CO–11. Despatch from the Ambassador in Colombia (Cabot) to the Department of State1
SUBJECT
- The Religious Question in Colombia
On considering further the religious question in this country after the very helpful talks when I had during my consultation in Washington,2 I thought it might be useful to the Department if I put on paper my thoughts regarding it in the present conjuncture.
1. What should be our basic purpose?
Americans believe firmly in the principle of freedom of worship. That principle is being flagrantly violated today in Colombia—only less so under the present Government than under the three preceding administrations. It is unquestionable not only that there has been violence against Protestants, their property, and their legitimate rights and interests by private individuals, but also that the Government by arbitrarily closing churches and schools on one pretext or another or by preventing the opening of churches and schools is deliberately interfering with freedom or worship.
Strongly as we are attached to the principle of freedom of worship I question, however, whether it is a proper subject in itself for diplomatic representations, and I doubt that it is wise to attack the religious question from this angle. We do not, as a matter of proper interest, work to uphold in other countries freedom of the press, individual rights, and the other great liberties of a democratic system. It is perfectly proper that individuals and private organizations should seek to muster public opinion in the United States and other countries behind the maintenance of these principles. It is doubtful whether it is proper, [Typeset Page 326] and it would indeed appear to be contrary to the charter of the United Nations and many other international instruments, for us as a government to seek to uphold those principles in other nations, since they are normally considered internal matters. We should not permit our private sense of outrage to override diplomatic prudence.
We must then, as I see it, fall back on a second method in seeking to defend Protestant interests in this country. Many of the Protestant missionaries and ministers active in this country are Americans; much Protestant church property is owned by American individuals [Facsimile Page 2] and and companies; many churches and schools derive a substantial part of their support from American contributions; and I believe there are cases in which, while no immediate connection with the United States exists, there is a historical and sentimental tie. Since cases in which legitimate and long standing private American interests exist are so large a proportion of the cases which come to our attention, it seems to me that we should make them the basis for our official representations to the Colombian Government. We cannot claim that these pastors, churches and schools should be permitted to function as a matter of international right, but we can legitimately make representations on their behalf on the basis of comity without raising inconvenient questions of propriety. As a practical matter, it seems unlikely that the Colombian Government would yield in the many cases in which United States citizens and organizations had legitimate interest without establishing general rules equally applicable to churches and schools in which no legitimate American interest can be shown. Without, therefore, spelling it out that we are not making representations on behalf of Protestant pastors, churches and schools where no American interest can be shown to exist, I believe that our representations should be more restricted and explicit in order that we may not lay ourselves open to charges of improper interference in this highly controversial matter.
2. What is the present Colombian Government’s attitude towards this question?
The Department will recall that Assistant Secretary Rubottom and the Embassy have been steadily making representations regarding Protestant schools and churches ever since the new Government came to power. Unfortunately, none of our representations has accomplished much. We have succeeded in reopening a few churches and in getting a few other concessions (such as visas for incoming missionaries and pastors) but the problem is almost as unsolved as ever. We have every reason to believe that the present Government is moderate, broad-minded and basically friendly to the United States. Why, therefore, has it not acted in response to our repeated representations? There can, of course, be no doubt that the Government has some reasons for procrastination. One undoubtedly is that the Government does not wish to take an [Typeset Page 327] unpleasant decision; the second is that it is apprehensive that the general reopening of Protestant churches and schools would produce very unfortunate public disturbances. The third is that, if they can stall long enough, they probably hope to get out of office before they are forced to reach a decision.
I have reason to suppose that a fourth, and perhaps the most important, reason of all from the Government’s viewpoint is that at some time in March the position of the Catholic Church in this matter hardened. It seems quite possible on the basis of various bits of evidence which reach the Embassy that at some time in the month of March the Colombian Government, anxious to make real progress in the matter of financial assistance to Colombia in the crisis it then confronted, was prepared, as a result of Mr. Rubottom’s and my representations, to make substantial [Facsimile Page 3] concessions to us. It is clear that at the beginning of the month the Foreign Minister seemed receptive to such a move. When he talked to me on the eve of his departure for Washington, it being clear at that time that only American good will (rather than strictly economic considerations) would induce us to bail Colombia out financially, the Foreign Minister should have been most anxious to humor us in matters of interest to us, yet in point of fact something had happened which forced him stubbornly to defend the present situation. I can think of no force which would have the power to do this except the Catholic Church.
