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

362/2–1054

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Cabot) to the Acting Secretary of State ¹

secret

[Washington,] February 10, 1954.

Subject:

• Position on Communism for the Tenth Inter-American Conference.

Discussion: There is attached a copy of the position paper (Tab A)² for our Delegation to the Tenth Inter-American Conference on the subject “Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics”. This paper has been prepared by a Working Group representing ARA, L, SCA, and R in the Department, and the Departments of Defense, Justice and CIA. It is being submitted to you for review and approval.³ I hope it will be possible to meet with you sometime this Friday to discuss this paper.

The U.S. position envisages three principal objectives: (1) to emphasize and dramatize through a political declaration (Tab B)⁴ the fact that the communist movement is international in scope and directed from Moscow, that as such it constitutes intervention in the affairs of the Americas, and that a situation in which there is effective intervention controlling the government of an American State would constitute grounds for invoking the consultative procedure under the Rio Treaty;⁵ (2) to focus attention on certain specific problems regarding communist subversive activities in the Hemisphere through resolutions (Tab C)⁴ calling upon the American governments to take appropriate measures to control the free movement of communist agents, expose the sources of communist propaganda, and exchange information on communist activities to facilitate the carrying out of these measures; and (3) to lay the groundwork for positive action by the OAS against Communist penetration in the Hemisphere, such as that taking place in Guatemala.

There is also enclosed a guidance memorandum (Tab D)⁶ prepared in ARA setting forth the course of action the Delegation should follow in the event that Guatemala precipitates a discussion of the situation there by attacking the U.S. with charges of intervention. The tactic outlined is for the Delegation to move promptly and vigorously to the counterattack, encouraging other like-minded countries to join with the U.S. The object of this counter-offensive would be to make clear the extent of communist infiltration and influence in Guatemala. The annexes referred to in the memorandum are in preparation.

Recommendation: That you review the attached paper (Tab A) prior to meeting⁷ with me to discuss them.

[Annex 1—Tab A]

Paper Prepared in the Department of State

confidential

XIA D–5/4⁸

Tenth Inter-American Conference, March 1954

Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics

problem

What action should the United States propose or support at the Tenth Inter-American Conference under the agenda item “Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics”, which was included on the agenda at the initiative of the United States.

united states position

A. Substance

The United States should seek action by the Conference under the above-mentioned agenda item to counteract and oppose the intervention of international communism in the American republics, and to that end seek the adoption of a resolution or resolutions covering the following:

1. Call attention to the international character of the Communist movement and the control from Moscow of its activities everywhere.

2. Declare the activities of international Communism to constitute intervention in American affairs.

3. Condemn such intervention as contrary to OAS principles.

4. Express the firm intent of the American Governments to take the necessary steps to prevent the intervention in American affairs of the international Communist movement.

5. Declare that in the event of effective intervention by the international communist movement, dominating or controlling the political institutions of an American State, such a situation would constitute grounds for invoking the procedure of consultation under the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro.

6. Reiterate the adherence of the American republics to democratic principles and

7. Recommend specific steps with regard to the following individual problems:

a. Travel Controls—With a view to preventing the movement of individuals traveling in the interests of international communism or its instrumentalities, the Conference should recommend that the American republics take the necessary steps, by means of:

(i) Visa Controls—to prevent the entry of such individuals into their respective jurisdictions.

(ii) Passports Controls—to prevent the voluntary departure of such individuals who are their nationals from their respective jurisdiction.

(iii) Control of illicit travel—to prevent the clandestine or illegal travel, including the abuse and misuse of travel documents of such individuals into and out of their respective jurisdictions.

