good will the proposal contained in the memorandum of May 26th, because said proposal invoked article 6 of the Arbitral Convention of 23 years previous, and, based on this, at the last hour, without the consent of Peru and as by right, it insisted on the idea of direct settlement, which had already failed on former occasions. Ecuador in answer to said memorandum reiterated her demand, and subse quently addressed a new communication in which she asked that dates be fixed for conferences wherein would be discussed a compromise designating Washington as the place of conference.1 The mediating Powers submitted to the consideration of both Governments a protocol which in reference to the boundary question stipulated that Ecuador and Peru should await events, and accept the action of the mediation in case that the rendering of the Spanish award should be withheld indefinitely, or that difficulties should arise after its promulgation, or that the two nations should wish to enter upon some direct settlement, they being obligated to consider as binding the boundary line that might result from the action of the mediation. The Government of Peru, that has entire faith in the strength of its titles, was disposed to accept the protocol with the same sincerity with which it had accepted the mediation. Not so the Government of Ecuador, the Chancellery of which addressed to the representatives of the mediating Powers a note in which it stated that acceding to the friendly advices of Chile, it asked that the protocol should be modified in the sense that the arbitration by Spain should be discarded, and a solution of the boundary question sought by means of a direct settlement. This attitude was the occasion for a memorandum from the mediating powers to the Ecuadorian Government in which they stated that they deplored the attitude of Ecuador, that signified in their judgement, either a wish not to terminate pacifically the boundary question, or else a lack of confidence in the mediators. Such was the state of affairs when in November 1910, the Spanish Monarch excused himself from pronouncing an award.* The Mediating Powers under date of December 29th of said year, advised the Government of Ecuador and Peru to submit their pending boundary dispute to the Hague Arbitration Tribunal. Peru accepted the new proposal; but Ecuador manifested that she could not accede to said advice because the question with Peru involved her sovereignty, and that, therefore, it could not be included in article 38 of the Hague Convention on Arbitration." Having restated the antecedents of the case it is now necessary to explain Peru's position in the disputed territory, in order to reaffirm the reasons that lead Peru to consider ineffectual all attempts for a direct settlement. Peru exercises full dominion over the territories claimed by Ecuador, and not only has she the support of complete and effective possession but also that of the geographic conditions of the zone under dispute. The Department of Loreto with over 200,000 inhabitants constitutes an indissoluble organism that has its axis the course of the Marañón, called down stream "Amazon," to which converge as northern arteries the rivers Santiago, Morona, Pastaza, Tigre, Napo, Putumayo and Caquetá. The regions watered by said rivers form one continuous and inseparable whole. Its industrial life depends on the Peruvian towns situated on both banks of the Marañón. The capital of the Department, the city of Iquitos, is the center of the vast organism, and from it flow all elements of culture and of economic prosperity, extending from there to the limits of fluvial navigation. The influence of Iquitos extends over all of the affluents of the Marañón. The colonists that live on the banks of those rivers could not exist if from Iquitos they did not receive the necessaries for their sustenance. It is indispensable that the Governments of the Mediating Powers should have a perfect conception of what the Department of Loreto means to the Peruvian nation. The revenue of its custom houses constitute the fifth of the total customs revenues of the Republic. Iquitos has a population of over 20,000. It is the capital of the Department, seat of the Prefecture and of a Superior Court of Justice, center of the fifth Military Zone. Most of the nations maintain at Iquitos consular representatives, even unto Ecuador, although her territorial pretensions reach out to the Amazon, and thereby include the said city. 1 Id., pp. 473–474. Id., pp. 500-501. Id., pp. 506–507. The Marañón and Amazon as far as the Brazilian frontier are absolutely and thoroughly Peruvian. This explains the discontent aroused in Peru by the Garcia-Herrera Treaty and the decided opposition of the Department of Loreto to the supposed line of the Spanish award. The Minister for Foreign affairs was interpellated by the 1910 Congress in secret sessions, a great number of representatives being of opinion that in view of the probable terms of the award it was preferable to postpone its rendering; manifestations were started throughout Loreto and petitions against the possible award were circulated