714.1515/800: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Honduras (Summerlin)
81. From the tenor and tone of the latest note from the Honduran Government transmitted in your 103, August 23, 9 a.m., the Department is satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by pursuing this correspondence further, at least until, as the result of your further [Page 774] conversations with the Honduran authorities you report a change in their present attitude, and the Department does not, therefore, contemplate making any reply to this communication. For your personal information and guidance in informal conversation however the Department desires to make the following observations:
- 1.
- The Department of course gave more than the “slightest examination” to the Convention which established the Central American Tribunal before submitting the arbitration proposal to Honduras and Guatemala. This proposal was made only after a careful and conscientious study of the Convention as the result of which the Department concluded that the Tribunal is competent to function in this matter, and after considering the arguments presented by Honduras the Department finds no reason to change its conclusion.
- 2.
- With reference to that part of the note of the Honduran Government which refers to the arbitration proposal made by Mr. Davis at Cuyamel on April 23, Mr. Davis states that he did not suggest either formally or informally that either the agreement to arbitrate announced at Washington in 1923 by representatives of both Governments at the Central American Conference, or the 1914 Treaty should form the basis of the proposed arbitration. The fact that he proposed arbitration by an arbitrator or “arbitral board” bears out this conclusion. A perusal of Mr. Davis’ proposal shows that while reference is made to the announcement made in 1923 this reference was included merely to show that both countries had shown a desire to arbitrate the controversy. The Department’s proposal of June 4 is, therefore, simply an amplification of Mr. Davis’ proposal and suggested that the existing Mixed Commission should draw up a protocol of arbitration, which this Commission had not hitherto had the opportunity to do.
- 3.
- The suggestion that the Arbitral Tribunal should “take into consideration political, economic and commercial interests of both countries” cannot in the Department’s opinion be interpreted as barring from consideration arguments based on historical grounds. The Department has no reason to believe that Guatemala has so interpreted it. In any case this point could and should be made perfectly clear in drawing up the protocol of submission.
- 4.
- In making the suggestion mentioned the Department had no reason to believe that the consideration by the Arbitral Tribunal of the political, economic and commercial factors involved would in any way weaken the case of Honduras since the Department understands that that country has strongly established interests of this nature in the disputed territory. Moreover, the Department was confident that the submission of the question to arbitration on these bases would be equally fair to both countries and offer the best way to a practicable solution.
- 5.
- The Department is much concerned at the continued refusal by Honduras to submit this question to arbitration on the bases already accepted by Guatemala. Honduras has insistently claimed that Guatemala has from time to time penetrated the disputed territory and through gradual encroachment has established illegal control in a considerable section of that territory. If this claim is true it should be apparent to Honduras that leaving the situation in its present unsatisfactory state would open the way to further penetration by Guatemala in the disputed area. The proposed arbitration offers Honduras an opportunity to end the situation to which she objects, and to establish her claims in the disputed area. It appears to the Department that Honduras in declining to accept the proposal is assuming the responsibility for the continuance of this situation.
- 6.
- The Department also desires you to submit your personal views as to the reasons prompting the Honduran Government’s refusal to accept the Department’s suggestion and the possibility that this suggestion may ultimately be accepted either after the elections or by another administration.
- 7.
- In your conversations with the Honduran authorities please also bear in mind the considerations set forth in the Department’s telegram No. 65, July 20, 7 p.m. and in the memorandum accompanying the Department’s instruction No. 272, dated July 24.52