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

DR–1. Memorandum from the Director of the Office of Middle American Affairs (Wieland) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)¹

Washington, January 30, 1958

SUBJECT

• Future Course of Dominican-United States Relations

Problem:

Ambassador Farland recently came up from Ciudad Trujillo for consultation in the Department on the future course of our relations with the Dominican Republic. This matter is urgent in view of a talk the Ambassador had with Generalissimo Trujillo on January 17 when the latter indicated that he plans to withdraw very soon from an active role in his country’s affairs, turning over responsibility to others in fact as well as in name. Trujillo spoke particularly of the pressure the United States has brought to bear upon him because of the Galíndez-Murphy affair²; further, his doctors advise him to get rid of his heavy responsibilities. The policy question thus raised is whether the United States is willing to resume normal relations so that Trujillo can disengage himself from control without having this delicate process hindered by the present uncertainties in U.S.-Dominican relations. If the United States is not willing to clarify the relationship, Trujillo indicated that despite his long-standing friendship he could not continue to cooperate as fully with the United States as in the past. As an indication of what this would mean, the Dominican Government recently notified us that it does not plan to attend the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva in February.³

This paper discusses this policy question and proposes a position for Ambassador Farland to take with Trujillo.

Background:

During the past year our relations with the Dominican Republic have become increasingly strained, primarily because of the Galíndez-Murphy case, improper activities of Dominican officials and agents in the United States, and Dominican meddling in other countries’ affairs. In these circumstances, the United States has refused or hesitated to act favorably on such normally routine matters as requests for technical assistance, visits by Dominican officials to the United States, and export licenses for military equipment. We refused to permit the sale of jet fighter aircraft to the Dominican Republic even though our Defense Department found there was military justification for these fighters for hemispheric defense purposes. The Dominican Republic, on the other hand, smarting under United States press attacks and official U.S. pressures of various types, has refused to cooperate effectively in clarifying the Galíndez-Murphy cases, has tried to discredit our motives in pursuing these cases and has tried to stir up trouble in other countries where the United States has important political interests (particularly in Guatemala). The recent decision not to attend the Law of the Sea Conference indicates that Trujillo may try non-cooperation on international questions as a new countervailing tactic. Trujillo himself, at 66, is weakening physically under the pressures of the situation. He appears to suffer from high blood pressure, at least, and perhaps from other organic disorders.

The fundamental U.S. interests in the Dominican Republic and its political orientation are:

1. Its strategic position in the Caribbean, on the approaches to the Panama Canal;

2. The guided missile tracking station on the northeast coast;

3. The continuing support the Government of the Dominican Republic has given us in the United Nations and elsewhere.

Discussion:

Our investigation of the Galíndez-Murphy case has pointed to the involvement of Dominican officials, notably General Arturo Espaillat, former Dominican Consul General in New York, and former Cabinet member for Security. The investigation has also uncovered other evidence of improper Dominican activities in the United States including use of unregistered agents. John Joseph Frank was tried and convicted in November 1957 for failure to register as a Dominican agent; Horace William Schmall was haled before a Federal Grand Jury in January 1958 but refused to testify on grounds of possible self-incrimination; Carl Armfelt hastily departed from the Dominican Republic in January 1958 to avoid service of a subpoena to appear before a Federal Grand Jury. The Dominican Government has employed Sydney Baron of New York (and through him Morris Ernst and Judge Munson) to conduct an independent investigation of the Galíndez case, which per se tends to impugn the good faith of the Department of Justice investigation. General Espaillat has insulted our Government by stating to our Embassy that Frank was “framed”. These developments have been attended by keen public and Congressional interest and as a result Trujillo and the Dominican Government have been subject to continual public stigma.

Congressman Porter⁴ has broadened his interest in the Murphy-Galíndez case to embrace the whole field of United States policy toward Latin America, particularly with respect to the “dictatorship countries”. Last summer Mr. Porter called for a suspension of technical and military cooperation with the “dictatorship countries” and sponsored a Bill to effect this change in policy. The Bill was defeated by a wide margin in late July but while it was under consideration we felt obliged to refuse to sell jet aircraft the Dominican Republic was then on the point of purchasing. Other Dominican requests for military supplies or equipment have been handled on an ad hoc basis. Similarly questions concerning our technical cooperation program in the Dominican Republic have been handled on a case by case basis, as have other questions such as a proposed visit by “Ramfis”⁵ to Washington next June, and a proposed visit in February by Admiral Richardson, Chief of the Dominican Navy. Thus, although there has been no formal change in policy, elements of uncertainty and hesitation have become very pronounced in our relations. This paper seeks to clarify our policy with regard to specific areas of interest.

