721.00/2–1350: Telegram
The Ambassador in Colombia (Beaulac) to the Secretary of State 1
77. My letter of January 11, 1950, to Miller.2 From apparently reliable sources I learn President-elect Laureano Gomez plans to [Page 808] leave for Rome probably next month. Same and other sources claim to believe he would like to visit US before returning to Colombia.
I have not encouraged talk Gomez might visit States in view of criticism leveled at him in US because he was elected without opposition during state of seige.
However, in view of increasing widespread reports Gomez would like to visit US, some of which reports I am confident Gomez knows have reached the Embassy, and in view of possibility or probability that our falure to let him know he would be welcomed in US would be interpreted by him as a rebuff, I recommend Department instruct me to tell Gomez I have heard he intends to go to Rome and that we would be glad to have him visit US on his way back, in which event we would make it possible for him to see such things as TVA and other public works and other things in which he might be interested.
In making this recommendation, I have had following in mind:
- (1)
- It is desirable in principle for the new president of Colombia to know the US.
- (2)
- We cannot honestly attach blame to any one individual or any one political party for fact Gomez elected without opposition under state of siege.
- (3)
- Liberals withdraw from electoral contest before state of siege was declared, not because state of siege was declared.
- (4)
- Liberal Party’s tactics contributed in considerable measure to political violence which resulted in declaration of state of siege.
- (5)
- Liberal ex-President Lopez and Santos who are widely regarded as democrats in US were elected with Conservative Party abstaining.
- (6)
- Gomez who has been consistently anti-Communist says he will foster democratic constitutional government and has said to me and for publication that he wants to have closest possible relations with US.
- (7)
- We should not permit recent political developments in Colombia or partisan propaganda in connection with them to lessen possibility we will have good and helpful relations with Gomez regime.
In making above recommendation, I have omitted any reference to Gomez early attitude toward world war when he was an opposition senator because I consider that the important thing to our interest and security is not what he said or did in the past but what he as president of Colombia may do in the future.
When telling Gomez we would welcome his visit to US, I would also warn him that he might expect a hostile press reaction, particularly if the Colombian press should still be subject to censorship. I would say that such reaction might be so hostile as to make his visit to the States counter-productive from his viewpoint. I would say that on the other hand if press censorship and, particularly, if state of [Page 809] siege should have been lifted, Gomez would have an excellent opportunity through direct contact with American newspapermen to explain his position and attitudes in obtaining a good press for his administration.3
Sent Department, repeated to Ciudad Trujillo.
- Repeated to Ciudad Trujillo for the attention of Edward G. Miller, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.↩
- Not printed.↩
-
In telegram 64 from Ciudad Trujillo (repeated to Bogotá), February 15, 1950, Mr. Miller said in part: “I believe press reaction his visit would be so unfavorable that possible benefits outlined Beaulac’s tel would not eventuate. While I fully realize strength Beaulac’s arguments re responsibility of Liberal Party I believe we can pursue an open handed policy toward Gomez without according him unusual distinction of visit to US which has generally been reserved for chiefs of states who have clearly demonstrated their sympathy with our cause … correct course would seem be to give Gomez a full opportunity to show favorable disposition to US after assumption power. If in future, even before his assumption of power, situation should substantially change, including lifting of state of siege, we could reconsider matter on basis of facts then existing.” (721.11/2–1550)
The Department’s telegram 51 of February 15, not printed, in part conveyed the Department’s rejection of Ambassador Beaulac’s proposal. (721.11/2–1350)
↩