In carrying out the foregoing, the Conference should support the principle of freedom of transit, while recommending that abuse of this freedom by communists be prevented.

b. Communist Propaganda—The Conference should recommend that the American republics take the necessary measures to force disclosure of the identity of the communist conspirators or their instrumentalities who are responsible for spreading false propaganda, the sources of their funds, and the nature of their activities, and that the American republics cooperate with one another to the end that this false propaganda, regardless of its place of origin, may be known for what it is by all the peoples of the hemisphere.

c. Exchange of Information—The Conference should call attention to the importance of implementing Resolution 32,⁹ paragraph 4, of the Ninth Inter-American Conference held at Bogotá, and in approximately the same language as Resolution 32, paragraph 4, recommend the exchange of information among the American republics which can help them in carrying out the measures recommended by the Tenth Conference with regard to international communism.

B. Tactics

1. Sponsoring and Co-Sponsoring—The United States should sponsor a resolution or resolutions to accomplish the foregoing. Whether the United States should invite other countries to co-sponsor would depend on which governments would be willing to co-sponsor. Our policy requires us to steer a middle course between extremists to whom any change or progress not advocated by the regime in power is communism and democratic groups who do not have a sufficient appreciation for the danger of communism. It would be better for the U.S. to avoid any co-sponsors if we could not get as co-sponsors anyone other than some of the entrenched, authoritarian governments. The United States should discuss our position on this agenda topic with other governments, as appropriate, and decide on the basis of these discussions whether to invite other countries to co-sponsor. If it does not appear likely that a well balanced group of co-sponsors can be obtained it would be better to sponsor the resolutions by ourselves.

The foregoing concerning sponsoring and co-sponsoring would not preclude our suggesting that another government or governments sponsor a resolution without United States co-sponsorship, should this appear desirable.

2. The Pan American Union Study—The PAU study on “Strengthening of Internal Security”¹⁰ pursuant to Resolution VIII of the Fourth Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs at Washington in 1951 may prove useful during the discussions before and during the Conference. Care should be used, however, not to imply an endorsement of all its conclusions. We should seek to avoid a situation where we must vote on the acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of the study.

C. Draft Resolutions

Resolutions along the lines of the attached draft resolutions (Annexes A–D) would achieve the U.S. position. These are not intended to be hard and fast texts, since the delegation will obviously need a certain latitude in order to accomplish the U.S. objectives.

discussion

The United States proposed this item for the agenda and all of the American republics, except Guatemala, approved the proposal.

In proposing the inclusion of this topic the United States suggested that under this item the Tenth Conference should:

1. Examine and call attention to the intervention of international communism in American affairs, including efforts to weaken the fabric of inter-American solidarity and to subvert genuine national social and political movements to its own ends.

2. Reaffirm the faith of the peoples of the Hemisphere in the ideal and reality of true democracy as the avenue of effective social and political progress of the peoples of the Americas.

3. Reaffirm the strong stand previously taken by the Organization of American States against the intervention of international communism in the affairs of the American republics.

4. Consider appropriate recommendations for further effective steps to counteract the intervention of international communism in the American republics.

The first three of these points would be covered by a general political declaration.

A. Political Declaration

The political declaration should accomplish the following (these correspond to paragraphs numbered 1 through 5 of the “U.S. Position” section):

1. Call attention to the international character of the Communist movement and the control from Moscow of its activities everywhere.

The following are examples of the activities to which attention should be called:

a. Subversion of genuine national, social, and political movements.

b. Subversion of constitutional order and the legal processes of government.

c. Distortion and exploitation of legitimate differences between friendly governments.

d. Dissemination of false propaganda direced at spreading suspicion, fear, and animosities among the peoples of the American republics.

e. Abuse of freedom of transit, including clandestine and illicit travel and the misuse of travel documents.

Sabotage and espionage are not included in this list. Resolution VIII of the Fourth Meeting of Foreign Ministers called for a study by the PAU of these subjects among others. We would have difficulty in accepting the conclusions of the PAU Study on these subjects. See Discussion section on PAU Study under “Tactics”, page 12. We will therefore have to exercise care in the emphasis which we give to the subjects. It would, however, be useful to mention sabotage and espionage as specific types of subversive activities in the preamble or elsewhere in one ore more of our resolutions.

