Office of the Historian

276. Memorandum From Robert M. Sayre of the National Security Council Staff to the Presidentʼs Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)1

Washington, July 7, 1964.

Castroʼs New York Times interview2 was discussed rather fully at the ARA Staff Meeting today. Tom Mann asked John Crimmins to do [Page 671] a paper for the Secretary addressed primarily to the Castro proposal that Cuba would call off its subversion if we would stop our support for Cuban exile raids.3 He is concerned that it may have appeal to the uninformed and believes we should have clear the rationale for our position. He regards this as especially important for the MFM4 because he believes that the Castro interview was timed with the MFM in mind. Castro also had other objectives in mind, of course. I would summarize the points in our rationale as follows:

(1)
Castro has treaty obligations not to engage in subversive activities—Havana Convention of 1928, OAS and UN Charter, Non-Intervention Convention of 1936, etc. For our part, we are already doing all we can to stop exile raids from U.S. soil because we do not intend to let exiles make our foreign policy.
(2)
We cannot accept Castroʼs promise that he will stop his subversion. In the very same interview he said he would continue moral support to Castro/Communist groups in Latin America. His whole record is one of broken promises and duplicity. We do not believe a Communist will renounce the world revolution. The Soviet Union promised in 1933 to discontinue subversive activities.
(3)
Castro has domestic problems. He seems to recognize finally that Cuba cannot grow and prosper while he is fighting with Cubaʼs traditional friend, the United States. This is further evidence that inter-American policy on Castro has been effective.
(4)
We continue to believe as Thomas Jefferson did that people have a right to change their government if it no longer represents them. Castro argued this himself when he was fighting to overthrow Batista. Cuban patriots have a right to overthrow a dictatorship. Even those Latin American countries which oppose collective action by the OAS assert the right of the Cuban people to depose Castro by revolution if he will not permit elections. So far as we are concerned Cuban patriots may exercise their inherent right so long as they do not involve the U.S.

RMS
  1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Cuba, Vol. III, 5/64–10/64. Confidential.↩
  2. In a July 5 interview with correspondent Richard Eder, Castro said that although Cuba reserved the right to shoot down U.S. U–2 overflights, he remained convinced that the matter could be settled peacefully. Castro also intimated that Cuba was disposed to begin negotiating its differences with the United States. (New York Times, July 6, 1964)↩
  3. No such paper has been found. However, telegram 61 to all posts, July 9, included the rationale in points 1–4 of this memorandum and suggested that posts use this response in discussing the U.S. Government attitude toward the Castro interview with host governments and media. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 15–1 CUBA)↩
  4. Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs held at the Pan American Union in Washington in July 1964; see Document 279.↩