In placing this memorandum in your hands permit me to express the
appreciation of the Government of the United States for the influence
exerted by Chile upon the Government of Ecuador in bringing about the
withdrawal of her troops from the Peruvian frontier.
I am, my dear Mr. Yoachim, etc.,
[Inclosure—Memorandum.1]
Department of State,
Washington, June 9,
1910.
The Government of the United States regretted to be unable to receive
with its usual sympathy the proposal of the Ecuadorian memorandum of
May 26, for the reason that the proposal apparently sought to invoke
Article VI of the arbitration convention of 23 years ago, and under
it at this late date to insist, without the consent of Peru and as a
right, upon fresh direct negotiations.
The situation is substantially this: Ecuador and Peru in 1887
concluded a treaty submitting their boundary dispute to the
arbitration of the King of Spain. In this treaty the following
article was incorporated:
Before rendering the arbitral award, and within the shortest
period possible following the exchange both parties will use
their best efforts to settle through direct negotiations all
or some of the points comprised in the boundary questions,
and in the event of such agreements being reached and
perfected in accordance with the forms required for the
validity of public treaties, they shall be made known to His
Catholic Majesty, thus bringing the arbitration to an end or
confining it to the unsettled points, as the case may be.
Failing a direct agreement, the award shall be rendered to
its full extent as provided by Article I.
Several unsuccessful efforts were made under the provisions of this
article to directly adjust some or all of the differences between
the two countries, but they failed, and the case proceeded before
the arbitrator; evidence was produced by both parties in support of
their respective contentions, the case closed, and for some time the
decision of the arbitrator has been expected.
Rumors circulating as to the probable nature of the award produced an
agitation in both countries which unfortunately soon manifested
itself in preparations for war.
These preparations were of such a character and proceeded to such an
extent as to cause belief throughout the world that war between the
two countries was imminent, and the Republics of Argentina, Brazil,
and the United States, mindful of their friendliness to both
countries and anxious to preserve the peace in this hemisphere,
proposed to both countries that if they would retire their troops
from the frontier, cease warlike preparations and await
eventualities, in case of no award or difficulties arising under the
award, the three Republics would be glad to act as mediators to
adjust the differences between Ecuador and Peru.
Both countries accepted this offer of mediation. Ecuador has
concurrently with the acceptance of the offer of mediation, and
subsequently, reverted to the desirability and her willingness to
undertake direct negotiations for the settlement of the question
under Article VI above quoted, but Peru has not indicated a
willingness to do so.
Assuming the concurrence of the other two mediating powers, the
Government of the United States would hold the view that direct
negotiations could only occur at this juncture if happily either in
pursuance of or irrespective of Article VI both parties desired
them.
By their voluntary act both Ecuador and Peru have resumed a status of
peace and have undertaken calmly to await the definite establishment
of the fact that there shall be no award, or the making of an award
followed by difficulties, in either of which eventualities the
tripartite mediation will equally become operative.
Convinced that this view will bear the closest analysis and in the
absence of evidence that both Governments desire to attempt a direct
settlement, while on the other hand mediation has been accepted by
both, the Government of the United States could not indeed avoid
surprise at the proposal in question as based upon Article VI.
It should, however, by no means be inferred that if both parties
choose to revert to Article VI or in any other manner to agree upon
a direct settlement such result could be otherwise than agreeable to
the mediating powers, because it would accomplish the very object of
the mediation.
[Page 470]
That there should have at first existed any confusion or divergence
of opinion as to any phase of the situation is only deprecated
because of the unfortunate impression which it may produce and the
Government of the United States is unwilling for a moment to believe
that the Government and people of Ecuador could fail to share with
the Government and people of Peru the fullest confidence that their
rightful interests will be safeguarded by friendly mediating powers,
whose sole desire is impartially to serve the two countries through
mediation, which is known to diplomacy as the highest form of
conciliatory good offices and which, according to The Hague
convention, imposes upon them a duty which “consists in reconciling
the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which
may have arisen between the States at variance.”
