723.00/12–550
The Ambassador in Peru (Tittmann) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Miller)
confidential
Dear Ed: I was very glad to get your telegram this morning which permitted us to tell the Peruvians among other things that we were not putting pressure on them to give Haya a safe-conduct. As a result, tension between the Embassy and Odría and Gallagher relaxed immediately and I am hoping that some amicable solution will be worked out between Peru and Colombia, even if it means a prolongation of Haya’s asylum in the Colombian Embassy while The Hague Court decides the concrete question as to whether Haya is to be surrendered or not.1 When the Department’s press statements were read in the newspapers here, almost everyone in Perù, ruling class and Apristas2 alike, jumped to the conclusion that we were making an effort to protect Haya, the international peace aspect of our efforts being ignored or regarded as secondary. This can be accounted for, perhaps, because there was little or no awarneness here among the public that the dispute between Perú and Colombia over a refugee case might result in a serious clash. Furthermore, I believe there was always a suspicion on the part of the Peruvian public that the United States was looking out for Haya’s welfare.
If I may be so bold as to give an opinion, I would say that the Department probably made a mistake in issuing a press statement on a question that was being handled through diplomatic channels, especially since, as you say, there was no political pressure on the Department to do so. Also, it would have been useful, if the Embassy could have been advised beforehand of the contemplated publicity. It came as a complete surprise. The publicity, which seemed to be timed with the presentation by me of the Department’s views to Odría and Gallagher, made the whole thing look like some sort of a threat to Perú and was apparently interpreted as such by Odría and Gallagher. In any event, Gallagher personally seemed very hurt by the proceedings and went so far as to say to me that the memorandum I submitted signified nothing less than the end of Perú’s independence, since Perú, which was a weak country, could not hope to withstand the importunities of the United States. He said over and over again to me that he could not understand your own attitude in the [Page 1005] matter since you knew him so well personally. I wonder if you might not care to drop him a friendly line just to say that you were glad to see that he had been in such close touch with me, or words to that effect.
It is possible that I myself made a mistake in leaving a written account, no matter how informal, of the Department’s views. Perhaps I should have merely read the contents of the memorandum. But it was so long and the contents so important as an indication of the Department’s thinking, supported as it was by the Secretary and yourself, that it seemed to me that Odría and Gallagher should have some means of studying it carefully. I belive, however, that in the long run it will be better for them to have had the Department’s views in their hands and for them to have brooded a bit over the situation.
I had my bad moments, too. For a while I feared that all the good-will I had built up here during the past two years was about to disappear in a twinkling of an eye. As things are turning out, however, I now have hopes that with time I may regain my personal prestige. This morning after our interview, Gallagher said with warmth “We can now talk frankly again, can’t we?”
Sincerely,
- In telegram 419 from Bogotá, December 6, Ambassador Beaulac summarized the Colombian reply of that day to Peru’s note of November 29. (See telegram 287 from Lima, November 29, p. 997.) Colombia had offered in part to submit to the ICJ the specific question of whether it was obliged to give Sr. Haya de la Torre over to the Peruvian authorities. (723.00/12–650)↩
- Members of Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA), Peruvian political movement of which Sr. Haya de la Torre was a leader.↩