No. 395
Subject: Conversation with Colonel Jacobo
Arbenz.1
Enclosed is a memorandum covering a conversation which I had two
evenings ago with Colonel Jacobo Arbenz in regard to matters
affecting the relations between Guatemala and the United States.
In this conversation, I gained the impression Arbenz is deeply
worried by a feeling relations between Guatemala and the United
States are not what they should be, and fears the adverse foreign
press (such as the Turner articles2) accurately
reflect sentiments in United States official quarters. Also, it is
apparent he thinks the United States Government and the American
business concerns operating here are covertly opposing the Arevalo
Government and his own presidential ambitions. On the other hand, I
found his attitude toward the United Fruit Company and other United
States business interests seemingly
[Page 871]
realistic and devoid of prejudices simply
because they are foreign companies. He reiterated previous
statements to the general effect big business, domestic or foreign,
had to cede some ground to social progress following the 1944
popular revolution, and their difficulties, therefore, are in the
nature of normal employee-employer and company-Government relations
under a changing political situation.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum of Conversation
| Participants: |
Colonel Jacobo Arbenz |
|
Mr. Minor Kielhauer |
|
Mr. Milton K. Wells |
Subject: Political situation; United
States-Guatemalan relations.
Through Minor Kielhauer, Colonel Arbenz had sought an interview
with Ambassador Patterson, which did not take place because of
the Ambassador’s hurried departure for the United States last
Tuesday. Tuesday afternoon, Kielhauer telephoned me that Arbenz
had returned to the city, regretted having missed seeing the
Ambassador, and would like the opportunity of talking to me. I
agreed to see Arbenz at cocktails at the Kielhauer home the
following evening. (March 29.)
Summary:
The burden of Arbenz’ remarks during the two-hour talk was a
complaint over what he considers to be a hostile attitude toward
Guatemala and his own candidacy on the part of the United
States, foreign companies, the Embassy, and Ambassador
Patterson, as reflected in the increasingly unfavorable United
States press. For my part, I tried to disabuse Arbenz of the
notion the United States in any way, shape, or form is departing
from a strict policy of nonintervention in the internal affairs
of Guatemala; that this policy carries with it disapproval of
any interference or meddling in local politics by American
companies and citizens; that we seek no special privileges, only
fair treatment; and that the apparently hostile press is but a
logical result of difficulties encountered by United States
interests during the past four years due to policies of the
Guatemalan Government and results also from the continuous
Communist-line labeling of the United States and foreign
companies as imperialists, et cetera.
Arbenz opened the conversation by saying he had wished to have a
frank talk with the Ambassador for some time, because, in his
opinion, the relations between our two countries had reached a
sad state
[Page 872]
not
warranted by the circumstances. He had become increasingly
worried by the hostility and criticism of the Guatemalan
Government emanating from the United States press. More
specifically was he worried by reports coming to him to the
effect the Embassy, and Ambassador Patterson in particular, he
said, consider the Government communist dominated, and are
against him (Arbenz) and his candidacy for the same reason.
Remarks attributed to the Ambassador which had been reported to
him gave him cause for fearing this, indeed, is our official
attitude. Such remarks from United States officials, however
personal and unofficial they may be, he said, are highly
significant and important—he wouldn’t be concerned if diplomatic
representatives of any other country said the same things, but
the remarks of the representatives of the most powerful nation
in the world have to be held significant.
Apropos the recent PAR3 manifestos alleging the existence of a plot
against Guatemalan democracy spearheaded by “North American
imperialism”, Arbenz said considering the foregoing and other
circumstances he felt there is at least cause for speculation.
He insinuated the Turner articles were inspired, indicated
belief the American companies would like nothing better than to
see the Arévalo regime end. He said the Government had kept
Colonel Miguel Mendoza, Jorge Toriello, and other
oppositionists, under close surveillance, knows they are engaged
in subversive activities, and knows they openly boast that the
United States is in sympathy with their objectives.