It is also interesting to note the chronology of attacks in the Catholic review America on this Embassy. The first major blast appeared in the March 8th issue. Rather obviously, it did not just happen, and as a further point the writer of the article showed no interest in getting the Protestant side of the question. It is at least plausible that the Colombian Catholic hierarchy, aware of our pressure to reopen Protestant churches and schools, decided to mount a counter-offensive in the United States to stir up the many millions of our Catholic citizens to protest that the Embassy was acting in the interests of the Protestant sects rather than the nation. I think we can tentatively conclude that the present Government will stall for the remaining month that it stays in power.
The present government is perhaps not quite so inclined to maintain discrimination against Protestants as would appear from its failure to take remedial action. (As the Department is aware, the only remedial action taken to date with regard to closed churches and schools has been to permit one church in Mission Territory and five chapels outside of Mission Territory to reopen, while scores of churches, chapels and schools both within and outside of Mission Territory remain closed.) The Foreign Office indicated to us informally that it would have no objection if any closed churches and chapels in Mission Territory were able to reopen quietly with local permission pending an over-all resolution of the matter, and [Typeset Page 328] we have received reports indicating that some were able to reopen in this manner. However, this has not proved to be a very satisfactory approach, since in many of these instances the Departmental and local authorities have recently re-closed the churches and chapels—usually under pressure from the Catholic clergy—on the grounds that the central government’s prohibition on Protestant activity in Mission Territory still stands. Apparently, even where the Departmental or Local authorities are favorably disposed toward a reopening of these churches and chapels, they cannot withstand Church pressure without the official backing of the central government in the form of a recision of the prohibitions. Nevertheless, there is some reason to suppose the present Government tacitly favors local action as a means of keeping the situation in hand and moving slowly toward greater liberalization in the treatment of Protestants in this country.
[Facsimile Page 4]3. What is the emotional atmosphere?
It seems to me essential that the Department should appreciate the emotional atmosphere in Colombia (as well as in the United States) in which this question must be settled. In regard to their Catholic faith, most Colombian Catholics tend to be fervent, and many are bigoted and fanatical. They belong, in far too many cases, to a generation which has passed in other countries and which thought that the only good non-Catholic was a dead non-Catholic. Even relatively moderate Colombian Catholics will rationalize their bigotry by claiming that they do not want the unity of the country to be affected by religious dispute or by saying that there is a link between Colombian Protestantism and Communism. A more respectable argument is that the troubles the Protestants have had in Colombia in the past ten years have merely been a by-product of the general atmosphere of violence which has prevailed in large sections of the country during that period. There is undoubtedly truth to this argument since, among other things, it is a fact that the great majority of Protestants are Liberals, and political persecution was generally directed against Liberals. There is also indirect truth in it in that, when law and order have largely vanished, fanatics among the majority have a better chance to unleash mob passions against a hated minority with whom they would ordinarily live at peace. My impression is, however, that many cases cannot be exculpated on any such grounds; on the contrary, that much Protestant oppression has occurred in areas where there has been little or no violence. Catholic priests have in numerous instances preached violence against Protestants with impunity; Local authorities have yielded to Catholic pressure and taken arbitrary, oppressive action against Protestants. In the interests of fairness it should be added that the Protestants are by no means devoid of fanaticism; the Embassy is aware of cases where they have stirred up trouble. [Typeset Page 329] It stands to reason, however, that as a tiny beleaguered minority they tend to restrain themselves.
The America articles mentioned above have undoubtedly acerbated a feeling which is latent among Colombian Catholics that the real purpose behind our representations is to cram Protestantism down their throats. This is obviously not a rational reaction, as they would quickly realize if they considered that Protestant missionaries, churches and schools operate with far greater freedom in all of the other 20 Latin American republics than here and yet that the peoples of those countries are no less Catholic than are the Colombians. Moreover, the greater part of the food we give the Colombian people is distributed through the Catholic clergy. Nevertheless, the emotion does exist, and it would be foolish to disregard it. I believe that this is a valid reason why we should be more specific as to our objectives. If Protestant organizations claim that by doing this we are cutting the ground out from under their feet, it would seem to me the best evidence that we had been intervening in this matter to an undue degree, thereby laying ourselves open to the very serious charge so often made by Colombian Catholics that we are disregarding Colombian sovereignty.
The Department should note that any further representations made by [Facsimile Page 5] this Embassy which come to public knowledge and any favorable results which come from such representations will inevitably be considered by fervent Colombian Catholics as proving our desire to Protestantize Colombia. Given the emotional atmosphere in which this matter must inevitably be considered and the Latin temperament of Colombians, I believe that, confronted with such pressure, they will simply dig their toes in and not yield even at the expense of grave harm to Colombia. Any such situation would not only be directly prejudicial to American interests in Colombia, it would also be very harmful to our basic objectives of promoting peace, stability and progress in Colombia. If, therefore, we are to pursue our representations on behalf of Protestants, it seems to me essential to clear the air somehow of this emotional Colombian belief. Moreover, we cannot get this message to the Colombian Catholic campesino—and it is he whom Catholic priests have stirred up against Protestants—without running the risk of some controversy. I do not mean by this that we should engage in polemics or make controversial statements. I do mean that we must ourselves adopt a moderate course and explain in moderate terms what it is and what facts lie behind it. We may not get anywhere by such a course; we may indeed do harm by it, but we are, in my opinion, less likely to do harm by this course than by pursuing our present one which, I believe, will simply amount to butting our heads against a stone wall. I doubt this will accomplish anything, and I fear it will prove seriously prejudicial to our relations with Colombia. We should not think that [Typeset Page 330] by keeping silent we—or I—are going to avoid controversy; in addition to the wildly inaccurate items which have appeared in America and been reprinted in El Catolicismo, the Consul in Medellin has just telephoned to say a vicious personal attack has appeared in El Heraldo, the church paper in that city, and another malicious article has appeared in Manizales.
In considering this entire question, we must remember that there is a strong current of anti-clericalism in the Liberal Party. The Protestants originally entered Colombia a century ago at the invitation of the Government and there are many Colombians who, while devout Catholics, are less than impressed with the Church’s arrogance in matters which should not properly concern it. The possibility of defying the Church in matters beyond its proper competence was vividly illustrated in the March congressional elections when the Laurcanitstas won an overwhelming victory in the Conservative Party despite the fulminations of the Catholic hierarchy. It would, of course, be impossible for us to get the Protestant case before the Colombian people to the extent that Laureano Gomez got his before them, but nevertheless I suspect that the Catholic Church in Colombia might be rather unhappy to be smoked out in all its fanaticism if, by making no more than reasonable concessions, it could have peace. It is, in my opinion, precisely the fear which exists that our objectives may be far more ambitious than they appear which has induced the Catholic Church and the Colombian Government to take the firm stand they have.
[Facsimile Page 6]4. What may we expect of the future Colombian Government?
Dr. Lleras Camargo, the President-elect, is a devout Catholic. He is also an able, broad-minded Liberal. I have little doubt that he appreciates that the Protestants have not been fairly treated in Colombia and that he deplores this. At the same time, it seems to me that, even if he were far hotter under the collar regarding the treatment of Protestants than I have any reason to believe he is, he would still be most reluctant to take any vigorous action in the religious question. He has inherited a virtually bankrupt government, a frightful situation of widespread violence in the countryside, a country exhausted by ten years of bitter partisan strife. His obvious desire is to heal the wounds of the past ten years and restore the country’s unity and prosperity. He must work in harness with his Conservative allies and can accomplish nothing without them. Under these circumstances, are we to suppose that he is going to stir up a bitter controversy to meet our representations? He realizes, of course, that he must have our support in many matters, but he also realizes that, given the alternatives, we have practically no choice other than to give him that support. The proof of the pudding is the loan which we have given Colombia following his election, and the way in which it was given. I do not mean in any sense to criticize this loan; I merely use [Typeset Page 331] this as a further indication that we must ourselves think this problem through.
