29. Telegram 30391/Tosec 39 From the Department of State to the Consulate General in Jerusalem1
30391/Tosec 39. Subject: Briefing Memorandum: Latin American Regional Issues/Bilateral Relations. For the Secretary from Rogers.
On February 9, you asked for an outline of our Latin American policy in the coming months. I have tried to take into account the domestic political equation.
I. Regional Issues. There are five.
1. Cuba: Resolve the OAS sanctions issue. Remove the third country constraints as they apply to U.S. subsidiaries. Continue quid pro quo bilateral moves. The Executive should stay out in front. If [Page 91] Congress continues to indulge its temptation to meddle (Kennedy is planning a trip to Havana, for example) the U.S. will pay a price.
2. Panama: Get a treaty this spring, and stick it to the liberals on the hill that if they really want to be helpful in fashioning a new posture for the U.S. in Latin America the Panama Treaty is the acid test.
3. The Inter-American System; it is in crisis. We can paper over the crisis by going back to Buenos Aires, and allowing the OAS to stumble along with a new Secretary General and some more U.S. money. Or we can give a real push toward restructuring of the OAS, and in the process reduce the opportunities and temptations to bloc confrontation which vex the hemisphere now. To this end, for the first time we should take the lead in the reorganization of the inter-American system.
4. Trade and Finance: Proceed in a business-like way to see if we can adjust the Trade Reform Act to take care of the Latin complaints. Reflect Latin interests in our negotiating posture in Geneva. Try hard to defuse the countervailing duties issues. Support the Inter-American Bank—sell the veto and get the replenishment. Keep our bilateral aid at present levels.
5. Law of the Sea: Press hard at Geneva next month for agreement on the acceptable economic zone (patrimonial sea) concept which should help us avoid the type of confrontation we are now having with Ecuador.
And, in the real realm of style . . . be conciliatory . . . and avoid slogans and promises, particularly in multilateral fora.
II. Bilateral Relations
1. It is the big regional debates that get the public attention. But the real grist of our relations are bilateral. This will be more and more true, as Latin America is increasingly differentiated by the process of economic and political change. Overall, our bilateral relations are now quite good. They can be steadily improved over the next twelve months.
2. There are some nattering problems—the tuna controversy with Ecuador, countervailing duties with Brazil and the general sense of tension and misunderstanding in Caracas. But I reckon these to be at least manageable.
3. Your trip will help significantly with key South American countries. If we get a Panama Treaty, we will honestly be able to say a year hence, I believe, that our general bilateral relationships have rarely been better with Latin America.
4. This, after all, is what foreign affairs is all about. I would be inclined to say as much to the American people—that we have a well-designed policy of clearing up old irritants (Cuba, Panama), modernizing the OAS . . . and then concentrating, not so much, on regional [Page 92] rhetoric and general protestations of undifferentiated good will, but on the realities of our important and discrete bilateral relationships.
-
Summary: Rogers briefed Kissinger on key issues in U.S. relations with Latin America and summarized U.S. policy goals in the region, which included resolving problems involving Cuba and Panama, modernizing the OAS, and concentrating on the maintenance of strong bilateral relationships.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D750048–0675. Confidential. Drafted and approved by Rogers. On March 1, Kissinger delivered a speech in Houston on U.S.-Latin American relations in which he highlighted U.S. interest in negotiating a Panama Canal treaty, defining the place of Cuba in the hemisphere, and expanding trade and economic ties. (Department of State Bulletin, March 24, 1975, pp. 361–369)
↩