Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana

94. Telegram From the Embassy in the Dominican Republic to the Department of State¹

Santo Domingo, May 24, 1965, 1830Z.

1963. For the President from Bundy.

1. In 2 hrs this morn presented basic position in ur 1208.² Guzman believes he will be quite unable to accept our position or even to negotiate at length about it. But he has undertaken to speak with Mora and Mayobre before giving a more considered answer this afternoon.

2. I opened by reminding him that there had always been 3 basic issues in front of us—and that there had been no really final agreement on any of the 3. They were the need for high leaders on each side to step out and leave the country, the problem of effective dealing with Commies, and a constitutional govt with a sufficiently wide base to command general Dom confidence. I knew he had always recognized the importance of 2nd and 3rd, and equally I knew that he had never given his own approval to 1st.

I said that we had had growing concern in recent days on the role of rebel leaders and especially on the role of Commies. There had been repeated incidents suggesting the influence of forces which do not wish a settlement. There had been reports from Doms of good will the influence of the Commies continued to be strong. We had growing evidence of our own that Commies were strong in the constitutionalist forces.

3. I reminded Guzman of our original formula that leaders should leave and that known Commies should be separated from the Dom community by detention or departure. I said that we had reported his own objections to these proposals. I said that our fundamental view now was that we did not think a constitutional govt with necessary Dom and U.S. support was possible without a public and decisive position on Commies. The only action which we could see that would show this decision plainly was the separation of those known to be tough, trained, and committed Commies, with a public announcement of this decision.

4. I said all liberal non-Commie movements must eventually confront and defeat Commie threat. I knew that we both agreed on this point. In our judgment the time for this clear breach in the Dom Rep was now, and the slower and more gradual way would not meet the necessities. I said this was the only safe way to a democratic future, in the clear view of my govt, and I reported my impression that there was sympathy for this position on the part of both Mora and Mayobre. (This is what they have told us privately, but it remains to be seen whether they will be so firm with Guzman.)

5. I said that I knew this position would present a grave question for Guzman in the light of his arguments of last week and that I hoped he would take time to reflect before giving a definite reply. I said that our objective was still to lay a firm basis for real agreement, and we should take all the necessary time.

I emphasized strongly our continuing conviction that constitutionalist solution was best and Guzman best man to execute it. Said we were making clear again to Imbert that we saw no lasting solution in him or in his group—and that this opinion too was shared by Mora and Mayobre. We should therefore take our time and find a way to match the basic necessities of constitutional govt with basic requirements I had stated. I was sure this could be done.

6. Guzman said he was deeply disillusioned but not greatly surprised. He knew that I was responsible to final authority of the President. He assumed, however, that the President would know of our discussions and conversations of last week. He recognized that there were many worries in Wash; that many people there and here believed things that were unreal. He himself recognized that there had been Commie infiltration in the constitutionalist forces. He remained persuaded that the Caamano govt had very good control over its various elements. He said it was understandable that in a mood of siege there would be occasional outbursts that could not be controlled, but that the basic situation was one of effective authority under Caamano. He reminded me that he himself had never supported the departure of revolutionary leaders. He recognized that Bosch had agreed to detention or departure of Commies, but he had always opposed it.

He expressed at some length his conviction that this method was inefficient and indeed not really workable.

He then underlined his rejection of the sacrifice of leaders. He would not do it if Benitez, or Bosch, or the leaders themselves should ask it of him. The departure of these leaders would mean a govt without popular support. If this was required, he would expect to have to withdraw. He would still be glad to assist as a mediator and as an advisor both to us and to his fellow countrymen, but he would not expect to serve in any resulting government.

At this point, I gave him a dose of honest praise, pointing out that his integrity and independence of mind were rare qualities which he had no right to withhold from the service of his people at a time like this if a reasonable solution could be found. I thought he should be sure to talk with Mora and Mayobre before reaching a decision and that I thought it would be very wrong for him to give a final answer now.

7. He said he was willing to defer a final answer but that we should understand these were his firm principles. He believed that repression by force would simply make more Commies. He thought this was the product of earlier crude policies of the Council of State and of the triumvirate govts. He was just as concerned about Commies as we, and he was determined to have them carefully watched and controlled. But he was strongly opposed to creation of conditions that would manufacture Commies. Killing and deportation would have this effect.

8. I replied that I understood and respected his own belief that one set of measures was better than another. But present circumstances had necessarily created special concerns. We both believed that what counts is results. We took no satisfaction in acts of force for their own safety. But today there was a grave question of confidence both in his country and certainly in my own. It was therefore a necessity for visible action against real Commie danger. We could find no other way that to separate hard core Commies. I drew clear distinction between student dabblers and solidly committed, trained, and disciplines revolutionaries. We thought action against the latter absolutely essential.

9. We then discussed a number of other matters such as maintenance of cease-fire, fate of Radio Santo Domingo, and possibilities for econ rehabilitation while seeking POL solution. I also complained about Cabinet leak to Szulc³ which we believe came from Caamano himself.

10. Guzman wound up by emphasizing great difficulty of his personal position and his view that both general situation and this personal problem made a quick decision essential. Believing this decision would be negative, I reassured him that no matter when or how discussions ended he could count on us to bear witness to his patriotism, honor and integrity. I re-emphasized that we had common objectives and urged him to make every possible effort to reconcile his purposes with the basic requirements on which we found it essential to insist.

11. He then undertook to talk to Mora and Mayobre and to give us a reply this afternoon. I said that I would take this reply not as a final answer but as a message to the President, so that both sides could be sure of full understanding of each otherʼs position. This may give us another 24 hours—but not much more.

Bennett

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 23–9 DOM REP. Secret; Flash; Exdis. Received in the Department of State at 3 p.m. and passed to the White House, DOD, and CIA.
2. Document 91.
3. Reference is to a story filed by Tad Szulc, a Washington correspondent of The New York Times who was in Santo Domingo. On May 17 at 4:45 p.m. President Johnson telephoned Bromley Smith seeking information on this story. Smith summarized Szulcʼs article as stating Guzman was the U.S. Governmentʼs candidate to lead the Dominican Republic and the Bundy missionʼs purpose was to convince Imbert to leave to make way for a U.S. Government “slate” under Guzman. (Johnson Library, Recordings and Transcripts, Recording of telephone conversation between President Johnson and Bromley Smith, Tape F65.30, Side A, PNO 3)