723.00/12–1150
The Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Miller) to the Ambassador in Peru (Tittmann)
confidential
Dear Harold: I have your letter of December 5 about the Haya de la Torre case. I am delighted to hear that the Colombians and Peruvians have now agreed between themselves to resubmit the matter to the World Court for a ruling on the specific point of whether the Colombians are required to deliver over the refugee.1 I personally doubt that such a sensible outcome of the problem would have been reached had it not been for our intervention in the matter which has been applauded as a courageous act of leadership by virtually every government in the Hemisphere except the Peruvian Government.
I deeply regret that you feel that you have been placed in a difficult position by the Department, but it seems to me that this is only one of the risks of the game that we are all in. It was absolutely unthinkable that our Government should stand idly by and see a threat to the peace develop in the Hemisphere while the world is falling apart [Page 1006] elsewhere. It is unfortunate that Gallagher felt sensitive about the use of the word “belligerent” but I do not believe that we in the Department can assume all of the responsibility for the adverse consequences of the use of this word since we were basing it only on your reports as to Gallagher’s attitude in the specific case and in transmitting the telegram we had no intention either that you should necessarily put the text of the telegram in writing or stick to the precise words of the text. As to the publicity in connection with the visits of Berckemeyer and Zuleta to the Department on December 1, it is impossible under our procedure in the Department to avoid making some statements as to the purpose of the visits to the Department and we tried to put it out in the most routine way possible. For Odría and Gallagher to construe the putting out of this press release as a threat to Peru seems to indicate only bad conscience on their part. We intended no such thing and the very fact of my friendship with Gallagher to which he referred should be sufficient proof to him that it was not our intention to act unfairly.
I do not believe that I should address myself directly to Gallagher as I never have since he and I have been respectively in office. Even at the time he was appointed, I sent my congratulatory message through you. If you believe it desirable, I would have no objection to telling Gallagher in my behalf that I regret that he has misconstrued the purpose of our action which was taken only in the interests of Hemisphere security, but that nevertheless I am delighted that apparently a peaceful procedure has been agreed upon for a solution of the problem. You might also say that I am delighted that you and he have been able to collaborate so closely in this situation.
As to your doubts over having left the memorandum in writing, while, as I say, we did not necessarily intend that you should do this, I agree with you that it may not have hurt matters in the long run for you to have given them an opportunity to brood over our views for a while. In reflecting over the Peruvian Government’s action in regard to the Ecuadoran boundary, the island in the Amazon and the Haya case over the last six weeks or so, I have been forcibly struck by the apparent unawareness of Odría and Gallagher to outside public opinion. This has been especially impressed upon me by the far more sophisticated and wordly views of Belaunde, Berckemeyer, Lavalle and Portocarrero all of whom professed to be greatly relieved over our having stepped into the case. Belaunde, incidentally, virtually dictated to me at the Peruvian Embassy a week ago Sunday the text of my second telegram.2
I deeply regret that for a while you thought your prestige was in jeopardy. I seriously doubt that it was, however, since I don’t think [Page 1007] that such great prestige and affection as you have built up in Peru could be hurt by one incident, particularly where you were acting under instructions and where, in the opinion of all of us here, those instructions were fair and just. In any event, prestige such as yours is worthwhile primarily if it can be used to good advantage as it apparently has been in this case.
[Here follows a reference to personal matters.]
Sincerely yours,
- Though telegram 305 from Lima, December 7, 1950, not printed, indicated that the Peruvian Government might agree to this proposal, it was in telegram 321, December 13, that Ambassador Tittmann reported President Odría had told him that day Peru would definitely accept it. (723.00/12–750 and 723.00/12–350, respectively)↩
- Notations on its text indicate that Mr. Miller had personally Monday, December 4, telegram 157 to Lima of that date, p. 1003.↩