§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether any further information as to the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay can be given, and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to put the Question and make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, but I do not propose to trouble your Lordships for more than a minute or two on the sub- 718 ject. I think the controversy between Bolivia and Paraguay, although it is from our point of view in a remote part of the world, is one of some importance, and it is particularly of importance because there appears to be at any rate a danger of an outbreak of hostilities between two South American States and the question, of course, arises how far the machinery of the League of Nations call be and ought to be and will be used in order to prevent any further and more disastrous events.
§ On the substance of the dispute I do not propose to say one word, for the very excellent reason that I know almost nothing about it. As to the relation of the League of Nations to it, I respectfully welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House that there could be no question at all that the League was entitled and indeed, as I understand him, was bound to do whatever it could to prevent an outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, I do not think any one who reads the Covenant can be in any doubt about that point. I confess that merely judging by published accounts I felt some little doubt, very likely wrongly, as to whether the actual action taken at Lugano had been quite adequate to the situation. However, I do not propose as things have turned out to say anything about that this evening, because I see in this morning's newspapers a statement, which I trust is well founded, that Bolivia has decided to accept the mediation of the Pan-American Conference and that of course—assuming that Paraguay, as I understand is the case, has also accepted mediation—is a perfectly satisfactory way of disposing of the matter. The object of the Covenant of the League, as your Lordships are aware, is to prevent war, and it is expressly pointed out in the Articles of the Covenant that it does not matter what agency is employed for the purpose provided it is a satisfactory and successful agency. In those circumstances I shall do no more than ask the Question and move the Motion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, there is no question, of course, at all, as to the importance of the dispute which has broken out between these two countries in South America. The 719 area in dispute is a very large one and the difference of opinion comes down from remote historical causes. Direct communications to settle it did not begin before 1879, but there have been repeated efforts since then to come to an agreement, the last time being in 1927. Both countries are Members of the League of Nations. Coming down to the more recent events which have produced this crisis, on December 9 a party of 300 Paraguayan troops attacked the Bolivian garrison of Fort Vanguardia in the disputed Chaco area which lies on the frontier of the two countries. The Bolivian garrison of twenty-five were killed or captured. It was announced at La Paz on December 9 that the post had been recaptured by Bolivian reinforcements, the losses on both sides being given as eighty killed. On December 15 a further engagement took place in which the Bolivian troops attacked three Paraguayan forts, from two of which, according to a report from His Majesty's Minister at Asuncion, the garrisons retired without resisting.
As I have mentioned, both these countries are Members of the League of Nations and the position taken up by the League in respect of the dispute is briefly this. The Council of the League have reminded Bolivia and Paraguay of their obligations under the League and have received definite assurances from both countries that they will respect those obligations. I could, of course, have gone in great detail into the letters which have passed between the President of the Council of the League of Nations, M. Briand, and the two contending Governments, but as I propose to accept the Motion of my noble friend to lay Papers upon the Table it will probably suit your Lordships' convenience better to leave the details of what has passed between the League of Nations and the two Governments to those Papers when they are laid. If my noble friend wishes it, I could develop that part of the case further.
Then my noble friend referred to the Pan-American Conference now sitting at Washington. Both countries are represented at that Conference, which is sitting at Washington to draw up a Treaty of Arbitration for the settlement of disputes between American countries. This Conference has offered its good offices 720 for the settlement of the Bolivia-Paraguay dispute, and both countries have accepted the offer. That is our official information, but at the same time I make this statement under a certain reserve, for I have some reason to doubt, at this moment of speaking, whether both acceptances will necessarily hold good. But in point of fact they have accepted. Arbitration by the Pan-American Conference will, of course, as my noble friend has said, be in accordance with the terms of Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which prescribes that disputes must in the first place be submitted to arbitration or to judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council of the League. There is, therefore, no conflict between the offer of the Pan-American Conference and the procedure to which the two countries are committed under the Covenant of the League. It was quite evident that it was necessary for the Council of the League of Nations to take action in the matter, but the proceedings in regard to the Pan-American Conference are perfectly in order and in accordance with the Covenant, and it is to be hoped that they will bear fruit. I need not say that the President of the Council, M. Briand, is watching the case very carefully and nothing will be omitted which ought to be done.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I should like to say one word of great satisfaction after hearing the statement of the noble Marquess opposite. It would have been a great misfortune to the whole future of the League and the Council if this matter had not been settled in accordance with League procedure. I understand the noble Marquess to have stated that, as matters now stand, everything is in order and, so far as he can tell us, the matter may be settled under the Article of the Covenant that is proper to a case of this kind. He sounded one note of doubt, as to whether it could be quite certainly stated that both parties had accepted the Pan-American Conference as arbitrators or conciliators for the settling of this dispute. I sincerely hope that this doubt will be dissipated, and I think that the noble Marquess has shown very clearly the enormous importance of the League in preserving the peace of the world.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for the reply that he has been good enough to make and for undertaking to accept my Motion for Papers. I join with what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite in congratulating the Government and, if one may say so, the League on what we hope will be a satisfactory settlement of this dispute. I am particularly glad that M. Briand is watching the case, and I understand—I do not know whether it is so—that the Secretary-General of the League is in Paris with M. Briand and is ready, I imagine, to take any action that is necessary. In those circumstances, there is nothing more to be said except to express once more my thanks to my noble friend and to express the hope that, in the Papers that will be laid, there will be contained, if all goes well, the terms of the reply of the Bolivians and the Paraguayans accepting the arbitration or mediation, or whatever it is to be called, of the Pan-American Conference. I say that because there is a little difference in the accounts given in some of the newspapers. Some of them suggest that it was done in deference to the League's remonstrance, but in others I do not think that this is mentioned. I do not know if my noble friend would consider whether he would be able to lay those Papers.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy only doubt is that I do not know whether we possess those Papers yet. My noble friend will remember that I did not speak with absolute confidence regarding the acceptance. I think it is of importance that this should be borne in mind.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.