Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The American Republics, Volume VIII

839.00/5–2847

The Ambassador in the Dominican Republic (Butler) to the Secretary of State

secret
No. 790

Ciudad Trujillo, May 28, 1947.

Sir: Ref erring to the Department’s secret telegram no. 75 of May 5, 7 p.m.,¹¹ I have the honor to report upon the results and some of the probable effects of the Dominican elections held on May 16, 1947.

President Trujillo was re-elected for another five-year term by an overwhelming majority. That was a foregone conclusion. Congress will be composed almost entirely of members of the Dominican (Trujillo) Party. There never was any doubt about that. The elections were technically free according to Dominican constitutional and legal requirements. In view of our non-intervention policy, we cannot challenge the “freedom” of these elections, although the “campaign”, the electoral procedure, and the whole business of the elections certainly did not conform in any way to our standards of free and democratic elections.

As a result of the elections, President Trujillo now can: (a) continue almost unchallenged in the exercise of his dictatorial powers, (b) continue to claim credit for the material progress of the country under his administration, (c) bring pressure to bear for active cooperation with the United States and other countries against the great danger of communism—a danger which probably is comparatively insignificant in the Dominican Republic, (d) give renewed drive to his constant effort to obtain credit and publicity as a leader in inter-American and international affairs, and (e) claim a direct and overwhelming mandate from the Dominican people as approval of and support for his program and actions. His position is a strong one.

The Department and the Embassy, as matters stand at present, are severely restricted in any effort to counteract the anti-democratic influences of the Trujillo regime. We still can insist upon our policy that American firms and citizens should not be involved in any way in Dominican politics. We can refuse to be drawn into any program of cooperation against alleged communists, when the latter—as so often happens—are merely anti-Trujillo rather than communist. The force of public opinion is a factor; but Trujillo has proved time and again that he has the cash and the will to obtain favorable publicity abroad. Unfortunately, he has been able, by one means or another, to persuade prominent Americans and other foreigners, in public, business or private life, to plead his cause and to support him. There is little evidence of any strong anti-Trujillo feeling among the Dominican masses. Further, since we are not in a position to challenge the “freedom” of the May 16 elections, it is useless to reiterate that we have a warmer feeling of friendship for and greater desire to cooperate with governments that rest upon the periodically expressed consent of the governed. Finally, multilateral action to protect human rights appears not to be feasible at present (see Department’s secret airmail instruction 131, dated February 19, 1947).

Before making suggestions about future courses of action, comment will be made on several phases of the Dominican elections and political situation.

[Here follow data under headings “Background”, “Election Results”, and “Factors in New Phase of United States-Dominican Relations”.]

Conclusions and Recommendations:

The foregoing review of the Dominican political situation and of relations between the United States and the Dominican Republic forces me to the conclusion that a more direct and positive approach to our policy will be necessary during the coming five years of the Trujillo administration. Either we will have to make clear to the Trujillo Government why we do not intend to cooperate with it as we would cooperate with a genuinely democratic government, or we will have to overlook the fundamental matter of principle involved and accept at face value many of Trujillo’s trappings of democracy. The Embassy recommends the former course of action, but such a course would have to be approved of and supported by the President and the Secretary of State, as well as by the Department officers directly concerned with Dominican affairs.

In my despatch no. 199 of November 18, 1946, I raised the question of whether or not it would be desirable and useful to have an Ambassador here as Chief of Mission rather than to have a competent officer as Chargé d’Affaires for a period of time. The Department’s secret airmail Instruction no. 96 of December 26, 1946, in reply to my despatch,¹² states in part as follows:

“Should the relationship between the Embassy and President Trujillo develop in such a way that you feel the conduct of Embassy business is being severely hindered, you might consider the formulation of a specific recommendation in the above sense.”

I wish now to suggest two alternative courses of action for the Department’s consideration:

1) The first alternative involves a full and frank exchange of views, the substance and form to be worked out by the Department and the Embassy, between the Governments of the United States and the Dominican Republic. It should be made clear that on the basis of its records and information over a period of twenty years, the Department is forced to the conclusion that many of the basic principles and institutions of democracy, which the United States believes in and which are written into inter-American and United Nations documents, have not been observed in the Dominican Republic over a long period of years. Consequently, the Government of the United States cannot in good faith maintain as friendly and cooperative a relationship with the Dominican Government as it does with governments and peoples which are so much closer in principle and practice to the Government and people of the United States. I realize fully the complications and difficulties which would result from such a course of action, but I believe it to be the honest and the best solution from the point of view of our long range policies and interests.

2) So far as I know, a new American Ambassador has not been designated to succeed Ambassador Warren in Nicaragua. If this is a matter of policy, the second alternative would be to apply the same policy to the Dominican Republic. While President Trujillo would keenly resent not having an American Ambassador accredited to his country, it also would substantially weaken the prestige of his Government, both at home and abroad, if our Mission here were headed by a Chargé d’Affaires for an appreciable period of time. Experience during the time that Mr. George Scherer was in charge for several months shows that the essential interests of our country need not suffer through such an arrangement. If the Department, for any reason, would not wish to recall me openly, I would be perfectly willing and able to give personal reasons to justify my absence from my post for as long a time as the Department might consider desirable.

Respectfully yours,

George H. Butler

11. Not printed.
12. For despatch 199, November 18, 1946, and instruction 96, December 26, 1946, see Foreign Relations, 1946, vol. xi, pp. 809 and 815, respectively.