611.14/3–3150

The Chargé in Guatemala (Wells) to the Department of State

confidential

No. 395

Subject: Conversation with Colonel Jacobo Arbenz.1

Enclosed is a memorandum covering a conversation which I had two evenings ago with Colonel Jacobo Arbenz in regard to matters affecting the relations between Guatemala and the United States.

In this conversation, I gained the impression Arbenz is deeply worried by a feeling relations between Guatemala and the United States are not what they should be, and fears the adverse foreign press (such as the Turner articles2) accurately reflect sentiments in United States official quarters. Also, it is apparent he thinks the United States Government and the American business concerns operating here are covertly opposing the Arevalo Government and his own presidential ambitions. On the other hand, I found his attitude toward the United Fruit Company and other United States business interests seemingly [Page 871] realistic and devoid of prejudices simply because they are foreign companies. He reiterated previous statements to the general effect big business, domestic or foreign, had to cede some ground to social progress following the 1944 popular revolution, and their difficulties, therefore, are in the nature of normal employee-employer and company-Government relations under a changing political situation.

Milton K. Wells

[Enclosure]

Memorandum of Conversation

Participants: Colonel Jacobo Arbenz
Mr. Minor Kielhauer
Mr. Milton K. Wells

Subject: Political situation; United States-Guatemalan relations.

Through Minor Kielhauer, Colonel Arbenz had sought an interview with Ambassador Patterson, which did not take place because of the Ambassador’s hurried departure for the United States last Tuesday. Tuesday afternoon, Kielhauer telephoned me that Arbenz had returned to the city, regretted having missed seeing the Ambassador, and would like the opportunity of talking to me. I agreed to see Arbenz at cocktails at the Kielhauer home the following evening. (March 29.)

Summary:

The burden of Arbenz’ remarks during the two-hour talk was a complaint over what he considers to be a hostile attitude toward Guatemala and his own candidacy on the part of the United States, foreign companies, the Embassy, and Ambassador Patterson, as reflected in the increasingly unfavorable United States press. For my part, I tried to disabuse Arbenz of the notion the United States in any way, shape, or form is departing from a strict policy of nonintervention in the internal affairs of Guatemala; that this policy carries with it disapproval of any interference or meddling in local politics by American companies and citizens; that we seek no special privileges, only fair treatment; and that the apparently hostile press is but a logical result of difficulties encountered by United States interests during the past four years due to policies of the Guatemalan Government and results also from the continuous Communist-line labeling of the United States and foreign companies as imperialists, et cetera.

Arbenz opened the conversation by saying he had wished to have a frank talk with the Ambassador for some time, because, in his opinion, the relations between our two countries had reached a sad state [Page 872] not warranted by the circumstances. He had become increasingly worried by the hostility and criticism of the Guatemalan Government emanating from the United States press. More specifically was he worried by reports coming to him to the effect the Embassy, and Ambassador Patterson in particular, he said, consider the Government communist dominated, and are against him (Arbenz) and his candidacy for the same reason. Remarks attributed to the Ambassador which had been reported to him gave him cause for fearing this, indeed, is our official attitude. Such remarks from United States officials, however personal and unofficial they may be, he said, are highly significant and important—he wouldn’t be concerned if diplomatic representatives of any other country said the same things, but the remarks of the representatives of the most powerful nation in the world have to be held significant.

Apropos the recent PAR3 manifestos alleging the existence of a plot against Guatemalan democracy spearheaded by “North American imperialism”, Arbenz said considering the foregoing and other circumstances he felt there is at least cause for speculation. He insinuated the Turner articles were inspired, indicated belief the American companies would like nothing better than to see the Arévalo regime end. He said the Government had kept Colonel Miguel Mendoza, Jorge Toriello, and other oppositionists, under close surveillance, knows they are engaged in subversive activities, and knows they openly boast that the United States is in sympathy with their objectives.

