Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–11, Part 1, Documents on Mexico; Central America; and the Caribbean, 1973–1976

115. Telegram 2786 From the Embassy in Costa Rica to the Department of State¹

San José, August 4, 1973, 1610Z.

2786. Subject: Foreign Minister Comments on OAS Restructuring, Cuba and GOCR Bid for SC Seat.

1. During long conversation this morning with Foreign Minister Facio he made following comments re OAS restructuring, Cuba question and SC seating.

2. OAS Restructuring. Facio said Ambassador Lopez would head Costa Rican delegation in September session on OAS restructuring. Facio said that Costa Rica opposed any substantial weakening of Rio Treaty or collective security/peaceful settlement of disputes system, because as little country without any army it depended upon the treaty for its international security. For that reason he was concerned with Mexican proposal and specifically with provision therein requiring UN consultation, which he thought would in effect gut the American system. Facio went on to say he favored restoring the OAS Council to prime position with CIES and CIEC being technical bodies rather than coequal councils. He said that Costa Rica obviously supported democracy but thought that some amendment was necessary of the charter’s wording calling democratic government the basis of consensus and reason for the organization’s existence, since this was not now factually correct and vitiated the idea of ideological pluralism. Finally he said that he opposed the idea of using the system to confront the U.S. or to force concession from it. He thought there was no rpt no utility in pressing the concept of economic aggression (Art. 16) to try to punish the U.S. In reply I said that we felt two important points were that the Rio Treaty and collective security system not be weakened or Markotoy [garble] changed, and that no confrontation develop as a result of efforts to force an economic aggression definition on U.S. that would try to punish U.S. for defending legitimate U.S. interests. I said that from what I knew of our developing positions we were very much in agreement, and I suggested that Ambassador Lopez keep in close touch with Ambassador Jova. Comment: I had had earlier conversation with Ambassador Lopez in which I suggested same thing. I believe that on these issues Lopez (and Facio) will be helpful and supportive of general U.S. view, and therefore urge that USOAS keep close contact with Lopez.

3. Cuba. Facio said that the erosion in OAS authority occasioned by the Cuban question worried him. The more countries acted unilaterally to renew relations with Cuba, in violation of the OAS resolutions, the more the moral force of and respect for the OAS was degraded. He thought, however, that the question should be treated openly and not by back door maneuvers. He gave me a copy of a memorandum he had prepared which he said he has held very close and given only to one or two other governments. It poses a “juridical” formula for dealing with the question along the following lines: Summon a meeting of the organ of consultation to determine if the conditions giving rise to the sanctions voted by the ninth meeting of consultation still exist, i.e., Cuban subversion. If they do not then the sanctions are illegal and it would take a two-thirds vote to maintain them. He also maintains that the delegation by the ninth meeting to the Permanent Council of Competence to lift the sanctions is illegal. Facio emphasized twice that Costa Rica would not take any initiative to broach the Cuban question. The memo merely outlines ideas. However, if the question is raised by others, the ideas expressed in this memo will be voiced by the CR delegate. I replied that we did not believe that any change in the sanctions was warranted, and that raising the issue PB [point blank?] the OAS would raise a seriously devisive issue. He asked that we talk further after I had read the memo. Action requested: Would appreciate Dept’s comments on memo and suggestions for reply to Facio. (Copy of the memo I received today had been received by Embassy earlier through other channels, and was pouched under copy of June 28 letter to David Lazar, AR/CEN.)

4. SC Seat. Facio said he wanted to give me “status report” on Costa Rica’s bid for SC seat (San Jose 2772 Notal). Only other candidate for LA seat is Jamaica. According to his count Mexico, Peru, Trinidad, Barbados and Guyana support Jamaica. Venezuela is undecided. All others are committed to Costa Rica. He has no doubt that Costa Rica will win LA caucus designation, but he is worried over small possibility that Arabs and some Africans will try to persuade Jamaica to run anyway. He has some information that Arabs met on this point, and noted that Arabs do not like Costa Rica because of its friendliness towards Israel.

Vaky

1. Summary: Emphasizing the importance of a strong inter-American system for Costa Rican national security, Foreign Minister Facio discussed with Ambassador Vaky the restructuring of the Organization of American States, the future of OAS sanctions on Cuba, and Costa Rica’s campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, [no film number]. Confidential. Repeated to Guatemala City, Managua, San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, and New York. All brackets are in the original except those indicating garbled text and “[point blank?],” added for clarity. In telegram 2946 from San José, August 20, the Embassy reported that Facio appeared to be discouraged by Venezuela’s rejection of his alternate proposal on Cuba sanctions and noted that he would nonetheless continue to advocate his initiative despite U.S. opposition. (Ibid.) An attachment to September 27 talking points sent by Lazar to Kubisch in advance of an October 1 meeting with Facio outlined the Venezuelan and Costa Rican initiatives on OAS sanctions on Cuba and noted that the U.S. position on the issue had “not changed from that conveyed to him [Facio] by Ambassador Vaky.” (Ibid., ARA/CEN Files: Lot 75D469, Costa Rica—Political, 1973) In telegram 2772 from San José, August 2, Vaky reported on Costa Rican candidacy for Panama’s UN Security Council seat. (Ibid., RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, [no film number]) The memorandum mentioned in section 3 was not found.