Proposed Position:

It is in our interest to carry on normal cooperative relations with the Dominican Republic in as many fields as, and to the extent that, such cooperation can be effective and mutually beneficial within a framework of mutual respect. At the same time, it should be made clear to the Dominican Government that the deterioration in relations during the past year stems directly from improper activities of Dominican officials in the United States and elsewhere. The disappearance of an American citizen in the Dominican Republic (Murphy) and the disappearance of another individual in New York who was entitled to United States protection (de Galíndez) have been of particular concern to us. The Dominican Republic would not countenance activities by a foreign power within the Dominican Republic which it itself is carrying out in other countries, and therefore, it should not be surprised by our official and public reaction to improper Dominican activities in the United States. Until such activities cease the Dominican Republic cannot expect the U.S. to overlook them; we shall continue to investigate evidences of improper or illegal activities and to take such measures to curb these activities as the facts warrant. Naturally, evidences of illegal or improper activities thus uncovered do not redound to the credit of the Dominican Republic and make it more difficult for the U.S. to treat other aspects of our relations in a normal way.

The initiative of the Generalissimo in bringing this question up with Ambassador Farland presents us with an opportunity to get our relations with the Dominicans back on a “normal, cooperative” basis. We believe that the Ambassador, upon his return to Ciudad Trujillo, should discuss the range of problems in U.S.-Dominican relations, pointing out the Dominican activities to which we object and stating the things the United States is prepared to do if these activities cease. The essence of our side of the bargain would be reestablishment of normal, friendly relations.

We must consider the alternatives to taking a positive approach to this question. If the Generalissimo actually were to let the authority drop from his hands at this time, without adequate preparation, a political breakdown could occur which would run contrary to U.S. interests. Over the years, under the authoritarian regime of the Generalissimo, no one has been prepared to assume any real measure of authority. If the Generalissimo bowed out now, we might expect (1) Ramfis to become the real locus of power or (2) Hector⁶ and Ramfis to take over jointly. But, (3), if these two possibilities failed, a struggle for power would probably ensue among the military with resulting instability in this important strategic area. An orderly transfer of power thus would be in our over-all interest, particularly if such a transfer also gave promise of political and social responsibility. We hope for a greater measure of the latter if Ramfis or Hector Trujillo receive power.

Upon his return to the Dominican Republic we propose that Ambassador Farland inform Trujillo of our position as set forth above and how it affects the following specific items of interest:

l. Espaillat: Our investigation of the Galíndez-Murphy case has repeatedly brought Espaillat’s name to light. The Department of Justice has shown interest in questioning him regarding these cases and we have asked formally that Espaillat make himself amenable to the usual procedures in the United States in such matters. We are determined to continue our efforts to interrogate Espaillat in the United States under conditions where he can be charged with perjury if he lies. We have drafted a new note asking that Espaillat come to the United States to testify. We propose to authorize Ambassador Farland to so inform Trujillo and, in the context of the discussions, say that he will recommend to the Department that it not be delivered if its purpose can be achieved informally (i.e., if Espaillat would make himself available). The Ambassador would explain that we have no desire to embarrass the Dominican Government by presenting a formal note if the matter can be arranged informally. (Draft note TAB A).⁷

2. Other Improper Activities in U.S.

An indicated in our note of November 11, 1957,⁸ (TAB B) we have been disturbed over evidence of unregistered Dominican Agents operating in the United States, the organization of picketing demonstrations, and distribution of propaganda of a type which friendly governments do not ordinarily disseminate in another friendly country. We expect that these improprieties shall cease, as requested in our note.

3. Dominican Meddling in Guatemala, Haiti and Other Areas

The activities of John Abbes Garcia and Onessimo Valenzuela in Guatemala following the assassination of Castillo Armas⁹ were of serious concern to us. Dominican radio attacks on Guatemalan political figures have gone far beyond the bounds of propriety and truth and have tended to sow confusion, distrust and division among non-Communist political elements in Guatemala at the very moment when these elements should have been encouraged to submerge their differences in the interest of stable, responsible non-Communist government. In Haiti, Trujillo has given comfort and encouragement to General Kebreau, despite the fact that the latter has brought pressure on the Haitian Government not to settle the Talamas matter which is of so much concern to our Government. In Puerto Rico, Governor Muñoz Marin was forced to ask for the recall of a Dominican Consul because of improprieties. Dominican attacks on Governor Muñoz Marin have been vicious, distorted and unjustified, and public accusations tending to smear the Governor as the tool of a Communist conspiracy are neither warranted by the facts or in keeping with propriety. If the Dominican Government has evidence of Communist activities in Puerto Rico or in the United States, we shall appreciate receiving such information through customary diplomatic channels and we shall take appropriate action to investigate and curb such illegal activities.

4. Law of the Sea Conference

On January 16 the Dominican Foreign Minister told the Ambassador that the Dominican Republic would not attend this conference because it “has no problem” with any country on this question. We interpret this as foreshadowing Trujillo’s possible future non-cooperative attitude. If Ambassador Farland finds his discussion with Trujillo satisfactory on the first three points above, he will then press for a favorable decision on Dominican attendance at this conference. RPA is drafting an instruction.

