FIERCE BATTLE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 243, 13 September 1932, Page 7

FIERCE BATTLE

CONFLICT IN SOUTH AMERICA,

SUCCESS OF PARAGUAYAN FORCES.

BOLIVIAN REGIMENT ANNIHILATED.

(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyriglif.) Received September 13, 9.15 a.m. ASUNCION (Paraguay) Sept. 12. The Government announced to-day that tho Paraguayan forces fighting a three day battle with the Bolivians at Fort Boquoron in the Gran Chaco region completely annihilated the Fourteenth Bolivian Infantry Regiment and were meeting with further successes as the fierco battlo continued. An official bulletin stated that the Bolivian commander, Major Adolfo Lairana, was taken prisoner, and the bodies of several other high officers were identified on the field.

VIGOROUS RESISTANCE

Received September 13, 9.15 a.m. LA PAZ (Bolivia) Sept. 12. Tho Bolivian army headquarters announced last night that the battle at Fort Boqueron in the Gran Chaco region was still raging at (i p.m. with tho Bolivian troops resisting vigorously.

HfSTORY OF DISPUTE

HOSTILITIES IN THE PAST,

Tho frontier between Bolivia and Paraguay in the El Chaco region hns been a bone of contention between the two countries for over half a century, and on more than one occasion recently hostilities have broken out, centred, for the "most part, round the frontier forts in the district. The ownership of several of these forts has been one of the major problems in the dispute. On several occasions during the last five years, other South American countries have intervened in the dispute and tho Leaguo of Nations also has made attempts to arrange a settlement. However, although agreements ha.vo been reached between the two countries, they have never lasted for more than a few months. Delegations from Bolivia and Paraguay met early in 1928 to discuss the frontier situation, but separated in May of that year without haying come to an agreement. A suggestion from Argentina that the question should be settled by arbitration, and that all troops should he withdrawn from the frontier, was ignored. In August a Paraguayan patrol took prisoner a party of Bolivian officers who wore exploring in the territory. Acrimonious Notes were exchanged by the two Governments, and in December there was a skirmish in which both sides suffered casualties. Each side assorted that the other was trespassing. FREQUENT INCIDENTS ON THE FRONTIER. Paraguay then proposed that the dispute should be referred to a mediator, but Bolivia refused and severed diplomatic relations. Both sides then began to preparo actively for war and thousands of volunteers were enrolled. The League of Nations intervened, bub Bolivia described Paraguay as the aggressor and then adopted a most bellicose tone and appointed a war Cabinot. Numerous clashes occurred on tu® frontier, but before the end of the year tho Pan-American conference took up tho dispute. This mediation proved successful in averting the threatened war and early in 1929 Bolivia offered to refer tiro dispute to the Court of International Justice at The Hague. However, no practical steps were taken toward that end, and in May there were furthor incidents on the frontier and relations between the two countries again became strained. Tho matter was again referred to a neutral Commission of Inquiry for arbitration. In 1930 tho flames of war were still smouldering on the frontier and there was an attempt at mediation on the part of the Republic of Uruguay. In January a Bolivian patrol attacked a Paraguayan encampment, but hastened to blame Paraguay for the clash. The latter country notified the League of Nations, which issued a warning to both countries. The dispute at that time even clouded the Naval Conference which was being held in London. EXCHANGE OF FORTS EFFECTED. Paraguay’s protests to the League continued to be met with the Bolivian argument that Paraguay was to blame and threats of military measures. Argentina, Brazil and Chile offered to intervene and Bolivia issued the statement that her attitude in the dispute was entirely peaceful and described her military steps as “a measure of precaution.” . In March, 1930, came the suggestion from Uruguay that the countries should exchange two forts on the frontier over which there had been much wrangling. Peace plans along those lines were adopted and Uruguay, which gained considerable credit at the timo for discovering a possible solution to the dispute, supervised the exchange of tho forts. On May 10, 1930, Bolivia and Paraguay signed a protocol, which, it was supposed, settled the boundary dispute. The exchange of forts was completed in July, but a week later it was reported that Bolivians had attacked a third fort in Paraguayan territory. However, that charge was withdrawn, Paraguay discoloring that the attack had been made by Indians. BREAKDOWN OF WASHINGTON PARLEYS.

The year 1930 closed quietly, but early in 1931 there was seen a desire on the part of Paraguay to reopen the Chaco dispute. In June there was a Paraguayan advance on the territory and four days later a counter-move-ment by Bolivia was reported. Neutral Powers again sought to prevent an open breach, and, at the end of June, Bolivia sent a conciliatory Noto to Paraguay. The latter’s reply displeased Bolivia and in July diplomatic relations were again suspended. In September a Paraguayan foroe was routed after an attack on a Bolivian post at Agua Rica. Toward the end of last year delegations from both countries met in conference at Washington. Negotiations were protracted and at one sthge the Paraguayan Government took exception to the fact that a Bolivian delegate had attended a reception at White House when Paraguay was not represented. The conference broke down early this year and ever since then a state of uncertainty has existed between the two countries.