I took the general attitude the unfavorable press to which he referred was nothing more than a normal reaction to events (hechos) in Guatemala since 1944 which have seen United States interests suffer more difficulties than in any Western Hemisphere country, and to a constant barrage of anti-imperialistic propaganda tinged unmistakably with the international communist line; that in no way did it imply a grand imperialistic conspiracy as alleged by PAR and other revolutionary elements. In other words, the so-called anti-Guatemalan propaganda is an answer to the anti-imperialist propaganda from Guatemala, not vice versa. As examples, I had brought with me, and confronted him with the political statements of PAR reported in Despatches 365 of March 27 and 382 of March 29,4 which roundly denounce “North American imperialism” for allegedly conspiring against democracy in Guatemala, et cetera. I said in the United States a presidential candidate endorses the political platform or program of the nominating party; he had become the candidate of PAR, whose political program contains communist-tainted phraseology to say the least. Therefore the logical question arises as to his own ideological [Page 873] sentiments, and the United States press could be pardoned for speculating on this point.

He readily admitted some of the PAR propaganda seemed Communistic, when viewed in the light of international politics, but argued we should consider such manifestations solely in terms of internal politics in Guatemala—where everyone and everything is either “revolutionary” or “reactionary”. He protested we “know” he is not a Communist; of this our intelligence sources should have convinced us. I pointed out that the idea that PAR is Communist-tainted is not confined to the United States, and by way of illustration showed him the Nuestro Diario editorial page of March 28 which reproduces an article by an Uruguayan journalist, which, while generally very favorable to “the Arévalo regime, makes the flat statement that PAR has communistic tendencies.

As for the constant insinuations that United States companies in Guatemala dislike the present regime and are aiding the opposition, and the more recent insinuations that the policy of the Embassy and the United States Government is hostile to Guatemala and the Arbenz candidacy, I said my real purpose in meeting with him was twofold; first to hear his comments on the political situation; and secondly to convince him, once and for all, that whatever sympathies, personal or official, might exist, the United States under no circumstances is going to meddle in Guatemalan internal affairs, nor take sides in the coming electoral campaign. Also, I said, American business concerns are already warned to abstain from contributing to campaign funds or otherwise involving themselves in politics. For example, I said, suppose some American concern secretly contributed money to his own campaign chest. Should he become President he could never be sure the same firm would not, in the future, similarly support elements in opposition to his Government. No foreign business concern could take such risks. The Embassy has full confidence that the actions of the so-called “foreign imperialistic companies” are wholly in keeping with our non-intervention policy. If such is not the case, I added, the Embassy would greatly appreciate being informed. Arbenz admitted there is no evidence of partisan activity on the part of any of the American firms here, but a Guatemalan employee of the United Fruit Company at Puerto Barrios had been heard to say the Company couldn’t stand the Government any longer and was going to aid Ydigoras Fuentes.5 I commented that even if an employee had made the reported statements, they should be considered as personal opinions of the person making them. The Company’s policy is set only by the responsible officials.

Concluding the conversation, I said since he is now a presidential candidate and no longer a Cabinet Minister I could not risk compromising [Page 874] the Embassy by seeing him again on official business outside the Embassy, but that I hoped to continue seeing him socially from time to time. I had made an exception in this case because I felt the circumstances warranted, and since I wanted not to lose the opportunity to convince him we mean exactly what we say on non-intervention. The doors of the Embassy are open to all. The fact that this or that opposition leader may enter to talk politics cannot be interpreted to mean we are extending him any support, any more than he (Arbenz) can interpret this talk with me as support of his candidacy. The very fact the United States is a world power (as he had observed earlier in the conversation), I said, seemed to cause oppositionists in every Latin American country to entertain the naive belief that somehow the United States has a responsibility to do something about the current “dictator” or the current “bad” Government. I offered to wager a search of the Embassy’s files would reveal that members of the present revolutionary Government of Guatemala had come in to the Embassy during the period 1932–44 to denounce Ubico6 and to ask for support toward his overthrow. He admitted such was probably the case.

Milton K. Wells

[Here follows a postscript containing certain personal references.]

  1. Col. Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had been nominated for President on February 19 by two of the three political parties which formed the coalition in support of President Arévalo’s government.
  2. Reference is to articles concerning Communism in Guatemala which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune early in February 1950.
  3. Partido Acción Revolucionaria, largest of the parties supporting the candidacy of Colonel Arbenz.
  4. Neither printed.
  5. Gen. Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes, also a candidate for President in 1950.
  6. Gen. Jorge Ubico Castaneda, President of Guatemala from 1931 to 1944.