Peruvian Ambassador in Wash- ington, indicated to Mr. Stimson a contrary course, namely, that Peru was prepared to use force to support the invaders of Leticia and prevent the re- establishment of Colombian authority in this territory, and that Leticia would not be returned to Colombia until the boundary line had been modi- fied. This position of seeking to modify the treaty of 1922 by supporting with force the illegal occupation of Leticia would, Mr. Stimson said, be con- trary to the Kellogg Pact, and would entail a denial of the benefits of that treaty. Mr. Stimson also espoused the Brazilian proposal as offering a peaceful and honorable means of terminating the situation. He closed by referring to the resolution of the International Conference of American States of February 20, 1928, in opposition to aggression, and also to the declaration of the nineteeen American nations on August 3, 1932, against the validity of territorial acquisitions by the use of force, in both of which Peru had joined. Under date of January 27, Peru replied to Secretary Stimson's telegram to the effect that she had "absolutely nothing to do with the events of Sep- tember 1,, that she recognizes the "force and validity" of the Boundary Treaty of 1922, but "can not be indifferent to the lot of the Peruvians who are occupying Leticia," who have manifested "the national feeling of repul- sion that has been produced in the country against the treaty." To meet this national aspiration "we wish to negotiate with Colombia directly or through the mediation of another Government," and in view of this there is "neither reason nor right in using such violent means" to subdue Leticia as Colombia is threatening. The Foreign Minister continued:

We do not deny Colombia's right to Leticia, which is based solely on the validity of the treaty, although that treaty dates back only two years and has taken the place of the right representing colonial possess- sion for three centuries and that of a hundred years more in the republi- can era. However, the Colombian flotilla and its landing forces are not going to subjugate the neo-Colombian territory of Leticia, but its present inhabitants, all Peruvians, whose aspiration is accepted by my government, in order to attempt to realize it by means of friendly negotiations with Colombia.

The true significance of my government's declarations is that it can- not view with indifference the aggression against the Peruvians at Leticia, gathered there to demand that their rights be respected. . .. We are not violating the Briand-Kellogg pact, because Peru is the very country that is seeking a peaceful settlement of the conflict that has arisen. It is Colombia that prefers to impose her will by violence and that has mobilized considerable forces for that purpose, while on our part not a soldier nor a vessel has left our territory and we have not acquired a single vessel more.

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms EDITORIAL COMMENT 323

The Foreign Minister added that Peru would comply with the Pact of Paris and the Havana Resolution and "will be consistent with the declara- tion . . . of August 3, 1932," and declared that

at no time and for no reason have we contemplated, even as a remote possibility, the acquisition, whether on a large or small scale, of any territory whatever, by means of occupation or conquest by force of arms. What my Government does desire, with serenity but with firmness, is the modification of the Colombian-Peruvian boundary. ...

The substance of these views was repeated in a statement to the press by the on January 30. Mr. Stimson replied in a two-sentence telegram of January 30 that he was pleased to note that Peru will abide by the international pacts and declarations mentioned by him, and hoped that Peru would now promptly accept the Brazilian proposal without modification. Further pressure by the Powers under the Kellogg Pact may involve the open question as to whether they should abjure neutrality and take sides against the country that they deemed to be the aggressor. Another move toward preserving the peace was made by Colombia, a few days after she had appealed to Mr. Stimson, by a resort on January 25 to the Council of the . Mr. Stimson also communicated to the Council a copy of his representations to the Foreign Minister of Peru. On January 26 the Council communicated to Peru, calling to its attention that as a member of the League it is bound to abstain from all intervention by force on Colombian territory, and to take precautions that all neces- sary instructions are issued to the Peruvian commanding officers to the end that the military forces of Peru do not commit any act further than required by the defense of Peruvian territory, and that they do not prevent the Colombian authorities from exercising their sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory recognized by treaty as belonging to Colombia.

The Council also hoped that Colombia would avoid violation of Peruvian territory and show that she had no intention to do so and would limit her action to the maintenance of order on her own territory. In her reply to the Council on January 28, Peru said, in substance, that she was not defending Leticia but protecting her countrymen, who were not guilty of a crime "justifying the use of measures of extermination"; that she maintained her respect for treaties with Colombia, but that it was Colombia who had initiated "the beginning of an aggression which we can not regard with equanimity." The Geneva news dispatches of March 2 stated that the Council had pro- posed to Colombia and Peru that an international force under the authority of a League commission hold the Leticia territory pending negotiations be- tween the two countries. Under this plan Colombia would supply the force

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 324 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

which would be temporarily internationalized, but the League commission might add any other personnel to this force. This proposal received the support of Brazil and the United States. It appears that Colombia accepted this plan, but that Peru desired that the international force be composed of local troops instead of Colombian soldiers. It is reported that the Council found Peru's reply unsatisfactory and requested the committee to prepare a report with recommendations un- der paragraph 4 of Article XV. This is the same procedure as that fol- lowed in the Manchurian dispute, which has not yet produced favorable results. On going to press, the last peace move reported is that Peru has filed with the Permanent Court of International Justice a complaint that Colombia has failed to observe the 1922 treaty by not transferring to Peru all of the territory belonging to her. It is understood that this complaint refers to a triangular piece of land at the junction of Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, with about 340 meters front on the Putumayo River, in which Ecuador claimed rights. This situation was formally recognized by the Demarcation Com- mission and indicated on their maps. Obviously, Colombia could not de- liver territory in which other countries were interested. Thus another conflict is in progress in South America along an interna- tional -river. Clearly, it must be a source of anxiety to Brazil to have an armed force traverse the length of its territory on the Amazon. It is con- ceivable that she may be brought into the conflict to protect her neutrality or for other reasons, if- the peace machinery of the world breaks down in solving this dispute. If it is powerless to compose such a difference, there is obviously something lacking in the present instrumentalities of peace. There seems to be no potent means of rendering a wilful aggressor amenable to peaceful methods of adjustment. L. H. WOOLSEY

This content downloaded from 209.2.51.215 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:51:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms