Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The American Republics, Volume IV

723.00/5–1354

Memorandum by the Director of the Office of South American Affairs (Atwood) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Holland)¹

confidential

[Washington,] May 13, 1954.

Subject:

• The Haya de la Torre Visa Case²

On the basis of available information it appears that if Haya de la Torre applies for admission into the United States he will seek a non-immigrant visa as a representative of the International League for the Rights of Man, a non-governmental organization affiliated with UN–ECOSOC. Such a visa would have to be affixed to a Peruvian passport or some other document valid for a period of six months beyond the date of his anticipated departure from the United States and authorizing his re-entry into his own country or into another country (Section 101(a) 30 Immigration and Nationality Act³). In January 1949 the Department instructed Embassy Lima by telegram that it had no objection to the admission of Haya to the United States. Since then, the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act would require a re-evaluation of the case.

If he applies, we would have to determine whether his admission into the United States would be inimical to our interest as defined by Sections 212 (a) 26, 27, 28, 29 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Aside from those sections dealing with members of totalitarian organizations, the language of the Act would appear to be sufficiently broad to refuse admission to anyone whose presence here would be prejudicial to public interest or endanger our welfare. Thus, if we determine to keep Haya out of the country, it could apparently be accomplished without difficulty.

Though there has been no formal request that the United States refuse a visa, the Peruvian Embassy here is anxious to keep Haya outside the United States and away from the sounding-board of the United Nations because of anticipated attacks upon the Odría administration. Hence his admission would probably complicate our relations with Peru and, to a limited degree, might be prejudicial to our national interest. On the other hand, if we refuse admission to Haya, there could most likely be widespread adverse repercussions in Latin America from democratic and liberal elements in the area. The communists, and others who seek political power by attacking the United States, would probably argue that the United States is always lined up on the side of the dictators and almost never with so-called “popular” causes. Moreover, the Department could expect attacks by influential press organs in the United States, including the New York Times and the Washington Post and Times Herald, labor organizations, and organizations and groups concerned with the preservation of civil liberties.

The ICFTU, its Western Hemisphere affiliate ORIT, and the AFL and CIO have long been interested in Haya. The ORIT and AFL have frequently indicated publicly their support for him during his asylum in the Colombian Embassy in Lima. Haya consistently assisted the anti-communist labor groups when he was a powerful political force in Peru and it was through his invitation that ORIT’s founding convention was held in Lima in 1948.

While a review of the files indicates that Haya was probably influenced by both communist and fascist ideology in formulating the APRA’s program in the 1920’s, it does not appear that APRA is a communist-dominated organization or that Haya is a communist or a fellow traveler. Some of the principles espoused by APRA such as land reform, anti-clericalism and concern for the Indian have perhaps made APRA vulnerable to charges that it is Communist influenced. However, even in the early days, there were ideological differences between APRA and the Communists. Haya has publicly spoken out against communism. The latest information regarding Haya’s political views appears in the May 3, 1954, issue of Life (page 164) where he says inter alia that “I believe that democracy and capitalism offer the surest road toward a solution of the world’s problems, even though capitalism still has its faults.”

Haya’s admission into the United States appears to be more of a public-relations problem than one involving basic security issues. While Haya may be a demagogue and a political opportunist, and may have been more interested in seizing power than in securing the reforms he advocated, it would be almost inconceivable that he should engage in activities within the United States which would jeopardize our security. After study of the files and evaluation of the effect on relations with other countries, OSA is of the opinion that greater damage would be done to the United States if Haya were refused a visa than if he were admitted.

On the basis of the information which has been available to OSA thus far, it does not appear that Haya is inadmissible, nor that the issuance of a visa would cause irreparable damage to our relations in Latin America.

Recommendation:

It is requested that you approve, from the political point of view, the granting of a visa to Haya de la Torre.⁴

1. Drafted by Edgar L. McGinnis, Jr. and Milton Barall of the Office of South American Affairs.
2. Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, a Peruvian political leader, had sought political asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima in January 1949. The Peruvian Government refused to grant him safe conduct to leave Peru until March 1954, whereupon he departed for Mexico.
3. Public Law 414, approved June 27, 1952; for text, see 66 Stat. 163.
4. Assistant Secretary Holland approved the recommendation. The source text bears his handwritten notation as follows: “Can’t we get a strong anti-communist statement out of him[?]”