and signed. The fact being that the lines of the various findings affected and harmed Peruvian interests, even unto the line most favorable to Peru, the one recommended by the Permanent Commission, which left to Ecuador the river Santiago, a large portion of the Morona and one bank of the Marañón regions in actual exploitation by Peruvians, leaving to Ecuador an opening on the Marañón, that is to say, on a river upon which the flag of Ecuador has never been seen. The preceding considerations make it clear why Peru refuses to entertain direct negotiations and the reason she has for considering them as to no purpose. Settlements by means of direct negotiations imply solutions thru compromise, inspired on principles of equity and of a just appreciation of the interests of both parties. It is a fact, amply indicated in all the foregoing, and which is known to all, and has been acknowledged by the public men of Ecuador in official publications and in articles in the press that Peru possesses and exploits nearly the whole of the region that Ecuador lays claim to. Ecuador, on the other hand, merely has in the region of the Oriente aspirations and ideals with no actual base; and furthermore, due to unsurmountable geographical conditions, with no prospect of a substantial base in the future, because it is a well known fact that the development and the economic advancement of regions traversed by navigable rivers do not follow a down-stream course but run counter to the stream, so therefore, in the development of such regions the influence of the nation that possesses the lower reaches of the river and their mouths predominates. Specially is this so in the case of Ecuador that by reason of her difficulty of access to the Oriente, can scarcely make felt her influence even at the head waters of the rivers. Consequently the territory in dispute is and shall be essentially Peruvian, by reason of every factor, historic, geographic and political. But there is even more. The aspirations of Ecuador, leaving out the exag geration of her demands-a method of defense in judicial proceedingshad their inception in the Garcia-Herrera Treaty which her public men received with applause and her Congress approved with significant unanimity; whereas the interests of Peru in 1891 were expressed by the modifications introduced and demanded by the Congress of that year in order to accept the GarciaHerrera Treaty. Since the year 1891 the situation has changed, modified by the natural course of events in a sense favorable to Peru and decidedly adverse to Ecuador. The interests of Peru have grown in an astonishing manner in the region. The line of demarcation which the Congress of 1891 had resigned itself to accept would now harm interests of so great an importance that the Govern ment of Peru could not consider itself at liberty to adopt it. The formula that Peru cannot separate itself in behalf of an equitable compromise from the absolute respect for her own possessions could readily be established. It would be unjustifiable for us not to maintain strictly the principle of possession when along with the possession for over a century there are our historic titles acknowledged in part by a reliable arbiter. On her part, Ecuador found inacceptable the probable line of the award, a line that Peru could not agree upon in a direct settlement, due to the fact that it jeopardizes to a great extent her rights. In a direct discussion our nation can not surrender territories which she possesses; and even although she would have accepted the award of the King of Spain out of respect to the agreement contracted, she could not of her own accord have ceded the same; while to enter into a treaty that should consider a less favorable boundary line would be impossible; the entire nation could reject such a treaty. And as Ecuador wishes to better in her favor the boundary line of the Spanish findings the failure of direct negotiations is inevitable. In view of the fact that it is impossible to conciliate in a direct agreement the interests real, effective and vital that Peru has in the disputed territories with the ideals and aspirations of Ecuador in the same regions, it becomes evident that nothing other than an arbitration de juris [sic] which would have the full force and prestige of the International Tribunal of The Hague can settle this boundary dispute. For this reason Peru hastened to express her willingness when the mediating powers advised such a mode of settlement, because she considers it to be the only possible manner of ending this long-standing controversy. The Chancellery of Ecuador declined the invitation because she considered that her dispute with Peru "does not refer to a mere delimitation or rectification of boundary lines but to the dominion and sovereignty of very vast territories; to the very life of Ecuador who, without the possession of the zone that Peru claims, would be dead to all future developments." And it further added, "the boundary question is to us a question of existence; and by reason of the same can not be included in article 38 of The Hague Convention.” It is necessary to