No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
From 1919 to 1942, Peruvian foreign policy focused on two interrelated issues: the resolution of Peru's territorial disputes with Chile, Colombia and Ecuador, and the reconciliation of an expanding and deepening relationship with the United States government. The two issues were entwined since the Peruvian government and people, for part of the period, expected the support and assistance of the United States government in resolving the three territorial issues. Partially in an attempt to respond to these expectations, the United States government was aggressively and extensively involved, albeit sometimes in a manner contrary to Peruvian desires, in the resolution of all three disputes. On the whole, United States foreign policy seldom equaled Peruvian expectations throughout the period, and its failure to do so precipitated or accelerated the growth of major new tenets in Peruvian foreign policy.
1 Franco, Guillermo Forero, Entre dos dictaduras (Bogotá, 1934), 1, 82–4.Google Scholar
2 López, René Hooper, Leguía (Lima, 1964), p. 170.Google Scholar
3 Carey, James C., Peru and the United States, 1900–1962 (Notre Dame. Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1964), pp. 51–65;Google ScholarUgarteche, Pedro, La poíltica internacional peruana durante la dictadura de Leguí (Lima, 1930), pp. 33–8 and 7–5.Google Scholar
4 Ugarteche, op. cit., pp. 20–33.Google Scholar
5 Grenef, Francisco E. Málaga, Una carta a Wilson (Lima, 1919);Google ScholarSotomayor, Alberto Ulloa, Posición internacional del Perú (Lima, 1941), pp. 309–10;Google ScholarSalazar, Arturo García, Historia diplomática del Perú (Lima, 1930), pp. 205–7.Google Scholar
6 Dispatch 533, to Washington, 21 Sept. 1920, United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1920), cited hereafter as FR, I, 347.Google Scholar
7 Telegram 90, to Lima, 6 Nov. 1920, FR (1920), I, 349–50.Google Scholar
8 El Comercio, 20 Jan. 1922;Google ScholarGallardo, Conrado Ríos, Chile y Perú, los pactos de 1929 (Santiago de Chile, 1959), pp. 74–5;Google Scholarde Reyna, Alberto Wagner, Historia diplomática del Peru. 1900–1945 (Lima, 1964), 1, 182–3.Google Scholar
9 Belaúinde, Victor Andrés, La realidad nacional (Paris, 1931), pp. 234–5;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, p. 170;Google ScholarExposición de la Sociedad Geográfica y el Instituto Histórico del Perú sobre la cuestión de Leticia (Lima, 1932), p. 203.Google Scholar
10 Ulloa, Posición, pp. 168–9;Google ScholarLescano, José Zarate, Historia militar del conflicto con Colombia de 1932 (Lima, 1965), p. 5 (footnote);Google ScholarPike, Fredrick B., The Modern History of Peru (New York, 1967), p. 230.Google Scholar
11 Scholars who suggest such intervention, Pike, Frederick B., The Modern History of Peru, p. 230,Google Scholar and Carey, James C., Peru and the United States, pp. 94–7,Google Scholar cite Whitaker, Arthur P., The United States and South America, the Northern Republics (Harvard Univ. Press, 1948), p. 178,CrossRefGoogle Scholar as a source, and Whitaker cites Ulloa, Albert, Posición Internacional del Peru (Lima, 1941), pp. 168–9.Google Scholar Ulloa, in turn, cites Torrijos, Fabio Lozano, El Tratado Lozano-Salomón (Mexico, 1934) but without giving the page reference of the book by the Colombian signatory to the treaty. While Lozano does state that the cession of the Leticia Trapezoid was the will of Leguía and not due to Colombian pressure, this is not a suggestion of pressure from Washington, and I find no reference to support that contention.Google ScholarBasadre, Jorge, Historia de la República del Perú (5th ed., Lima, 1963), 9, 4071, was also unable to find any evidence that the government of the United States influenced the negotiation ot the 1922 treaty.Google Scholar
12 FR (1923), I, 352; FR (1924), I, 299; FR (1925), I, 443, 448, 454, 460, and 468; FR (1926), I, 535.Google Scholar
13 For some years after the Leguía oncenio, most Peruvian scholars emphasized the last two motives. Only recently have many of them accepted the idea that the United States might have been at least partially sincere when it claimed that it was asking for approval simply to end a vexing and possibly explosive problem. Basadre, , Historia (5th ed.), 9, 4071;Google ScholarBelaünde, op. cit., p. 239;Google ScholarLescano, Zarate, op. cit., p.5;Google ScholarPaz-Soldán, José Pareja (ed.), Visión del Perú en el siglo XX (Lima, 1962–1963), 1, 48;Google ScholarUgarteche, Pedro, Documentos que acusan (El tratado Salomón-Lozano) (Lima, 1933), Pp. 31–5.Google Scholar
