Under Secretary’s Meetings, Lot 53 D
250, Documents
The paper describes the present unsatisfactory situation in Guatemala
due partly to the Communist influence in labor unions and
government. It traces the origins of the trouble and the role played
by the United Fruit Company. It states the U.S. policy of isolating
the Communists from other political forces and counselling caution
and moderation in carrying out social reforms.
[Enclosure]
Current Relations With Guatemala
problem
To Assess our Current Relations with Guatemala.
background
For the past several years there has been developing in Guatemala
a situation which the Department has viewed with concern. An
excessive nationalism, which has manifested itself by a hostile
attitude toward private United States companies operating in
Guatemala, a proclivity on the part of a weak President and
others in the government for fuzzy economic and political
philosophies and an upsurge of the influence of international
communism of the Latin American variety, which has taken full
advantage of the first two factors, have combined to create this
situation.
For a clear understanding of the Guatemalan problem, one must
take into account the history of the Republic. Guatemalan
politics have always been turbulent and unstable. With one or
two exceptions the Republic has been ruled since its
independence in 1829 by dictators, [Page 898] some of them notorious for their cruelty
and methods of ruthless repression. The social system,
(inherited from the Spaniards, has for centuries been feudal,
with the white population regarding the Indians, who comprise
two-thirds of the total population, as vastly inferior beings
and treating them accordingly. There have long been wide
cleavages in the distribution of wealth with a resulting low
standard of living for the masses. Foreign companies, through
arrangements favorable to the dictator in power at the moment,
have been able in the past to obtain large concessions and
special privileges.
In 1944 one of the most ruthless of all Guatemalan dictators was
overthrown by what amounted to a truly popular uprising
supported by all segments of the population. Popular elections
followed, and Juan José Arévalo, a liberal and
progressive-minded ex-teacher, was elected President by an
overwhelming popular vote.
Shortly thereafter Guatemala embarked on a social, economic and
political program which in general terms aimed at improving the
standard of living of the masses, protecting them from the
abuses of the old feudal system, and achieving freedom and
democracy for the Guatemalan people.
This program was at its outset commendable. By and large, there
was freedom of speech and of the press. There were few political
exiles. The government instituted a system of social security
which was efficiently and honestly run. In order to further the
cause of the workers it enacted labor legislation and sponsored
the formation of labor unions.
Soon, however, the government’s pro-labor attitude, especially as
expressed in the Labor Code and its administration, brought the
government into direct conflict with the U.S.-owned United Fruit
Company, the largest single employer, in the country. This
conflict was aggravated by a nationalistic tendency on the part
of labor and key government officials and by the influence of
international communism in the labor movement and in
pro-government circles. The United Fruit Company, for whom there
is a deep-seated mistrust on the part of many Guatemalans
because of its size, prosperity, past policies and foreign
ownership, fought important sections of the Labor Code on the
grounds that they were discriminatory against it. This
resistance brought charges that the Company was both
anti-national and anti-labor. Although there were differences of
opinion in the Department itself as to whether the stand of the
United Fruit Company in regard to these sections was legally
justified, the Department made representations to the Guatemalan
Government on behalf of the United Fruit Company, seeking for it
what we regarded as just and equitable treatment under the law.
As a consequence of its position the United Fruit Company was
soon portrayed as the arch enemy of Guatemalan “democracy” and
the Revolution; the United [Page 899] States Government, because of its support
of the United Fruit Company and other United States interests
which later on became involved in similar labor conflicts, also
became in the eyes of many an enemy of the revolution.
The United States found itself opposed to certain Guatemalan
policies in the international field also. The intense feeling on
the part of Guatemalans against dictatorships manifested itself
in the Guatemalan Government’s sponsorship and assistance to the
so-called “Caribbean Legion”. This was a group of political
malcontents dedicated to the overthrow of “dictatorship”
governments such as those of General Somoza and Trujillo. The
Guatemalan Government supported this movement financially as
well as ideologically, and as a result has been one of the
principal causes of unrest and instability in the Caribbean.
Recently Guatemala was named by an investigating committee of
the OAS as one of the countries
responsible for this deplorable situation in the Caribbean
area.2
Another important factor which has influenced the climate of
political opinion in Guatemala, especially vis-à-vis the United
States and United States’ interests, has been the degree to
which international communism has penetrated into Guatemala. A
mimeographed study of communist penetration in Guatemala
prepared by ARA for Mr. Kennan
(Tab A) is attached.3 Through the inter-American labor
federation of pro-communist Vicente Lombardo Toledano, they have
succeeded in seizing tight control of the labor unions. They
have also, to some extent, gained an important foothold in two
of the three pro-government political parties. Also, they have
managed to infiltrate into certain governmental positions. While
it is not considered that the Communists control the government
at this time, their influence is considerable and should not be
underestimated.