It seems to me probable under the circumstances that the Lleras administration will try to sweep this whole matter under the rug to the best of its ability. I think it reasonable to surmise that the Lleras administration, like the present Government, will try gradually to ameliorate the situation, will take remedial action in more flagrant cases, and will make concessions from time to time. I doubt, however, that we can expect any drastic shift. Lleras may indeed try to shove the whole issue into the courts on constitutional grounds and thereby delay matters further.
Given the present situation in Colombia, I also question whether we can afford to press Lleras into a corner on this issue. The probable alternative to Lleras is chaos, and in the coming years it may be quite hard to prevent precisely that. Given the social unrest in Colombia, the growing Communist activities, and Colombia’s geographical position, to mention but a few of the more obvious considerations, I do not believe that we can afford to finger the rug under Lleras on an issue which is not vital to the United States.
5. What, then, should be our course of action?
The present Government has one month to live. I doubt it would be willing in that month to take any action which might annoy or upset a great many people in Colombia. We do not have the time to prepare the ground for further vigorous representations. We are not likely, therefore, to get any important remedial action from it.
[Facsimile Page 7]We should not, as I have already pointed out, make vigorous representations during the early part of the Lleras administration. We may hope that the situation will gradually improve. We may properly make representations in specific cases or press gently when the moment seems propitious, but we should be careful how far we go. We should try to clear the air of the poisonous fumes now in it by a positive program of publicity. Obviously, such a program should be geared to the tempo of our representations. If the premise that we should go slow regarding representations is accepted, then our efforts to clear the air through publicity may also be pitched in a low gear. In sum, I have the feeling that this is another example of what Talleyrand meant in his comment about zeal in diplomatic affairs. Like the violence which is still desolating the Colombian countryside, this situation is one which it may take years to correct, and it can be corrected only as the democratic warp and woof in Colombian life are strengthened.
We should also bear in mind the possibility of solving this religious problem by court action. When the state of siege is lifted, as it presumably will be as soon after the inauguration of the new administration [Typeset Page 332] as it can be without creating legislative chaos, Protestant churches and schools can seek through the courts to obtain their legal rights. Obviously, it would be better from the viewpoint both of the Embassy and of the Colombian Government if the problem could be solved in this manner. We would not be placed in the unhappy position of flying in the face of Colombian Catholic prejudices and of being accused of taking action far beyond anything we in fact contemplate. The Colombian Government, in reopening churches and schools, could say that they were simply respecting court decisions. Moreover, if the Protestants can secure their rights by court action, it would then be of doubtful propriety for the Embassy to continue to make representations, at least until a denial of justice had occurred.
However it must be borne in mind that many Colombian judges doubtless share the fervor of the general populace in their Catholic predilections and some might, therefore, yielding to Catholic pressure, find legal quibbles or devise endless delays by which Protestants might in fact be further deprived of their rights. On the balance, nevertheless, it would appear to me that this course should be urged upon the Protestants as soon as it is clearly open to them, despite the dangers which it involves. If it should prove impossible through the Colombian courts to secure Protestant rights, it is also true that in most of the Latin American republics an American company cannot be entirely sure of securing its rights. I question whether we should go further to secure Protestant rights, even where a legitimate American interest is clearly involved, than we should in securing any other American right which has been violated by the Colombian authorities. We should perhaps remember that our original representations were with regard to violence visited upon American Protestant missionaries, their churches and schools when requests for adequate protection were obviously a duty as well as a right, and that we may not have perceived the line beyond which the law should have been [Facsimile Page 8] invoked before we made representations regarding the allegedly arbitrary actions of Colombian authorities. Our rights and duties in this matter are precisely the same as they would be in the protection of any legitimate American interest, and we should not be swayed in it by emotion, or beyond the bounds of prudence or propriety by our devotion to the democratic principle of freedom of worship.
American Ambassador