The declaration should recognize that the foregoing activities are influenced or directed by a foreign power.

2. Declare the activities of international communism to constitute intervention in American affairs.

The activities of international communism within the American republics should be declared to be intervention in the internal and regional affairs of the American republics, threatening the personality of each state and the liberties enjoyed by its citizens and interfering with the constructive development of inter-American relations. Cf. Article 15 of the OAS Charter.¹¹

3. Condemn such intervention as contrary to OAS principles.

After the activities of international communism have been declared to constitute intervention, it is logical for the American republics to condemn them, since as intervention, they are contrary to Article 15 of the OAS Charter on non-intervention, and other inter-American principles—such as sovereignty, solidarity, and independence.

4. Express the firm intent of the American Governments to take the necessary steps to prevent the intervention in American affairs of the international communist movement.

Such a general expression of intent would have value in itself as a notice to the world of the intentions of the American republics. It would also provide a basis for future suggestions to the American republics for specific kinds of action which might not have been recommended specifically by the Tenth Conference.

5. Declare that in the event of effective intervention by the international communist movement, dominating or controlling the political institutions of an American state, such a situation would constitute grounds for invoking the procedure of consultation under the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro.

The inclusion of such a provision in the resolution would lay the groundwork for the calling of a meeting of Consultation should the situation in any country at a later date make such action, in our view, desirable. This provision, therefore, must be considered as part of the educational, preparatory work which is necessary to pave the way for stronger action through the OAS in regard to Communism. At the same time it would constitute a warning, indicating the concern which all of the other American states felt about the communist problem. In proposing or supporting this provision the United States delegation should avoid any implication that the conditions described therein particularly the phrase “dominating or controlling the political institutions of an American State”, constitute the only test of communist intervention justifying consultation under Article 6 of the Rio Treaty, which reads as follows:

“If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any American State should be affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by an extra-continental or intra-continental conflict, or by any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the Organ of Consultation shall meet immediately in order to agree on the measures which must be taken in case of aggression to assist the victim of the aggression or, in any case, the measures which should be taken for the common defense and for the maintenance of the peace and security of the Continent.”

The position outlined in this paper does not envisage any explicit reference to Guatemala by the U.S. Delegation. It is felt that it would not be useful or desirable for the U.S. to take the initiative in attacking Guatemala in an inter-American gathering because of the charges of intervention which would result. On the other hand it is probable that Guatemala herself may promote a discussion of her controversy with her Central American neighbors and the United States along the lines of the “white paper” issued on January 29, 1954.¹² A memorandum¹³ discussing the possible moves Guatemala may make at the Conference and our position in regard thereto, will be available for the use of the Delegation at the Conference.

6. Reiterate the adherence of the American republics to democratic principles.

The declaration should also contain a positive statement in support of principles of American democracy. This could be in the form of simple reaffirmation along lines of point 2 of the suggestions made by the United States when submitting the agenda item. It might also include an assertion by the American republics that they will continue to strengthen their democratic institutions. While there may be a separate resolution on Human Rights under item No. 13 of the Agenda, it would be well to include a brief statement here in order to make clear that what is being attacked is communism and not true democracy. Even if we were not to include a section in support of democracy, some other delegation is almost sure to do so, since the point was covered in Resolution VIII of Washington and Resolution 32 of Bototá. By including it at the outset we would have more control over its content.

[Here follows discussion of how the proposed United States position concerning Communism differed from that contained in Resolution 32 adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States.]

B. Recommendations for Specific Steps with Regard to Individual Problems

1. Travel Controls—International communism operates through agents who must be able to impart intelligence and receive instructions in order to organize and carry out their activities. Much of communist activity in the Hemisphere is carried on by local communists. If the communist agents were deprived of freedom to travel they would be hampered in developing new local leaders; their contacts with existing leaders would be greatly hampered; and their ability to carry out the party-line would be greatly reduced.

[Here follows further discussion concerning travel controls.]

The Fourth Meeting of Foreign Ministers (Resolution VIII) recommended to the Governments of the American states that they regulate “transit across international boundaries of those foreigners who there is reason to expect will attempt to carry out subversive acts against the defense of the American Continent”.

The U.S. position outlined above goes further in that it asks the American republics not merely to regulate but to prevent travel. It also goes further in that Resolution VIII of Washington relates to transit of persons “who there is reason to expect will attempt to carry out subversive acts against the defense of the American Continent”. Whereas the U.S. position would simply require that the individuals were traveling in the interests of international communism.

The PAU study “Strengthening of Internal Security” stresses the value of the principle of freedom of transit and states that it should not be limited except by measures the object of which is to prevent “abuse” by real agents of subversive action. The study interprets the provisions of Resolution VIII with regard to travel to apply only to persons with respect to whom it has been proved, or real evidence exists, that they are acting as agents of international communism (PAU Study, paragraphs 133 and 134). The U.S. should not accept this interpretation of Resolution VIII. The U.S. position is somewhat broader than the conclusion of the Pan American Union Study in that it does not require proof or existence of evidence that persons are acting as agents of international communism but simply that they are traveling in the interests of international communism. It is our position that anyone traveling in the interests of communism is in fact part of the whole subversive program of international communism. The U.S. position is also a bit more positive on actual prevention of travel, although the PAU study does come fairly close to this position (PAU Study, paragraph 137).

2. Communist Propaganda—One of the methods whereby the international communist conspiracy imposes itself upon free peoples is the subversion of men’s minds by false propaganda. International communism today employs all of the methods and patterns of subversive propaganda, including falsehood, the poisoning of public opinion with half-truths, and irresponsible slander, relying on the fact that even subsequent refutation does not destroy entirely the harm done by doubts previously aroused.

An effective way of dealing with communist propaganda is to make a public disclosure of the activities of the communist propagandists and an identification of the propaganda as communist. Such disclosure is entirely consistent with the democratic idea of freedom of the press. The PAU Study contemplates identification of communist propaganda (PAU Study, paragraph 122), suppression (paragraph 123), and punishment (paragraph 124). The U.S. position treats only of the first of these, viz. identification, since U.S. laws do not permit suppression and punishment unless there is a violation of the laws requiring registration and identification. If U.S. laws were to go further they would run the risk of violating one of the basic concepts of our Government as embodied in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, viz. freedom of speech and of the press.

3. Exchange of Information—In Resolution 32, paragraph 4, of the Bogotá Conference the American republics resolved to proceed with a full exchange of information concerning any of the subversive activities mentioned in the resolution that are carried on within their respective jurisdictions.

Resolution VIII of Washington does not call for exchange of information, but a “whereas” clause of that resolution indicates that since subversive action recognizes no boundaries a high degree of cooperation is necessary among the American republics to eradicate the threat of subversive activity.

An essential element in the adequate enforcement of the extended travel controls contemplated above is the continued exchange of information among the American republics concerning the identity and movement of individuals who there is reason to believe are traveling in the interests of international communism. Similarly, the identification of the sources of communist propaganda may be promoted by exchange of information concerning the identity of the communist conspirators or their instrumentalities who are responsible for spreading the false propaganda.

The U.S. should therefore propose that the Conference call attention to the importance of implementing Resolution 32, paragraph 4, of the Final Act of Bogotá and in approximately the same language as Resolution 32, paragraph 4, recommend the exchange of information among the American republics which can help them in carrying out the measures recommended by the Tenth Conference with regard to international communism. It is important to follow as closely as possible the wording of that resolution so that our obligations are not materially broadened on this score. However, it would seem that the information to be exchanged should not be limited to information concerning activities that are carried on within their respective jurisdiction, as was the case in Resolution 32. If a government has information concerning subversive activities going on or contemplated in another country it might be mutually useful for the information to be given to the government of that country. The PAU Study formulates conclusions with regard to various forms of subversive activities and points out, whenever this seemed proper to the authors of the Study, the appropriateness of exchange of information (PAU Study, paragraph 112). Thus exchange of information is recommended with regard to communist propaganda (paragraph 123) and abuse of freedom of travel (paragraph 137). The U.S. position has about the same emphasis as the PAU Study on exchange of information.

4. Outlawing Communist Party—At the present time the Communist Party is not outlawed in the United States, and therefore the United States should not propose or favor action by the Conference recommending the outlawing of the Party. Should there be a change in policy with regard to the outlawing of the Party in the United States prior to action by the Conference, the position to be taken by the United States at the Conference should be reviewed.

C. Tactics

1. Sponsoring and Co-sponsoring—The U.S. should be one of the sponsors because we introduced the agenda item and because it will give us greater control of the substance of the resolutions.

Whether we should invite others to co-sponsor depends on whether discussions with other governments indicate a likelihood that a well-balanced group of sponsors could be achieved. We have reason to believe that the Dominican Government, which is representative of the authoritarian tendency in the hemisphere, would like to co-sponsor a resolution with us, and we do not know whether some of the more democratic countries, such as Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay, would be willing to do so. The action taken by the Conference would lose in effectiveness if it were to become identified too closely with the more authoritarian of the American republics, since the support of prodemocratic governments and public groups would be prejudiced. On the other hand, if certain democratic groups who do not have a sufficient appreciation for the danger of communism were to control the situation the Conference might not take sufficiently decisive action. We will have to stress a middle course between these two tendencies in the hemisphere and this may mean that it will be more advisable to sponsor the resolution alone.

2. PAU Study—Resolution VIII of Washington requests the PAU to make technical studies concerning:

a. The definition, prevention, and punishment, as crimes, of sabotage and espionage.

b. General measures to protect and defend human rights and the democratic system against treason and other subversive acts.

c. Measures to prevent abuse of freedom of transit.

On August 10, 1953, the PAU issued its study. Its first 81 pages contain the substantive portion of the report, including the conclusions (pages 69–87) while more than 300 pages reproduce the texts of various inter-American resolutions and laws of individual governments which relate to the matter of internal security. The study constitutes a highly useful compilation of data and conclusions which each of the American governments should find it desirable to study carefully. The study should also prove useful at the Tenth Conference. It can be used to emphasize the seriousness of the communist threat and the importance of each government dealing effectively with that threat. At the same time, the U.S. cannot give unqualified endorsement to the substance of the report since we might have difficulties in accepting some of its conclusions on technical and legal matters, e.g. we might have difficulty accepting:

a. The conclusion in paragraph 116 that the protection against extradition, which normally is available to the person accused of a political crime, should not be available in the case of sabotage and espionage. Such matters are governed by the provisions of extradition treaties.

b. The conclusion in paragraph 119 that sabotage or espionage includes not only acts against the state but also criminal action that affects the security of another state or the defense of the continent.

c. That sabotage or espionage by a national should be punished as treason (paragraph 119).

d. The suggestions offered with regard to such things as communist diplomatic and consular officers (paragraph 132), controlling communist propaganda (paragraphs 122–124), subversive organizations (paragraphs 125–128), etc.

Accordingly, while we can use the study where it will support our proposals, we should be careful to avoid endorsement of all its conclusions. We should also seek to avoid a situation where we must vote on acceptance of all its conclusions since this might necessitate explanations, reservations, or possibly even negative votes, when obviously it would be much better psychologically to be affirmative under this item than to appear reticent or negative.

