Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The American Republics, Volume IV

714.001/6–1654

Notes of a Meeting of the Guatemalan Group, Held at the Department of State, June 16, 1954 ¹

secret

June 16, 1954

• Present: Holland, Atwood, Colonel Clark, Jamison, Sanders, Wieland, Herron, Sparks, Warren, Pearson, Leddy, Pawley,…

1. Draft Resolution²

(a) It was noted that the following countries have approved the resolution in its entirety: Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and the U.S.

(b) Atwood was to check regarding a Uruguayan note³ outlining proposed changes in the resolution.

(c) After talking with Andrade, Sparks was to get in touch with Rowell immediately to get Bolivian agreement to the considerandos.

(d) With respect to Brazil, Donnelly had called Holland to give Rao’s views as follows:

(1) Rao proposed two changes in the operative parts of the resolution. If we agreed to these changes, Brazil would be a co-sponsor, would send telegrams to Bolivia and Chile urging them to become co-sponsors, inform Paraguay that she would be happy if Paraguay would go along, and inform Uruguay that she will be a co-sponsor.

(2) Rao urged July 6 as the date for starting the conference (Venezuela wants any time after July 7).

(3) Rao suggests the considerandos could be reduced in number but not in substance and have the same effect. This is not a condition for agreement to the resolution.

(4) He reported that the Brazilian Ambassador to Argentina says Perón had told him that he will attend the meeting only if it is a general case against Communism rather than a specific case against Guatemala.

(5) Rao believes that Ecuador’s position reflects Argentine pressure (stemming from its support of Ecuador in the latest boundary dispute with Peru).

(6) Rao suggested that we get out a statement of our views on the UFCO case. On this point, Holland asked that Leddy prepare a report on the history of the UFCO problem in Guatemala for transmission to all of the LA Foreign Ministers. He was to cable a summary of this report and state that the report itself would be sent by pouch.

Action With Respect to Brazilian Draft Changes

After Holland talked with the Secretary, it was agreed he would tell Donnelly (a) that the substitute language proposed for the “Calls Upon” clause is acceptable. The Brazilian language requests Guatemala to implement Resolution VIII, Section 1, of the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs held in Washington 1951. (b) that with respect to the proposed change in the Recommendation section, we can accept the Brazilian language except for the phrase “any American state which is in present danger of becoming a center of the international Communist movement in the hemisphere” in place of which Donnelly should seek Brazilian agreement for the word “Guatemala”.

(e) Holland stressed to the group the need to close off further changes in the draft resolution. Each time we accept a change it means that we must clear it with all the other countries.

2. Plans in the Event Arbenz is Overthrown

(a) Holland indicated that if Arbenz were overthrown, we would still go ahead with the Montevideo meeting but extend the date.

(b) Pawley reported that his ad hoc committee, made up of representatives of CIA and Defense, would meet today to work up a paper⁴ outlining the steps we will take in the event the Arbenz government is overthrown. This paper would include the evacuation planning, recognition, possible economic aid to a successor government, etc. He asked that all members of the group give him any ideas they might have. Because of the similarity of this project with Woodward’s assignment on “treatment of successor government”,⁵ it was agreed that Woodward should work with the Pawley group.

3. Implementation of Preventive Measures

It was agreed that Woodward would consider the two points raised by the Venezuelans in connection with their acceptance of the draft resolution and report at the next meeting.⁶ These were (a) what would we do if the vessel we planned to stop had a naval escort of its flag country, and (b) would the area of search be as large as the Rio Treaty area (Holland thought the area should be considerably smaller).

4. Date of Meeting

Holland noted that the Secretary could be available for the Montevideo meeting beginning July 6.

5. Calling the Meeting Under the OAS Charter or the Rio Treaty

(a) After considerable discussion, the group decided unanimously to fight for the use of the Rio Treaty and Holland (who had been absent during the discussion) heartily concurred.

(b) Since at the Sunday, June 13 meeting⁷ with the Ambassadors Holland had indicated that he would convoke the meeting under either the Charter or the Rio Treaty if our legal position were equally strong under both, it was decided that L should render an opinion on the legality of our actions under each.

6. Spanish Translation of “Guatemalan Labor Party”⁸

Leddy reported that the Department’s Translation Division had done a very inadequate job on translating this document. CIA was being requested to go over it in order to translate properly the Communist jargon. The decision against wide dissemination of the document at this time was maintained.

7. Fisher’s Daily Reports

It was decided that the daily reports being prepared by John Fisher should be discontinued and that instead he should maintain a control on all of the same actions in the form most convenient to himself.

1. Drafted by Mr. Pearson.
2. Reference is to draft resolution transmitted in circular telegram 459, June 5, 1954, p. 1157.

3. No such note was found in Department of State files. However, a summary of the Uruguayan Government’s suggestions concerning the draft resolution and the proposed OAS meeting is contained in telegram 188, from Montevideo, dated June 10, 1954, not printed (363/6–1054).

   In a memorandum of conversation between Assistant Secretary Holland and Uruguayan Ambassador Mora, by Mr. Havemeyer, dated June 23, 1954, Ambassador Mora was reported to have confirmed the position of his government that it could not accept the draft resolution so long as it contained the present wording with respect to the detention and inspection of ships (714.00/6–2354).

4. Not identified.
5. Mr. Woodward drafted a memorandum on the following subject: “Plan of action in the event that the Arbenz government is overthrown,” dated June 23, 1954, which was circulated within the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs for comment; no copy of the memorandum was found in Department of State files.
6. The notes of a meeting of the Guatemalan Group held at the Department of State on June 18, 1954, drafted by Mr. Pearson, read in part as follows: “Venezuela would not be asked to co-sponsor the [draft] resolution but would be asked to agree not to change the resolution without the unanimous agreement of the co-sponsoring group.” (714.001/6–1854)
7. No record of this meeting was found in Department of State files.
8. Reference is to a study originally prepared by Mr. Hill at the Embassy in Guatemala City; a copy was transmitted to the Department of State under cover of despatch 308, from Guatemala City, dated Oct. 9, 1953, not printed (714.001/10–953). The study was revised at the Department in May 1954, and subsequently released under the title “The Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo (The Guatemalan Communist Party): A Basic Study.”