724.3415/4055: Telegram (part air)
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 29—8:20 p.m.]
219. Avenol asked me to call on him today and exposed to me his views on the present posture of the Chaco question vis-à-vis the League.
He stated that the era of general effort and indefinite negotiations had come to an end due to the special situation created by Bolivia’s appeal to the Assembly under article 15. This through the “6 months” provision required a definitive report in November which would state either, (a), the terms of a settlement quite impracticable or, (b), that no settlement had been reached. If such report was to the effect that a settlement had not been reached an entirely new situation would arise the handling of which he could not foresee at this time. He said that in his opinion the best way to meet the present exigency was by the appointment by the forthcoming Assembly of a small committee to sit in Geneva and to be composed of the present Council Committee of Three, Mexico, Spain and Czechoslovakia; of the League bordering states Argentina, Chile and Peru; and if possible of the United States and Brazil, such a committee to meet as soon as possible after it is set up, its competence technically expiring in November. He added that he felt the committee he had suggested to be an ideal one as it was properly composed chiefly of the states having the greatest concern with the matter and of sufficient states [Page 71] urging the interests of the League. He asked me if I thought the United States would be willing to participate on such a committee.
I replied that I could give no opinion but that I felt it probable that the United States would at least not be willing to exercise the power of voting on measures which envisaged action under the Covenant. Avenol replied that he thoroughly understood such a position but that a general statement that we would not vote in the committee might be avoided by a formula to the effect that our participation was with the understanding that we would not vote on matters falling under the Covenant, his idea being that the committee’s findings would be in two parts, (a), on the dispute itself and, (b), recommendations presumably in part at least involving Covenant action. He felt that we might be prepared to vote respecting part (a).
I commented on the absence on such a committee of the great League powers and he stated that he felt that better results would be obtained in keeping the committee small, that one great power could not be included without the inclusion of all and that in essence the principal League powers were not interested in the means of settlement but solely in restoring peace and in the preservation by some settlement of the integrity and prestige of the Covenant. My personal belief is that in addition to the reasons stated there is a desire to avoid difficulties arising from possible conflict of interests among the great powers in this question, the Italian position in the former League Chaco Commission being a case in point, and furthermore a desire to avoid additional loss of prestige to the League through the possible failure of an endeavor in which the great League powers played an important role.
Avenol stated that in view of the limited period under which the committee could act he hoped it would be set up as early as possible in the Assembly session. He intends to approach Brazil immediately in the sense of the foregoing. He requested me to ascertain informally and confidentially from you respecting the willingness of the United States to participate in such an arrangement.