837.00/2935
The Ambassador in Cuba (Guggenheim) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 20.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s telegram No. 142, December 12, 5 p.m., and my reply thereto, No. 169, December 13, 1 P.M., reporting as without foundation the rumor that I had attended a secret Cabinet meeting of the Cuban Government.
The Embassy is continually embarrassed by rumors of this kind and by the distortion of news in the press, tending to give the impression that the United States Government is upholding the Machado Administration. In the past two months these misrepresentations have assumed the definite character of a campaign undertaken by the opposition with the two-fold object of intensifying the bitterness against Machado in Cuba and arousing popular sympathy in the United States for the opposition cause. An outstanding example of this is the misinterpretation of the Embassy’s telegram No. 128, November 1, 7 P.M. to the Department on the elections stating that the efforts of the opposition to “persuade abstention from voting had limited response.” This was apparently released to the press by the Department and was printed in distorted form in the Cuban newspapers, giving the impression that the Embassy had praised the elections as honest and fair. This interpretation was immediately seized upon by the opposition as evidence that the Embassy was in sympathy with the Government and wilfully misrepresenting the opposition cause. It is this incident, more than anything else, which is still being cited as indicating the Embassy’s partisanship.
More recent news despatches from Washington also are illustrative of this sort of propaganda. The Associated Press seems to be one of the worst offenders in this regard. Its despatch on December 11 stating that I attended a Cuban Cabinet meeting has already been mentioned. In the same article, publicity is given to the rumor that I had summoned two American cruisers from the United States Naval base at Guantanamo. Similarly, on December 12, the Associated Press referred to the fact that the State Department’s attention was again centered on the Cuban situation “with the resignation of President Machado considered a possibility.” The Department’s refusal to comment on the situation was interpreted “as a change in attitude on conditions in Cuba.” Today the Associated Press carries a statement by Octavio Seigle, head of the opposition Junta in New York that “the Department of State hitherto has not published the real information about the existing conditions in Cuba.” The statement proceeds to describe the formation of the [Page 682] Cuban Patriotic League, with Seigle as secretary, which will handle the opposition’s propaganda in New York and Washington. The Scripps-Howard syndicate also has a story under a New York date line of December 13, that,—
“There is dissatisfaction in Congressional circles over the apparent conflict between first-hand reports from Cuba picturing grave unrest bordering on revolution and State Department information, which is, in effect, that everything is about normal.”
Manifestos issued here frequently accuse me of giving an inaccurate report of Cuban conditions and this impression is perhaps enhanced by such propaganda for the other side as found in the United Press despatch from Washington, in Heraldo de Cuba, the Government’s paper, stating that Secretary Stimson is in receipt of a report that “President Machado has control of the situation, and is in a position to cope successfully with the opposition.”
Propaganda of this sort plays upon what seems to be a fixed impression among the Cuban people—that the United States intends to support the Machado Government. The opposition have claimed that they would have led a successful revolution against Machado except that the United States would not permit it. Your statement of a non-interference policy placed them in an embarrassing position. Since they have no military support for a revolution, they are forced to continue with the propaganda that the United States is supporting Machado. As the bitterness against Machado increases with the increase of poverty, the ill feeling against the United States will increase. Newspaper comments in favor of the United States are infrequent under any circumstances, partly because it is usually good politics to decry “Yankee Imperialism.” Of particular interest, therefore, are the two editorials attached in original and translation, one from Heraldo de Cuba, the Government paper before mentioned, the other from El Mundo, of a semi-government character, which comment appreciatively on the American policy of non-interference. The original press report that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take no further action on the Barlow case17 caused an extremely good effect here, largely counteracted by the subsequent statement of Senator King that further investigation might be necessary. The statements by the United States Senators criticizing the Department’s policy and attacking me personally are, of course, excellent material for the opposition’s effort to discredit the Embassy’s position. For example, the handbills and manifestos which are appearing daily and are increasingly violent in text have recently been printing the accusations that I have been bribed by the Cuban Government, or by the American bankers interested in Cuba—an [Page 683] insinuation made publicly against me by Senator Thomas in an address in Oklahoma.
The Embassy has taken particular care that its actions should not have any semblance of political partisanship for Machado. Since my assignment to this post, all of my public utterances have been free from even the innocent polite praise that is so often bestowed upon a President by the head of a mission accredited to him.
Respectfully yours,