14 Concha, Jorge Pérez, Ensayo histórico-crítico de las relaciones diplomáticos dcl Ecuador con los estados limítrojes (Quito 1959), 2, pp. 61–2.Google Scholar
15 Many Peruvians felt that Chilean diplomacy in the region had two goals: first, it wanted Colombia and Ecuador to reach an agreement and unite their interests with those of Chile; and, second, it wanted to prevent either Colombia or Ecuador from reaching an agreement with Peru. For expressions of this viewpoint, see the following: Peru, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Arbitration Between Peru and Chile: The Case of Peru in the Matter of the Controversy Arising Out of the Question of the Pacific (Washington, 1923), pp. 181–4;Google ScholarPeruano, Comité Patriótico, Documentos esenciales del debate Peruano-Chileno (Buenos Aires, 1919), pp. 167–70;Google ScholarPeru, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, The Question of the Boundaries Between Peru and Ecuador: a historical outline covering the period since 1910 (Baltimore, 1936), p. 44.Google Scholar The Peruvian government was always apprehensive over the prospect of having to deal with Chile and Ecuador at the same time. On this point, see de Reyna, Wagner, op. cit., I, 34–5;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, pp. 67–8;Google Scholar and Belaúnde, op. cit., p. 234.Google Scholar
16 Peru, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Lima, 1923), pp. 62–3. Author's emphasis.Google Scholar
17 The Brazilian government was especially concerned about the area east of tile Apaporis-Tabatinga line described in the Brazil-Peru treaty of 23 Oct. 1851 and mentioned in the treaty of 1922. While the Peruvian and Brazilian governments had signed a treaty in 1851 recognizing the Apaporis-Tabatinga line as their common frontier, Colombia and Brazil had never agreed to the ownership of this territory; and Brazil wanted assurances from Colombia that the 1922 treaty would nor affect the validity of its existing boundary with Peru. The Brazilian government did not make its formal observations until late 1924 because it was only then that it learned of the terms of the 1922 Salomón-Lozano Treaty. Dispatch 312, to Washington, 17 Nov. 1924, FR (1924), I, 296–7;Google Scholarde Reyna, Wagner, op. cit., I, 175.Google Scholar
18 Lescano, Zarate, Op. cit., p. 83;Google ScholarBelaúinde, op. cit., PP. 234–5;Google ScholarWood, Bryce, The United States and Latin American Wars, 1932–1942 (New York, 1966), pp. 171–4.Google Scholar
19 Enclosure, 4 March 1925, FR (1925), I, 462–3.Google Scholar
20 Basadre, Jorge, Hitoria de la República del Perú (Lima, 1968) (6th ed.), 13, 162;Google ScholarFranco, Forero, op. cit., I, 193;Google Scholarde Reyna, Wagner, op. cit., I, 175.Google Scholar
21 United States of America, Executive, In the Matter of the Arbitration Between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Peru, With Respect to the Unfulfilled Provisions of the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883, Under the Protocol and Supplementary Act Signed at Washington July 20, 1922. Opinion and Award of the Arbitrator (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1925).Google Scholar
22 Montenegro, Ernesto, ‘The Tacna-Arica Award Made by President Coolidge: Award's Influence on Chilean Policy’, Current History, 22 (05, 1925), 219;Google ScholarAlessandri, Arturo, Rectificationes al Tomo IX de la Historia de América (Santiago de Chile, 1941), p. 68;Google ScholarBasadre, , Historia (5th ed.), 9, 4051–2.Google Scholar
23 Sotomayor, Alberto Ulloa, El fallo arbitral del presidente de Estados Unidos de America en la cuestión de Tacna y Arica (Lima, 1925), pp. 68–9 and 104–5.Google Scholar
24 Telegram to Washington, 12 Sept. 1925, FR (1925), I, 378–9;Google Scholarde Reyna, Wagner, op. cit., I, p. 187;Google ScholarGallardo, Rios, op. cit., p. 79;Google ScholarPage, A. Nayland, United States Diplomacy in the Tacna-Arica Dispute, 1884–1929 (Ann Arbor, University Microfilms Inc., 1962), p. 134.Google Scholar
25 Telegram 10, from Washington, 16 Feb. 1926, FR (1926), I, 298–300;Google ScholarPeru, Memoria (1926), pp. cxli–cxliii.Google Scholar
26 Ulloa, Posición, p. 239;Google ScholarBasadre, , Historia (6th ed.), 8, 367 considered the period after 14 06 1926 to be the apogee of the Leguía era.Google Scholar
