Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume V, Microfiche Supplement, American Republics

CO–13. Telegram from the Ambassador in Colombia (Cabot) to the Department of State¹

Bogotá, October 14, 1958, 5 p.m.

187. Re DEPTEL 107.²

Embassy believes considerable of Avianca opposition to bilateral air agreement stems from bitterness over failure of CAB to take action connection permanent permit Miami/New York route. If question Avianca permit could be settled rapidly, this complicating factor in Colombian Congress consideration of pact would be eliminated. If CAB decision favorable to Avianca we could expect less opposition for bilateral from this influential airline which presently may fear U.S. withholding adverse action until ratification achieved. Inasmuch as it appears bilateral will receive tough-sledding at best in Congress, failure CAB clarify this point creates unnecessary complication in congressional consideration and the impression CAB “heckling” Avianca. Even in unlikely event CAB decision adverse, and therefore ratification fails, would serve to remove any ground for subsequent contention U.S. reserved this surprise until after Congressional action. If Colombian Congress rejects agreement, after permit granted they could not allege we were responsible because CAB had not granted Avianca permit. On other hand, if permit granted and agreement then rejected, we understand (DEPTEL 107) that permit would automatically be cancelled.

Therefore urged Department attempt to bring CAB decision to head soonest to obtain final resolution Avianca permanent permit question.³

Cabot

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.2194/10–1453. Confidential.
2. The referenced telegram, September 25, 1958, provided information concerning the situation in commercial aviation between the United States and Colombia should the pending bilateral air agreement fail ratification in the Colombian Congress. (Department of State microfilm telegram reels)
3. Telegram 161 to Bogotá, October 24, 1958, reported that a CAB staff member had attributed delay in the Avianca case to Avianca’s reluctance to submit necessary information, and that he also stated CAB review was “delayed by personnel shortages and other pressing matters.” The telegram further stated the following: “Important note present Avianca tactics re Congressional approval bilateral [air agreement] similar to those employed to destroy 1951 tentative agreement. Grant permit at that time failed remove Avianca opposition and doubtful present application would achieve desired objective. Nevertheless, decision Avianca application not being deliberately delayed pending ratification.” (611.2194/10–1458)