I took the general attitude the unfavorable press to which he
referred was nothing more than a normal reaction to events
(hechos) in Guatemala since 1944 which have seen United States
interests suffer more difficulties than in any Western
Hemisphere country, and to a constant barrage of
anti-imperialistic propaganda tinged unmistakably with the
international communist line; that in no way did it imply a
grand imperialistic conspiracy as alleged by PAR and other revolutionary
elements. In other words, the so-called anti-Guatemalan
propaganda is an answer to the anti-imperialist propaganda from
Guatemala, not vice versa. As examples, I had brought with me,
and confronted him with the political statements of PAR reported in Despatches 365 of
March 27 and 382 of March 29,4 which roundly denounce “North
American imperialism” for allegedly conspiring against democracy
in Guatemala, et cetera. I said in the United States a
presidential candidate endorses the political platform or
program of the nominating party; he had become the candidate of
PAR, whose political program
contains communist-tainted phraseology to say the least.
Therefore the logical question arises as to his own ideological
[Page 873]
sentiments, and
the United States press could be pardoned for speculating on
this point.
He readily admitted some of the PAR propaganda seemed Communistic, when viewed in
the light of international politics, but argued we should
consider such manifestations solely in terms of internal
politics in Guatemala—where everyone and everything is either
“revolutionary” or “reactionary”. He protested we “know” he is
not a Communist; of this our intelligence sources should have
convinced us. I pointed out that the idea that PAR is Communist-tainted is not
confined to the United States, and by way of illustration showed
him the Nuestro Diario editorial page of
March 28 which reproduces an article by an Uruguayan journalist,
which, while generally very favorable to “the Arévalo regime,
makes the flat statement that PAR has communistic tendencies.
As for the constant insinuations that United States companies in
Guatemala dislike the present regime and are aiding the
opposition, and the more recent insinuations that the policy of
the Embassy and the United States Government is hostile to
Guatemala and the Arbenz candidacy, I said my real purpose in
meeting with him was twofold; first to hear his comments on the
political situation; and secondly to convince him, once and for
all, that whatever sympathies, personal or official, might
exist, the United States under no circumstances is going to
meddle in Guatemalan internal affairs, nor take sides in the
coming electoral campaign. Also, I said, American business
concerns are already warned to abstain from contributing to
campaign funds or otherwise involving themselves in politics.
For example, I said, suppose some American concern secretly
contributed money to his own campaign chest. Should he become
President he could never be sure the same firm would not, in the
future, similarly support elements in opposition to his
Government. No foreign business concern could take such risks.
The Embassy has full confidence that the actions of the
so-called “foreign imperialistic companies” are wholly in
keeping with our non-intervention policy. If such is not the
case, I added, the Embassy would greatly appreciate being
informed. Arbenz admitted there is no evidence of partisan
activity on the part of any of the American firms here, but a
Guatemalan employee of the United Fruit Company at Puerto
Barrios had been heard to say the Company couldn’t stand the
Government any longer and was going to aid Ydigoras
Fuentes.5 I
commented that even if an employee had made the reported
statements, they should be considered as personal opinions of
the person making them. The Company’s policy is set only by the
responsible officials.
Concluding the conversation, I said since he is now a
presidential candidate and no longer a Cabinet Minister I could
not risk compromising
[Page 874]
the Embassy by seeing him again on official business outside the
Embassy, but that I hoped to continue seeing him socially from
time to time. I had made an exception in this case because I
felt the circumstances warranted, and since I wanted not to lose
the opportunity to convince him we mean exactly what we say on
non-intervention. The doors of the Embassy are open to all. The
fact that this or that opposition leader may enter to talk
politics cannot be interpreted to mean we are extending him any
support, any more than he (Arbenz) can interpret this talk with
me as support of his candidacy. The very fact the United States
is a world power (as he had observed earlier in the
conversation), I said, seemed to cause oppositionists in every
Latin American country to entertain the naive belief that
somehow the United States has a responsibility to do something
about the current “dictator” or the current “bad” Government. I
offered to wager a search of the Embassy’s files would reveal
that members of the present revolutionary Government of
Guatemala had come in to the Embassy during the period 1932–44
to denounce Ubico6
and to ask for support toward his overthrow. He admitted such
was probably the case.
[Here follows a postscript containing certain personal
references.]
