816.00/1284: Telegram
The Ambassador in El Salvador (Thurston) to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:33 p.m.]
128. I have the following observations to make regarding Ambassador Long’s airgram 210, April 28:
- 1.
- My action with respect to Colonel Calvo was based upon the established and proclaimed policy of the United States Government toward asylum and the categoric instructions on the subject contained in the Foreign Service Regulations. In as much as Ambassador Long obviously questions the validity of the policy and the Regulations as well as the propriety of my action an expression of the Department’s opinion is respectfully requested.
- 2.
- I am opposed to Mr. Long’s suggestion that a statement be
issued by the Department “clarifying its policy” toward asylum,
my procedure, and hypothetical situations, for the following
reasons:
- a.
- There has been no discussion of any of these subjects in the Salvadoran press, now entirely government controlled, and in view of the conditions that prevail in Guatemala I doubt that there has been any published discussion there. Under these circumstances, or otherwise, a public statement by the Department would be exposed to mixed and partisan distortion.
- b.
- In so far as El Salvador is concerned, the initial reaction of the Calvo case has been largely overcome and the opposition element is beginning to understand and accept this Embassy’s position. This change has effected personal conversations based on the facts—and I believe a similar procedure in Guatemala would be effective and proper.
- 3.
- Ambassador Long appears to link the Calvo incident with “serious criticism of our general policy toward Central American political affairs”. There is no doubt that misunderstanding and criticism followed the application to Colonel Calvo of our policy regarding asylum, but as stated above this reaction can be overcome by a sincere explanation of the facts. Our long established abstract policy toward asylum has no bearing on current Central American political affairs, and any honest and intelligent Central American will so admit.
As to our general policy toward Central American political affairs (and confining my remarks to El Salvador, although I have no doubt they apply equally to the other dictator-ridden Republics) it is, of course, known to the Department that unfavorable criticism has prevailed for the past year—if not for much longer—among the opposition elements. This criticism is the result of a general inability to reconcile our persistent propaganda for the Four Freedoms,18 the [Page 1095] Atlantic Charter,19 democracy, liberty and the other rights of man, with our policy of non-intervention and seeming indifference to cynical abolition of those rights by a petty Central American dictator. Bewilderment and criticism increased with our acceptance of the local regime as honored associate and the furnishing to it of seemingly omnipotent military equipment, and reached a higher pitch when it was observed that Washington and this Embassy remained inactive and aloof during and after the recent uprising.
Repeat to Guatemala.
- Set forth in President Roosevelt’s State of the Union Message, January 6, 1941, Congressional Record, vol. 87, pt. 1, pp. 44–47.↩
- Joint statement by President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, August 14, 1941, Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. i, p. 367.↩