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

PE–37. Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of West Coast Affairs (Coerr)¹

Washington, January 23, 1960

SUBJECT

• Peruvian-U.S. Relations: U.S. Commercial Policy;
• U.S. Role in Peru-Ecuador Boundary Dispute; President
• Eisenhower’s Visit to Latin America.

PARTICIPANTS

• Ambassador Guillermo HOYOS Osores,
• Adviser, Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Relations.
• Ambassador Juan Bautista DE LAVALLE,
• Peruvian Ambassador to the OAS and Delegate to the UN.
• Miguel GRAU, Chargé d’Affaires, Peruvian Embassy.
• Rear Admiral Luis Edgardo LLOSA, Naval Attaché, Peruvian Embassy
• Mr. Rubottom, ARA
• Mr. Coerr, ARA/WST

(*Ambassador Hoyos Osores is carried as third man on the Peruvian Foreign Office list, immediately after the Secretary General,² although the Peruvian Embassy has explained that he is, in effect, second in command to Foreign Minister Porras. The Embassy also explains he is traveling as “Ambassador-at-Large”.)

Ambassador Hoyos Osores—I am not here to recite affronts (“agravios”) but to explain certain realities of inter-American relationships. The responsible element in Peru believes the destinies of Peru and of the United States are conjoint. This element desires friendly Peruvian-U.S. relations not only in general terms but also as an essential to its own security within Peru. But, in Latin America there is widespread resentment and suspicion of the U.S., whether or not justified, that stems from many and complex causes of which the following are the most important in Peru:

(1) In recent years U.S. commercial policy has dealt Peru repeated blows, damaging Peru’s major exports—lead and zinc, cotton and sugar—and aggravating Peru’s economic problems so that Peruvians feel they can count on U.S. friendship only “relatively”.

(2) As a guarantor of the Rio Protocol, the U.S. has not collaborated to produce a guarantors’ statement that would disauthorize the absurd position Ecuador has taken (in its boundary dispute with Peru).

In President Eisenhower’s visit to Latin America the President proposes to reach the very doors of Peru and then about-face and return home the way he came.³ In so doing he will unintentionally reinforce the old idea of the importance of the “ABC bloc”⁴ in Latin America, and appear to slight Peru. The President was able to visit Kabul;⁵ it is hard to understand that he cannot find time to visit Lima. Peru’s disappointment is the keener for Peru’s record as foremost among the United States’ friends of World War II.

The Peruvian people’s sense of injury in these matters poses the Peruvian Government with serious political problems which it hopes the United States Government will help dispel.

(At this point Ambassador Hoyos Osores launched into a lengthy polemic on the Peru-Ecuador boundary dispute, terming it “the most serious of these matters” and accusing the United States of obstructing action which Peru justly desired—see separate memorandum of conversation.)⁶

Mr. Rubottom—Thank you for having spoken of these mutual problems with the same frankness that has always characterized my talks with Peru’s representatives, Mr. Grau as Chargé d’Affaires, Ambassador de Lavalle, Admiral Llosa and—last December 15 Ambassador Belaunde in New York.⁷ I shall answer with the same frankness.

I, of course, regret, deeply the existence among Peruvians of any feeling of resentment against the United States. It is understandable that Peruvians might interpret some U.S. actions, particularly in the field of trade, as directed against Peru itself, but such an interpretation obviously is wrong and I hope the Peruvian Government would make the facts known. The extremes to which popular misconceptions can go are shown today in Cuba, which is becoming a problem for all the American states. I remember the pitch that popular opinion in Peru had reached—when Under Secretary Dillon and I passed through Lima in August of 1957⁸—in reaction to a bill pending in the U.S. Congress covering lead and zinc imports. The Peruvian people had not been told that this was merely a bill proposed by certain individual Congressmen representing their own constituents, as a national deputy from Arequipa might do in Lima, and that the Congress as a whole had not spoken. I understand that the efforts of Peruvian leaders to improve Peru’s standard of living through encouraging the investment of local and foreign capital may suffer in an atmosphere of popular resentment against the United States. Peruvian leaders might more effectively point out that the United States has long advocated a multi-lateral approach to the problem of excess lead and zinc production, as it has in the current coffee arrangement; that the United States Executive and many groups in the United States work constantly on behalf of free trade; and that the lead-zinc market has strengthened considerably. You can be certain that my Government is very conscious of Peru’s interests in the products you have mentioned, and also in fishmeal exports that are becoming so important in Peru’s economy.

President Eisenhower has been most disappointed at not being able to visit Peru, as he has told President Prado in a personal message.⁹ Your Ambassador has presented your attitude on this matter most effectively, and I can only emphasize that President Eisenhower’s decision was based on the limitations of time available for his trip.

(Mr. Rubottom then discussed the inter-American Conference and arms limitation, and replied to Ambassador Hoyos Osores on the border question—see separate memoranda of conversations.)¹⁰

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.23/1–2360. Confidential.
2. Javier Delgado Yrigoyen.
3. For documentation on President Eisenhower’s trip to South America, February 23–March 7, 1960, see Documents CH–28–30, 32; PE–37; UR–12–14.
4. Reference is to Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.
5. President Eisenhower visited Kabul, December 9, during his eleven-nation world tour, December 3–22, 1959; for documentation on his visit to Afghanistan, see volume XI.
6. Not printed; 622.233/1–2360.
7. Not printed; 362/12–1559.
8. Messrs. Dillon and Rubottom passed through Lima en route to the OAS Economic Conference in Buenos Aires, August 15–September 4, 1957.
9. The referenced message, dated January 11, was sent by telegram 485 to Lima, January 11, and delivered on January 13. (711.11–EI/1–1160)
10. Only the memorandum of conversation, cited in footnote 5, concerning the Peru-Ecuador boundary dispute was found in Department of State files.