observe, before all else, the curious fact that Ecuador should consider as being absolutely essential to her existence as a free nation the possession of territorial divisions that since the time of the Independence until now have remained under our own sovereignty. Ecuador has existed during nearly a century as an independent nation without having possessed or even possessing at this date the territories that she claims from Peru. But there is even more: by the physical nature of said territories, Ecuador has been unable to exercise sovereignty over them nor will she in the future be able to make apparent her influence there; whereas to definitely consolidate Peru's sovereignty over the northern affluents of the Amazon, the region under dispute, several special conditions have contributed, notably the free vote of its townships at the time of the Declaration of Independence, their invariable adhesion to Peruvian nationality for over a century, the acts of the Administration and of the citizens of Peru who by strenuous efforts have carried civilization to those far off regions; and besides all this there are to be considered the salient features of the topography of the region, the course of the rivers-in a word, the whole of nature. When a nation has lived and has developed as Ecuador has done without any need of the territories that she claims, her references to vital interests and to future development are lacking completely in sincerity. Essential needs of organisms can not be abstract, and when they really exist they determine concrete expansion. Besides, Ecuador has given to article 38 of The Hague Convention such restricted interpretation that it conflicts with its own terms and with the antecedents of the discussions on arbitration. None of the articles approved in the chapter relative to arbitral justice establishes the exclusion of arbitration from the juridic controversies that may be of exceptional importance to the disputing nations, which is the case in the boundary question between Peru and Ecuador. To appreciate the sentiment with which Ecuador accepted the ample declarations of the Arbitral Convention it will suffice to recall the statements that the Ecuadorian Delegate made before the Congress of The Hague in the name of his Government and his country, at the time that arbitration was under discussion: The Delegation of the Republic of Ecuador has the honor to declare and in the name of its Government that it will fully agree to such propositions as may tend to establish the obligatory recourse to courts of arbitration for the pacific solution of international conflicts; or at least to render such proceedings usual and as frequent as possible, reduceing thereby when practicable the numbers of cases that are not submitted to this high jurisdiction. The Republic of Ecuador in so doing faithfully adheres to the principles it has always sustained. And in regard to this subject we take the liberty to recall that Ecuador bad the honor, more than nineteen years ago, to succeed in having a general clause of arbitration included for the first time in France in a treaty on friendship, commerce, and navigation which treaty unfortunately was not approved by the French Parliament. During the last twenty years Ecuador has stipulated numerous conventions of arbitration and has signed various agreements appointing arbitrators and enacting the proceedings to be followed in order to reason a pacific solution of the controversies she has pending with other nations. At this very time our boundary question with Peru is submitted to the arbitration of H. M. the King of Spain. We have therefore always sustained the principle of arbitration and we have always applied it when possible. We would deem ourselves fortunate indeed could we contribute 10 render the practice customary if not obligatory in solving all international conflicts, for we consider that if, as has been stated, peace is the normal condition among nations, arbitration should be the normal solution to all difficulties arising among them. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix; Tome 11, page 274.) Ecuador declared, as has been shown, in favor of the compulsory recourse to arbitration for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts, without any restrictions. She recalled the invariable tradition of her Chancellery in the matter, and precisely stated that she had submitted to arbitration her boundary dispute with Peru, and which now in forgetfulness of her own declarations and of the words cited she pretends to exclude from the jurisdiction of The Hague International Tribunal. This new Ecuadorian doctrine, which for the first time appeared on her obtaining knowledge of a project of award rendered precisely on the same dispute and in respect of an arbitration to which the Government was a party of its own free will, does not conform with the diplomatic history of Latin America nor with that of Ecuador. The greater number of Latin American controversies have been settled through arbitration. Thus we have: The dispute between Brazil and Argentina over the territory of Misiones (30,000 square kilometers) settled by the award of the President of the United States; The dispute between Brazil and France over Guayana, settled by the award of the Swiss Government; The dispute between Brazil and Great Britain over Guayana, settled by H. M. the King of Italy; The dispute between Argentine and Chile (94,000 square kilometers) settled by the award of H. M. the King of Great Britain; The dispute between Argentine and Paraguay over the region between the rivers Verde and Pilcomayo, settled by the award of the President of the United States; The dispute between Peru and Bolivia (over a territory as extensive as the one claimed by Ecuador) settled by the award of the President of Argentine; The dispute between Colombia and Venezuela, settled by the award of H. M. the King of Spain. The dispute between Colombia and Costa Rica, settled by the award of the President of France; The dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain over Guayana (100,000 square kilometers), settled by the award of an arbitration tribunal; The dispute between Venezuela and The Netherlands over the Ares Islands, settled by the award of H. M. the King of Spain; The dispute between Honduras and Nicaragua, settled by the award of H. M. the King of Spain; The dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, settled by the award of the President of the United States; The dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, settled by the award of H. H. the Pope. Ecuador herself, although she now hesitates to accept the arbitral recourse in the hope of obtaining from Peru more than an impartial arbiter might give her on examining unbiasedly the titles upon which she builds her claims, sought always that mode of solution for her boundary questions, stipulating it in the convention of 1887 with Peru; in the tripartite agreement of 1894, entered into on her initiative; and with Colombia in the Convention of 1858, in the aforementioned tripartite agreement and in the treaty of 1904. It has been demonstrated in the foregoing exposé that: 1. All negotiations for a direct settlement between Ecuador and Peru are to no purpose, because Ecuador would try to better in her behalf the line of the probable Spanish award, the knowledge of which was the occasion for the attitude assumed by Ecuador in 1910 and that gave rise to the very serious conflict that the mediation of the Powers solved; and Peru, on her part, can not in a direct settlement accept even the boundary line of the Spanish award as she is obliged to maintain all the territories that she possesses and that she has developed through her efforts. 2. The direct discussion would be productive of nugatory results because its inevitable failure would bring about a new crisis in the relations between Peru and Ecuador. 3. The only manner in which to solve this dispute, the existence of which is a lasting cause of friction between both nations, is in submitting it to the decision of an arbiter having sufficient prestige and authority so that his award shall have the necessary moral force. File No. 722.2315/601. The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister of Peru. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 10, 1913. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed note dated August 10, which which you enclose a confidential memorandum together with four enclosures and a map with reference to the boundary dispute between Peru and Ecuador. have been read with much interest. Accept [etc.] These JOHN E. OSBORNE. File No. 722.2315/600. The Secretary of State to the Minister of Peru. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 24, 1913. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of July 18 last, on the subject of the boundary controversy between Peru and Ecuador, in which you state that your Government would be grateful if the mediating powers could be convinced that the only solution of the question lies in the arbitration of it and if they would exert all possible influence over the Government of Ecuador with a view to the submission of it to The Hague Tribunal of Arbitration. Accept [etc.] (For the Secretary of State.) JOHN E. OSBORNE, THE TACNA-ARICA DISPUTE BETWEEN PERU AND CHILE. VARIOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE MEDIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL. REFUSAL OF CHILE TO ASSENT TO THE OFFER OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT PERUVIAN INTERESTS IN CHILE. File No. 944/77. The American Minister to Chile to the Secretary of State. MEMORANDUM ON THE TACNA-ARICA QUESTION. IMPORTANCE OF CONTROL OF NITRATE REGIONS. Between parallels 25 south and 19 south the Pacific coast plain is rainless and unfitted for agriculture, but valuable for its guano, silver, and especially for its nitrate deposits. Practically the world's whole supply of nitrate comes from this region. Fifty-five per cent of Chile's public revenues are nitrate royalties. Between 19 south and 17 south are the provinces of Arica and Tacna which produce food supplies. Arica is the nearest Pacific port to La Paz and the inhabited parts of Bolivia. |