611.14/11–1752
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State1
Subject:
- U.S.-Guatemalan Relations
- Participants: Ambassador Guillermo Toriello, Guatemalan Delegation
- The Secretary
Ambassador Toriello of Guatemala called on me at his request. He said that he wished to speak with me alone and accordingly Mr. Wells withdrew.
The Ambassador then said that he had undertaken his present mission because of his great admiration for the US and his distress that relations between his country and ours were not good. He had been authorized by the President to do all within his power to change the existing situation and restore friendly and cordial relations. He also felt that I was a person who understood the necessity for good relations in the hemisphere and that he could count upon my personal good will. He therefore wished to mention to me a series of things which led him to believe that something was wrong between our countries and to ask what he could do to put it right. He mentioned the Highway Agreement which he was most anxious to conclude before the new Congress met so that everything would be in readiness for the appropriation procedure. However, although they had accepted almost all the suggestions made by the Department, there was one matter on which they had been turned down, though it seemed to be a very trival one. He attributed significance to this rejection. The point at issue was whether American Government vehicles should be exempted from tax, or whether the agreement would be sufficient if they would be treated exactly the same as Guatemalan vehicles, which he said were not at present subject to tax and undoubtedly never would be. The reason for their desire to use this language was that our language would have to go to the Congress, whereas their language would not. He thought therefore that we were turning this down for broader reasons than the language concerned.
He also stated that when the members of the UN Delegation from Guatemala landed in New Orleans, although they were bearers of diplomatic passports, they were put at the end of the line and were not dealt with until all Americans had been put through. He had explained to his delegation that this was merely the ignorance of the local official [Page 1051] and that he did not attribute any studied attitude on the part of this Government to be responsible for it. However, it worried him as it might, in his mind, be an indication of our disapproval.
He also mentioned what he called the violent propaganda against his country which he saw in all American magazines and newspapers and which he thought was activated by a special interest in our country.
In short he wanted to know what was wrong and what he could do to put it right.
I told him that I knew nothing about the incident in New Orleans and was quite sure that his interpretation was the correct one, but that I would look into it because clearly bearers of diplomatic passports were entitled to all courtesies in our country. Insofar as the Highway Agreement was concerned, I pointed out the disadvantage of treating different governments differently in agreements on this point, and the trouble which would arise. However, I said I would inquire into the matter and discuss it with the Departmental officers concerned.
In regard to the last matter he mentioned, I told him that I thought we should discuss the matter frankly and that there was a clear difference of view. He thought that the articles about Guatemala were maliciously inspired and were untrue. I thought that these articles were a reflection of a situation which existed in Guatemala; whether they were factual or not was beyond my knowledge, but I was quite sure that they were not inspired for propaganda or malicious purposes. The question therefore was what was the situation in Guatemala and what was the Government doing about it. There was trouble of some sort. I should like to hear from him whether he thought that was correct and if so, what the Government was doing about it. He told me that Mr. Wells could tell me about his own background and his family’s background, that he was inalterably opposed to Communism in any form whatever; and that he would leave the Government the moment the Government did not believe that it shared the American view. He added that he did share the same view. He spoke about the experience of his youth growing up under a dictatorship and said that we who were accustomed to liberty did not know how fragile it was in Central America and that while his Government could easily become a dictatorship, it was determined not to do so. Therefore, it was not approaching the communist question from the point of view of suppression because that would easily lead to dictatorship. The Government, by a reform policy, was attempting to remove the evils which gave communism a base and, by careful work in the trade unions and in agricultural groups, it was attempting to discredit the communists so that they would be removed from positions by those who had put them where they were. He believed that the dangerous communists were the imported ones, who were spreading propaganda to many of what he [Page 1052] called the “local boys”. He said that they were very young, uninformed and often misled, but he did not believe that they were indoctrinated communists. However, they were being carefully watched and he said that the circle was being drawn closer and closer around them and that they would not be permitted to exercise any dangerous influence. After some further talk along this line, I said that I wished to discuss the matter with Ambassador Schoenfeld whom I hoped was still in this country and that possibly next week Ambassador Toriello, Ambassador Schoenfeld and I might go into this whole matter and compare notes in the frankest possible way as to what the Government in Guatemala could do or what it was now doing.
He grasped this suggestion with enthusiasm and I told him Mr. Wells would be in touch with him on all the questions he had raised with me.