Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana

326. Telegram From the Embassy in Haiti to the Department of State ¹

Port-au-Prince, February 13, 1964, 6 p.m.

643. Embtels 632; 636; and Deptel 297.²

1. I talked with Pres Duvalier for an hour and fifteen minutes this morning, after being kept waiting an hour. FonMin Chalmers and Raymond were with him, and Curtis accompanied me. Highlights of conversation summarized below; full memcon will follow.³

2. While waiting in anteroom, Chalmers said he understood Duvalier wished have “private” exchange of views with me and to talk of general “spirit” of relations between Haiti and US; while there would probably be mention of some subjects he (Chalmers) and I had already discussed, Duvalier wished specifics to be pursued between FonMin and myself.

3. Conversation between President and myself took place in a neutral atmosphere, which relaxed somewhat toward end of talk. Chalmers and Raymond said practically nothing, even when invited do so by Duvalier. Duvalier apparently made effort refrain from exhibiting any hostility and, for first time in Curtisʼs experience, even smiled broadly at several points. Duvalier looked alert and fit, although when he stood up at beginning and end of conversation he moved slowly and I thought with a bit of difficulty. One corner of presidential office filled with machine guns and miscellaneous weaponry, and usual security precautions were visible at all points inside and outside palace.

4. Most noteworthy feature of conversation was fact that Duvalier made no mention of reference, direct or indirect, to “four problems” or to any officer of the Embassy. He also omitted usual strictures against former US Ambassadors.

5. Conversation was opened, after few words of greeting and amenities, by Duvalierʼs remark that he wants “close collaboration” between myself and Chalmers, Raymond and other ministers. He then embarked upon lengthy historical review, beginning with reference to “two oldest republics of hemisphere” and ending with my presentation of credentials (memcon will report all details). Inter alia he recalled his 14 years collaboration with Americans, his studies at University Michigan, his policy of marching “side by side” with USG in foreign policy and practice of voting with US in UN and other international bodies (citing Punta del Este and second Cuban crisis), his close relations with President Eisenhower, latterʼs $6 million grant (“not loan”) to Haiti, various unfilled Haitian requests to USG (road to Jacmel, jet airport), various recent invasion attempts (Dade County deputy sheriffs in 1958, Cubans in 1959, Cantave last year). Re credentials presentation, he stressed his desire do me utmost honor (ceremony held in audience chamber not used before, presidential guard in tenue de gala, turn-out of all GOH personnages, etc.). As clincher he said never before had he addressed formal remarks to a new Ambassador. (I suppressed strong temptation to say that in view nature his unpleasant remarks to me on that occasion, he would be wise revert to former practice.) Duvalier said these were all things he had wanted to tell me, adding that while they were perhaps not couched in language of diplomacy they were words of “a friend of US.” (Duvalier evidently at some pains to keep his recital fairly dispassionate.)

6. I then responded, saying I had come to Haiti with instructions to seek to improve relations between two governments if there was full and genuine desire on Haitian side to do so. It was in this spirit that Chalmers, Raymond and I had had two exploratory discussions, and I had thought it useful review main lines of what had been said so far with President Duvalier. I then referred to tourism and private investments as subjects that were of mutual interest and could I thought be usefully discussed. Duvalier countered with long statement of his personal solicitude for American tourists, orders he had given to police to protect and care for tourists, and traditional Haitian hospitality. He also made passing reference to fact that US vessels had been “suppressed” from visiting Haiti. Re private investments, he said he hereby gave “green light” to Chalmers and Raymond to proceed with discussion these and other subjects with me.

7. Duvalier then went off into discussion of importance of “man” in diplomacy. I broke in to say that subject had be seen in its true perspective. I like other Ambassadors of US spoke and acted under close instructions. There would undoubtedly be from time to time differences of view on this or that policy issue between GOH and USG, as there were between all governments. It was however great mistake to attribute these differences of view to “some Ambassador or some Embassy officer.” I then made clear statement of need for mutual respect, saying that USG treats Haiti with respect and naturally expects and intends be so treated. Duvalier echoed this and added that cardinal principle for Haiti was “auto-determination.” Haiti had no intention trying tell US what to do but converse must equally be true. He then said a few halting words in English, largely to effect how much English he forgotten since he left Michigan. (I suspect he has really forgotten very little.)

8. Chalmers added that conversations to date had been quite useful and he looked forward to pursuing them. It was left that we would have further talk in next day or so.

9. Comments:

(A) As indicated above, conversation chiefly important for what Duvalier did not raise. There was no reference to famous “four problems” by Duvalier, and he took my rather pointed remark on “Ambassadors and Embassy officers” without any reaction. I naturally did not expect him to refer in any way to Davidson, Dec. 19 letter⁴ or similar events of recent history, and he did not.

(B) I will wish reflect on meaning Duvalier obviously intended USG to attach to conversation. It is tempting to conclude that, having met unyielding US position on “four problems” and being aware my oft-voiced discontent over delay in credentials presentation, his offensive remarks about my predecessors, and open threat over “four problems,” Duvalier has decided some minimum level mutual accommodation is in his own interest and will thus go along with US step-by-step approach. However, having no desire figure in “famous last words” Department, I refrain from drawing such attractive conclusion. It does appear, however, that at least he is prepared have dialogue continue. Thus opening we have been seeking, to explore possibility reaching position where we can conduct with Duvalier at least the minimum business we need to in US own self-interest, is probably at hand. In this connection, USG should restrain its natural altruistic impulses toward Haiti. We can lose before we begin if we show ourselves too eager and come forward with too many goodies. Country Team and I are giving thought to some feasible way of testing and measuring Haitian performance, and I shall be forwarding my thoughts on this.

(C) GOH will remain GOH, that is to say, basically devious and untrustworthy. I by no means exclude possibility that today was show-day, designed lull us while Duvalier pursues his objectives by other means. One defense is to continue handle intermediaries and agents provocateurs as Davidson has been dealt with. Another example of constant dangers in situation here is rumor (emanating we are told last night from Raymond himself) that USG engineered expulsion of Canadian Jesuits (Embtels 637 and 641).⁵ I am raising this matter with Dept in separate message.

(D) I expect see Chalmers Feb 14 or 17 to continue with tourism and investment guaranties.

(E) Country Team concurs this message.

Timmons

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–67, POL HAITI–US. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution.
2. Telegrams 632 and 636 from Port-au-Prince, February 10 and 12, transmitted reports of conversations preliminary to the Duvalier–Timmons meeting. (Ibid.) Telegram 297 to Port-au-Prince, February 12, contained guidance for the meeting. (Ibid., AID (IDB) 9 HAITI)
3. Not found.
4. See footnote 3, Document 325.
5. Telegrams 637 and 641 from Port-au-Prince, February 12 and 13. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–67, SOC 12–1 HAI)