27 Ulloa, Posición, p. 176;Google ScholarBasadre, , Historia (6th ed.), 13, 162;Google ScholarUgarteche, Documentos, pp. 31–5;Google ScholarFranco, Forero, op. cit., I, 163–4;Google ScholarUlloa, Luis, La verdad sobre el arbitraje de Washington. Cartas al Dr. Solón Polo, Presidente de la Delegatión Peruana ante el arbitro norteamericana (Barcelona, 1925), pp. 2–6;Google ScholarEditorial, Mundial (Lima), 13 March 1925.Google Scholar
28 ‘De jueves a jueves’, Variedades, XXII (26 June 1926), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
29 Pike, Fredrick, Chile and the United States, 1880–1962 (Notre Dame, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1963), pp. 229–30 felt Chilean accounts did not justly recognize Kellogg's efforts.Google Scholar In general, this may be true; however, Gallardo, Ríos ( op. cit., pp. 292 and 294–5) has certainly done so.Google Scholar
30 Basadre, , Historia (5th ed.), 9 4080;Google Scholar Pike, Peru, p. 232; Belaúnde, op. cit., pp. 230–2;Google ScholarUgarteche, La politica, p. 92.Google Scholar
31 Basadre, , Historia (5th ed.), 9, p. 4071;Google ScholarBelaúnde, op. cit., p. 239;Google ScholarUgarteche, Documentos, pp. 31–5;Google ScholarLescano, Zarate, op. cit., p. 83.Google Scholar
32 Outlook and Independent, 157, (11 03 1931), 361;Google ScholarRoller, Arnold, ‘Revolt in Peru’, The Nation, 131 (17 09 1930), 292.Google Scholar
33 Cerro, Luis M. Sánchez, Programa de gobierno del comandante Luis M. Sánchez Cerro candidato a la presidencia de la república del Perú (Lima 1931);Google ScholarCarey, op. cit., p. 64;Google ScholarFranco, Forero, op. cit., I, 183.Google Scholar
34 de la Vega, José, El conflicto colombo-peruano (Bogotá, 1933), p. 7;Google ScholarArana, Humberto Araujo, Conflicto fronterizo Peru-Colombia Año 1932–1933 (Lima, 1965), 3, 47–9.Google Scholar
35 Villanueva, Victor, El militarismo en el Perú (Lima, 1962), p. 69;Google Scholarde Reyna, Wagner, op. cit., II, 223;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, pp. 187–8.Google Scholar
36 Telegram 134, to Washington, 3 Sept. 1932, FR (1932), v, 272.Google Scholar
37 Cerro, Sánchez, op. cit., pp. 6–7;Google ScholarEl Comercio, 22 Aug. 1931.Google Scholar
38 Telegram 160, to Washington, 13 Sept. 1932, FR (1932), v, 276–77;Google ScholarTelegram 55, to Lima, 15 Sept. 1932, FR (1932), v, 277–8.Google Scholar
39 FR (1933), IV, 429–31;Google ScholarHudson, Manley O., The Verdict of the League: Colombia and Peru at Leticia (Boston, World Peace Foundation, 1933), p. 8.Google Scholar
40 Basadre, , Historia (6th ed.), 14, 366;Google ScholarFR (1933), IV, 429–31;Google ScholarWood, op. cit., p. 373.Google Scholar
41 El Comercio, 24 Jan. 1933;Google Scholar Telegram 17, from Geneva, 24 Jan. 1933, FR (1933), IV, 420–1.
42 Editorial in El Comercio, 3 March 1933;Google ScholarWood, op. cit., p. 215.Google Scholar
43 Hudson, op. cit., pp. 17–45;Google ScholarColombia, El Ministerio dc Relaciones Exteriores, El Conflicto de Leticia (Bogota, 1934), pp. 33–6;Google ScholarEl Comercio, editorial, 20 March 1933.Google Scholar
44 Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (New York, 1948), 1, 170–1 and 310–11;Google ScholarWood, op. cit., pp. 359–60.Google Scholar
45 Concha, Pérez, op. cit. (2nd ed.), II, 251;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, pp. 105–6.Google Scholar
46 La Prensa (Lima), 8 July 1936;Google ScholarEl Comercio, 8 July 1936;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, p. 107;Google ScholarSotomayor, Alberto Ulloa, Peru y Ecuador: Ultima etapa del problema de límites (1941–1942) (Lima, 1941), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
47 Telegram 117, from Santiago, 14 Oct. 1938, FR (1938), v, 238;Google Scholar Editorial in El Comercio, 24 Oct. 1938;Google ScholarTelegram 1, from Lima, 4 Jan. 1939, FR (1939), v, 141;Google ScholarConcha, Péerez, op. cit. (1st ed.), II, 456–7.Google Scholar
48 Ulloa, Perú y Ecuador, pp. 114–5;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, p. 111;Google ScholarPaz-Soldán, Parea, op. cit., I, 35.Google Scholar
49 Sharp, Daniel A. (ed.), U.S. Foreign Policy and Peru (Austin, Texas, University of Texas Press, 1972), pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
50 Peru, Ministero de Relaciones Exteriores, Documentos relativos a la conferencia peruecuatoriana de Washington (Lima, 1938), P. 15;Google ScholarUlloa, Perú y Ecuador, pp. 114–15;Google ScholarUlloa, Posición, p. 111;Google ScholarPaz-Soldán, Pareja, op. cit., I, 35.Google Scholar