As a result of the developments described above our relations
with Guatemala have gradually deteriorated over the past several
years. Recently relations reached a low point when on March 24
the Guatemalan Government requested the recall of our
Ambassador, the Honorable Richard C. Patterson, Jr., on the
grounds that he had been intervening in Guatemala’s internal
affairs. The Department categorically rejected these
charges.
past and present policy towards
guatemala
At the inception of the present government of Guatemala the
Department looked with favor upon its attempts to achieve a form
of democratic government and to introduce needed social reforms.
As [Page 900] the influence of
the extreme nationalists and the Communists became preponderant
and the United States companies and the United States itself
became the prime targets for attack, however, the Department has
attempted, through diplomatic and private channels, to persuade
the Guatemalan Government that its nationalistic policies are
not only contrary to United States interests but to the best
interests of the Guatemalan Government and the Guatemalan people
as well. We have carefully attempted to make it clear that we do
not oppose progressive social reforms as such but merely counsel
caution and moderation. We have sought what we regard as just
treatment for United States’ interests in Guatemala and have
endeavored to convince the Guatemalans that the disputes between
United States companies and the labor unions should be kept on
the basis of an employer-employee relationship and that
nationalistic jingoism should not be allowed to confuse the
issue to the detriment of United States-Guatemalan
relations.
In the international field we have endeavored to persuade the
Guatemalan Government that it should abandon its Caribbean
Legion activities and honor its commitments to preserve the
peace of the hemisphere. We have consistently urged the
Guatemalan Government to ratify the Rio Treaty which it has not
as yet done.
With regard to the present situation, the Department has
considered such action as placing the case before the
Organization of American States, withdrawing technical
assistance programs and imposing unilateral sanctions. It has
concluded, however, that such action is not justified at this
time because (1) United States interests, in spite of the
attacks they have been subjected to, have suffered no serious
harm and are still intact and operating, (2) Guatemala is
presently engaged in a bitter internal presidential election
campaign, the results of which cannot be predicted at this time,
and (3) while it is true that the Communists are influential
both within the Government and without, especially in the labor
unions, they do not hold key positions in the government, and
there is still reason to hope that they may be repudiated by the
more responsible elements of Guatemala.
For the present, therefore, the Department has adopted a policy
the aim of which is to reduce and destroy the influence of the
Communists and extremists by bringing about their isolation from
other political forces and by making moderate groups aware of
the real harm being done to United States-Guatemalan
relationships by present trends in that country. To that end we
desire to avoid actions or statements which tend to throw
Communist and non-Communist elements together by providing an
issue of “foreign pressure”, which the moderates would have to
join in opposing or find themselves in the politically untenable
position of being labeled unpatriotic.
[Page 901]
It is intended that this policy be accomplished by means of frank
and open discussions of the problem by Department officials,
both here in Washington with the Guatemalan Ambassador and in
Guatemala with the President, the Foreign Minister and other
officials as well as with responsible persons outside of the
government. We are continuing existing cooperative technical
assistance programs for the present, putting the onus on the
Guatemalans for their continuation in the future, but are not
authorizing new programs. An example of the type of approach we
are utilizing is shown in the attached copy of a memorandum of
conversation between an official of the Office of Middle
American Affairs4
and the Guatemalan Ambassador dated May 12 (Tab B).5 We have outlined this policy fully in
a telegram to our Chargé d’Affaires dated May 5, 19506 and have authorized him to follow this
line in talking to officials locally.
Such an approach on our part admittedly will require patience and
involves certain risks, but we believe it offers the best chance
of discrediting extremist influence in Guatemala and bringing an
eventual return to good relations based on considerations of
mutual respect. We would emphasize, however, that there is no
disposition to regard the communist threat or the overall
situation in Guatemala as other than serious and that the policy
outlined above is one designed to meet the current situation
only. Further deterioration in relations would very probably
require a re-evaluation and revision of the present policy.
recommendation
It is recommended that we continue our present policy at least
until such time as there may be developments which indicate a
change of policy is desirable or necessary.
