711.04114/2–2850: Airgram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Guatemala

confidential

A–28. The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune and Washington Post today1 carried on their front pages United Press despatches reporting that:

a)
“When the Puerto Rican team arrived2 Thursday3 it found Puerto Rico represented among the massed banners of the competing countries by a white flag bearing a green shield instead of the Stars and Stripes. The Puerto Ricans insisted that the substitute flag be hauled down and replaced with the American colors.”
b)
“Yesterday, while the Puerto Rican team paraded before 50,000 persons at inaugural ceremonies, the official radio broadcast repeated reminders that the ‘new Guatemala’ of President Juan José Arevalo is leading the fight to liberate colonies from ‘imperialistic powers’”
c)
“When a Puerto Rican color guard, carrying the Stars and Stripes, took its place for ceremonies opening the Central American ‘Olypmic’ games, a Guatemalan military band played ‘La Borin-quena’— a Puerto Rican dance tune—instead of ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ …4 ‘Diario de la Mañana’, reporting the opening of the athletic tournament, said: ‘Significant detail: when the Puerto Rican color guard marched forward to take its place in the semicircle of flags, a military band honored the Puerto Rican people with the Nationalist hymn because colonies are not recognized in Guatemala’” (Actually, “La Borinquena” is more than a dance tune: in public functions it is sometimes played with the “Star Spangled Banner.”)

As the Embassy knows, the Guatemalan Government, along with a small group of other Latin American governments, appears to consider that it has a mission to obtain the complete separation of Puerto Rico from the United States. Most Latin American governments, [Page 868] and most of the Puerto Ricans themselves, are aware that the President, in substance, has publicly promised to give sympathetic consideration to the political aspirations of the Puerto Ricans. In recent free elections the overwhelming majority of the Puerto Ricans have expressed themselves as opposed to breaking their ties with the United States at this time. The degree of self-government and the economic assistance which the Puerto Ricans currently enjoy is also a matter of common knowledge. The attitude of the Guatemalan Government is therefore entirely inconsistent with the facts.

The Department accordingly assumes that the agitation on the part of the Guatemalan Government for the political independence of Puerto Rico is primarily due to its belief that continuous propaganda concerning the exploitation of “colonies” by “imperialistic” states strikes a popular chord in Guatemala, strengthens the present regime with the people, and lays the groundwork for the eventual acquisition of Belize. The Embassy’s appraisal of this assumption will be appreciated.

In considering the course of action which will best serve United States interests, which include the maintenance of hemisphere solidarity to the extent feasible, it seems to the Department that the following considerations merit attention:

1.
It would appear that the most effective reply to provocative propaganda of this kind can be given by the Puerto Ricans themselves. Certainly the most effective reply to similar assertions made at the recent Habana meeting on dependent territories was made by the Puerto Ricans, who explained that some of the propaganda bordered on intervention into the island’s internal affairs since the people themselves had been consulted in free elections in which the Independentistas received the support of only 11% of the electorate. The Department is gratified to note that, according to the press, the Puerto Rican athletes at the games themselves insisted on marching under the United States flag. Governor Munoz of Puerto Rico is due to arrive in Washington tomorrow and the possibility of his making an appropriate statement on the subject will be explored.5
2.
In any polemic with the Guatemalans, it is possible that that Government would seek to make itself appear as the champion of oppressed peoples which is resisting pressure from the United States. Since the pro-government parties have so far been unable to agree on a candidate for the presidency, they may seek to obtain unity and to obscure the real issues by stressing matters such as Belize and Puerto Rico. Action on our part might therefore well play into the hands of the extremist elements.
3.
If the Guatemalan Government should reject a protest by us, it is doubtful that the United States would be prepared to take any stronger action, particularly since this is an election year.
4.
It is not completely clear from press reports that the Guatemalan Government has officially associated itself with the actions taken at the Olympic Games.

Of course, if additional action of the same general kind were taken, the Department would wish to reconsider its present inclination not to make a formal protest.

The Embassy’s comments would be appreciated.6

  1. February 27, the date A–28 was drafted. The Department’s telegram 55 sent February 27 reads as follows: “Pl take no action re Puerto Rican controversy referred to in today’s US press pending receipt agam being mailed Feb. 28.” (711.04114/2–2750)
  2. At the Central American Olympic Games, then being held in Guatemala City.
  3. February 23.
  4. Omission indicated in the source text.
  5. No record that Governor Munoz Marin discussed with State Department officers the possibility that he should make such a statement has been found in Department of State files.
  6. In telegram 70, sent noon, February 28, from Guatemala City, Ambassador Patterson stated in part: “Contemplate no official protest unless Department so instructs (Deptel 55 February 27) despite provocative nature incident which caused indignation PR delegates as well as hundreds other US citizens present.” (711.04114/2–2850)

    The New York Times’ version, published February 27, of the United Press despatch quoted in A–28 said in part that Ambassador Patterson, “… ‘surprised and indignant’ at the slur, said he would protest formally to the Guatemalan Government.” The Times of February 28 carried a UP despatch of the previous day which stated in part: “The ‘incident’ brought today a formal protest by the United States Ambassador Richard C. Patterson Jr.”

    No record of any type of protest in the matter by Ambassador Patterson has been found in Department of State files.