5. Technical Cooperation

The Department has recommended that the ICA program in the Dominican Republic not be terminated as the Director of ICA¹⁰ has proposed in December, and that the FY 1959 program remain as presently agreed upon. We believe that the approach to technical assistance in the Dominican Republic should be as follows: (1) Presently-operating programs should follow their normal, presently planned course; (2) No new fields of activities should be approved for the present; (3) Individual requests for specific assistance should be considered on their merits (an example is a recent request for short-term services of a technician in connection with airport construction); (4) This approach would be reviewed from time to time in the light of our over-all relations with the Dominican Republic and in the light of how effectively the Dominicans are cooperating in those programs already in operation.

6. Atomic Energy

As indicated in our A–57 of November 5, 1957¹¹ (attached) (TAB C) we are prepared to cooperate with the Dominican Republic in a program for developing nuclear “know-how” and experience through research and training, and we are ready to assist the Dominican Government in implementing the existing bilateral agreement on atomic research. We feel that Dominican interest in a power reactor should be discouraged for the present pending training of technicians and further planning.

7. Military Assistance

Under the Military Assistance Agreement of March 1953 the Dominican Republic agreed to maintain one fighter squadron of aircraft and 10 naval vessels for hemispheric defense purposes.¹² Under the grant military aid program the United States undertook to supply maintenance and operational support, training and training ammunition and materiel to modernize the MDAP naval units for more effective anti-submarine warfare. Four jet trainer aircraft were furnished.

In December 1956 a Naval Mission Agreement¹³ was signed but in April 1957 the Embassy and the Chief of the Naval Mission¹⁴ recommended that no further materiel under the MDAP be allocated to the Dominican Navy and that our naval programs in the Dominican Republic confine itself strictly to training activities. The reasons for these recommendations were the inability of the Dominican Navy to maintain ships and materiel in a seaworthy condition, graft, and failure to utilize trained personnel effectively. Since August 1957 these deficiencies are being corrected by the Dominicans and our Naval Mission believes that an effective program can be carried on.

If Trujillo’s attitude on the first three points above is satisfactory, Ambassador Farland may inform him that we stand ready to resume normal cooperation in the Naval program in the Dominican Republic, and to release materiel under the MAAG Program for agreed force goals. Requests for export licenses for materiel to replace old or worn-out equipment would be considered promptly.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that you sign the attached telegram authorizing Ambassador Farland to discuss Dominican-U.S. relations with Generalissimo Trujillo in the light of this memorandum and to assure him that the United States desires to resume normal cooperative relations in those fields where cooperation can be effective, it being clearly understood that an essential element in a return to normality would be satisfactory Dominican cooperation to clarify the Galíndez-Murphy case and to cease improper activities in the United States and elsewhere.¹⁵

1. Source: Department of State, Rubottom Files, Lot 60 D 553, “Development Loan Fund—1958.”. Secret. The source text is an unsigned carbon copy.
2. Dr. Jesús de Galíndez, a Spanish citizen formerly resident in the Dominican Republic, disappeared from New York City on March 12, 1956. Gerald Lester Murphy, an airplane pilot who claimed he had participated in kidnapping de Galíndez and had flown him to the Dominican Republic, disappeared from his apartment in Ciudad Trujillo on December 3, 1956. Documentation on this subject is presented in Foreign Relations, 1955–1957, vol. VI, American Republics: Multilateral; Mexico; Caribbean, Chapter 9.
3. A United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, attended by delegates from 86 countries, took place at Geneva, February 24–April 28, 1958. Documentation on this conference is presented in Foreign Relations, 1958–1960, vol. II, United Nations and General International Matters, Chapter 8.
4. Charles O. Porter (D-Oregon)
5. Rafael L. Trujillo, Jr.
6. Hector Trujillo, brother of Generalissimo Trujillo, President of the Dominican Republic.
7. No attachments were found with the source text.
8. Not found.
9. Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, President of Guatemala until his assassination on July 26, 1957.
10. James H. Smith, Jr.
11. Not found.
12. For text of the agreement, signed at Washington on March 6, and entered into force on June 10, 1953, see 4 UST 184.
13. For text of the agreement, signed at Ciudad Trujillo on December 7, 1956, and entered into force on the same day, see 7 UST (pt. 3) 3238.
14. Commander Thomas E. Keyes.
15. In telegram 363 to Ciudad Trujillo, January 31, 1958, Rubottom authorized Ambassador Farland to discuss U.S.-Dominican relations with Generalissimo Trujillo in light of this memorandum. After identifying several issues of contention between the two countries, the telegram concluded, “If Trujillo prepared cooperate effectively on foregoing points, thus providing essential element in return to normality hitherto lacking, U.S. prepared treat questions relating technical cooperation program, military program and other fields on own merits as essentially technical non-political questions.” (611.39/1–3158) In telegram 354 from Ciudad Trujillo, February 4, 1958, Farland reported on his conversation with Trujillo that day. The telegram stated in part that the Generalissimo planned to revoke his decision not to send a delegate to the Law of the Sea conference. Farland concluded, “All evidence indicated Generalissimo highly interested and concerned result my consultation Washington and at this juncture appears to be willing cooperate all aspects with possible exception Espaillat return.” (611.39/2–458)