[Annex 2—Tab D]

Paper Prepared in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs

secret

Subject:

• Guatemala and the Discussion of Communism at the Tenth Inter-American Conference

The paper outlining the United States position on the agenda item “Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics” does not call for the United States delegation itself to introduce discussion of the specific Communist situation in Guatemala. This decision is based on both legal and political grounds. It would be difficult for the United States, the most powerful country in the hemisphere, convincingly to maintain that Guatemala constituted a threat to its political independence or territorial integrity, and to invoke the Rio Treaty on those grounds. Politically, the United States should avoid appearing as leading a movement against any one of its small neighbors. Such appearance would inevitably cause opposition from a number of Latin American countries. However, it seems clear that as a result of Guatemala’s own action at the Conference, or through other developments, a specific discussion of Communist penetration in Guatemala will take place.

The minimum United States objective at Caracas with respect to the Communist item is to achieve adoption of a resolution which will lay ground work for subsequent positive action against Guatemala by the Organization of American States. Our maximum objective would be the adoption, should conditions permit, of effective multilateral measures against Guatemala at Caracas.

It is clear that Guatemala will attend the Caracas Conference not in the role of defendant but with aggressive intent to disrupt constructive discussion of the Communist problem by making charges of intervention against the United States. The basic Guatemalan theme has already been made clear by statements of Guatemalan officials, including former Ambassador to the United States Guillermo Toriello, who as Foreign Minister is expected to head the Guatemalan delegation to Caracas, and to present the Guatemalan case there with cleverness and determination. The basic Guatemalan premise is that the United States is engaged in “imperialist” aggression against Guatemala in order to protect the interests of American companies, principally the United Fruit Company which have extensive operations in Guatemala and which are allegedly opposing Guatemala’s efforts to carry out social and economic reforms. This oft-repeated charge has more recently been embellished by unfounded accusations of Guatemalan officials that Secretary Dulles and Assistant Secretary Cabot are among officials of the Department of State who have private vested interests in the United Fruit Company, and who are using their official positions in this Government to attack Guatemala; and that the United States has “acquiesced” in a huge plot financed by the United Fruit Company and supported by various Guatemalan nationals in exile and Governments of neighboring countries to overthrow the Guatemalan Government.

The United States must exercise leadership at Caracas to insure: (1) that Guatemala does not divert the Conference from constructive discussion of agenda item five; (2) that Guatemala does not achieve prolonged discussion of alleged United States imperialism under any Conference agenda item; and (3) that a Guatemalan attempt to wrest the initiative is countered by full exposure of Communist penetration of that country. Such exposure should be made by a delegation or delegations other than ours, preferably of countries not on the extreme right wing.

In considering the possible tactics of the Guatemalan delegation at the Conference, attention must be paid to the following possibilities: (1) the Guatemalan delegate may enter the discussion of agenda item five by impugning the motives of this Government in sponsoring such item; (2) the Guatemalan delegate may, in an opening speech, make a simple accusation against the United States along the lines indicated above without calling for any other action; (3) the Guatemalan delegation may attempt to inject their complaint against the United States into the discussion of some other agenda item, such as that on “Peaceful Relations Among Governments”; (4) the Guatemalan delegate may seek the convocation of a meeting of consultation of Foreign Ministers at Caracas to consider charges of United States intervention. (As noted above, the Guatemalan Government on January 29, 1954, issued a press release carrying charges of an invasion plot by certain elements in Guatemala and neighboring countries, accompanied by alleged documentary evidence in support thereof, including an allusion that the United States Government acquiesced to the conspiracy. The Guatemalan Government may intend to produce further alleged evidence in this connection at Caracas.)

From the United States viewpoint, the injection by Guatemala of its charges into the discussion of item five would be more advantageous than elsewhere in the Conference proceedings since this would constitute an invitation by Guatemala itself to discuss and expose the extent of Communist influence in that country. If the Guatemalan charges are released in plenary session or in connection with an item other than item five, it should be made clear by the United States delegation that the United States considers these obviously false charges irrelevant to any item on the agenda of the Conference, except insofar as they reveal an attempt on the part of the international Communist conspiracy to prevent constructive action under item five. If any further consideration is to be given the charges, they should be given under item five. The United States should oppose introduction of a new agenda item on this subject by Guatemala and should raise a point of order if an attempt is made to consider the Guatemalan charges under any item other than item five. If the question goes to the Steering Committee, the United States should take the position that the only item under which it can correctly be discussed is item five.

United States Position

In seeking to achieve our minimum objective, it is intended to press for adoption of a resolution which, without mentioning Guatemala by name, could be supported by every nation but Guatemala. Adoption of our proposed resolution, especially the paragraph covering point number five on page one of the position paper on Guatemala,¹⁴ would in effect express the serious concern of the OAS over the penetration of Communism in Guatemala and would lay the necessary ground work for subsequent positive multilateral action. Furthermore, the United States delegation should encourage a friendly delegation to propose that the United States draft resolution be expanded so as to authorize the COAS, in event of a request by any American State for convocation of the Organ of Consultation under the Rio Treaty, to carry out an investigation of the extent to which Communist penetration of any given country, (e.g. Guatemala), constitutes basis for application of Article VI of the Treaty.

The United States should seek to prevent the discussion of alleged American intervention at the Conference. However, if and when Guatemala introduces the subject, the United States should immediately cause it to be linked with the subject of Communist penetration of Guatemala. Having established the link, the United States should seek to confine discussion to Communist penetration, and prevent return to the topic of alleged intervention. The United States should make it clear that the two questions of Communist penetration of the hemisphere and treatment of American commercial interests abroad are entirely separate; and that the United States Government would continue to regard the Communist growth in Guatemala as potentially dangerous to the hemisphere even if the Guatemalan Government were to make, through the available normal methods, a complete and satisfactory settlement of its differences with American companies.

Annex A¹⁵ contains for the information of the delegation several of the more evident points which the Guatemalan delegation is expected to make concerning alleged United States intervention, together with the United States positions thereon.

Annex B¹⁵ to this paper contains a summary of information concerning Communist penetration of Guatemala which can be made available for the use of other delegations in the debate on Communism at Caracas.

1. Drafted by William G. Bowdler of the Office of Regional American Affairs; concurred in by the Office of the Legal Adviser and the Office of the Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs.
2. Printed as Annex 1—Tab A below.
3. Department of State files indicate that on Feb. 12, 1954, Acting Secretary Smith approved the U.S. position on Communism for the Tenth Inter-American Conference.
4. Not printed.
5. For text of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro, Sept. 2, 1947, and entered into force for the United States, Dec. 3, 1948, see TIAS No. 1838 or 62 Stat. (pt. 2) 1691.
4. Not printed.
6. Printed as Annex 2—Tab D below.
7. No record of the referenced meeting was found in Department of State files.
8. Official documents prepared for the Tenth Inter-American Conference bore series indicators. Position papers were designated XIA (Tenth Inter-American), D–1 through 28, corresponding exactly to numbered agenda items. This paper is revision number 4 of the U.S. position concerning agenda item 5 (“Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics”). Four annexes to this paper, A–D, are not printed.
9. For the text of the referenced resolution, see Ninth International Conference of American States, p. 266.
10. Published by the Pan American Union in 1953; a copy is in file 361.01/9–953.
11. For text of the Charter, signed at Bogotá, Apr. 30, 1948, and entered into force for the United States, Dec. 13, 1951, see TIAS No. 2361 or 2 UST (pt. 2) 2394.
12. Reference is to a statement issued by the Guatemalan Presidential Information Office charging that the United States had acquiesced in a conspiracy by several nations against Guatemala; a translation of the text of the statement is enclosed with despatch 653, from Guatemala City, dated Feb. 1, 1954, not printed. (714.00/2–154) For the response of the United States, see Department of State press release 42, dated Jan. 30, 1954, in the Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 15, 1954, pp. 251–252.
13. Not found in Department of State files.
14. Presumably the reference is to the draft policy paper, Aug. 19, 1953, p. 1074.
15. Not printed.
15. Not printed.