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

79. Briefing Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rogers) to Secretary of State Kissinger¹

Washington, May 6, 1975.

Your Meeting With Mexican Foreign Secretary Rabasa Thursday, 6:00 p.m. May 8, 1975

PARTICIPANTS

• U.S.
• The Secretary
• William D. Rogers, ARA
• John T. Dreyfuss, ARA/MEX (notetaker)
• MEXICO
• Foreign Secretary Emilio O. Rabasa
• Ambassador Jose Juan de Olloqui

There are no plans for press participation. (per Rabasa’s request)

CHECKLIST

—Cuba and the OAS—Express hope that some measure of agreement on how to deal with Cuban sanctions can be reached during OASGA.

—Charter of Economic Rights and Duties—Explain that we are willing to take a constructive part in any renegotiations of CERDS, but see little hope as long as radical members of Group of 77 insist on unacceptable provisions (if raised).

—Verbal Attacks on U.S.—Express our concern over public attacks on the U.S. by GOM officials.

—Narcotics—State that we appreciate Mexico’s cooperation against drug trafficking and hope for increased mutual effort.

—Legal Rights of U.S. Prisoners—State that we are concerned over allegations of mistreatment of some U.S. prisoners in Mexico and hope that the GOM will assure their rights under Mexican law.

—Trade Act of 1974—Explain that we believe the Act can provide trade benefits for Mexico.

Attachment

Department of State Briefing Paper²

April 1975.

Bilateral Talks During OASGA

Mexico—Foreign Secretary Emilio O. Rabasa

Setting

Rabasa is anxious to see you and has expressed the hope that the meeting can be arranged in circumstances that will attract no publicity.

His principal interest will be to express Mexico’s view on issues to be treated at the OASGA—particularly modification of the two-thirds rule for the lifting of the Cuban sanctions and a restructuring of the OAS. He may again attempt to induce you to support the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (CERDS). In keeping with Mexico’s impulse towards hemispheric (and Third World) leadership, Rabasa will wish to project an image among his fellow Foreign Ministers that he is working closely with you and is influencing you on the important issues before the OASGA.

Our objectives will be to secure Mexico’s cooperation and support for rational action to deal with the Cuban issue and other issues under consideration at the OASGA. We wish to take advantage of your meeting with Rabasa to express concern over recent public attacks made by Echeverria (and other high level GOM officials) on the United States (e.g., charges of our involvement in the overthrow of Allende and “CIA manipulation” of agitating groups in Mexico). Additionally, we wish to impress on Rabasa the need for continued and increasing efforts to stem the high-level of illegal narcotics exports from Mexico to the United States, and to mention our concern over allegations that U.S. citizens imprisoned in Mexico are not receiving their full rights under Mexican law.

Our bilateral relations with Mexico continue to be good, with friendly cooperation on concrete issues. However, the unfriendly rhetoric on the part of high-level GOM officials and Mexican attempts to insert the issue of CERDS into every conceivable international meeting are increasing irritants between us. The question of illegal Mexican migrants has been on the back burner in Mexico since the October 21 Ford-Echeverria meeting. The U.S. is in the process of establishing its committee to work with a Mexican counterpart commission to seek solutions.

You last met with Rabasa on January 14, 1975, in Washington.

Issues/Talking Points

1. Cuba Sanctions and the OAS

Mexican Position: Mexico has never observed the OAS sanctions and has long advocated a lifting of the sanctions against Cuba. They have pushed to increase their trade with Cuba and pressed the subsidiaries of U.S. companies in Mexico to export to Cuba.

U.S. Position: At Houston you indicated you intended to consult with Latin American Governments “with the attitude of finding a generally acceptable solution to the Cuba sanctions question.” If something approaching a consensus can be achieved, we would like to lay the sanctions issue to rest at the OASGA. With regard to trade by U.S. subsidiaries with Cuba, we hold that each request for a license must be examined on a case-by-case basis. We have recently granted licenses to three U.S. auto manufacturers in Mexico to participate in a Mexican Trade Fair in Havana, while several other requests for participation were not acted upon.

Your Talking Points

—Several colleagues have suggested that we might find a way to apply the consensus that the majority shall rule in a future Rio Treaty to the Cuba sanctions question.

—What we want is some measure of agreement on how to deal with the Cuba issue at the OAS General Assembly. We don’t want it to continue to divert the hemisphere’s attention from more important issues.

—With regard to the question of trade with Cuba by U.S. subsidiaries, we will continue the present procedures for case-by-case licensing.

2. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (If raised by Secretary Rabasa)

Mexican Position: The Mexican Government continues to press for U.S. approval (and universal endorsement) of CERDS at every possible opportunity.

U.S. Position: We should continue to indicate that we cannot support a Charter that contains provisions which conflict with important U.S. policies, but that we hope that it may prove possible to amend the Charter so that it will command the support of all countries.

Your Talking Points

—While the U.S. would support a Charter that provides equitable guidelines for the conduct of international economic relations, the Charter adopted by the last General Assembly did not and will not attract U.S. support since it embodies key provisions which fail to take appropriate account of the interests of industrialized countries and of the rules of international law.

—We are willing to take a constructive part in any resumed negotiations on the Charter, but we see little hope of reaching universal agreement as long as radical members of the Group of 77 persist in insisting on inclusion of these key, unbalanced provisions.

3. Trade Act of 1974

Mexican Position: In two diplomatic notes handed to you by Secretary Rabasa on January 14, the Government of Mexico expressed concern that the Trade Act is discriminatory, contrary to international agreements, and could be applied to Mexico in a restrictive and inflexible manner.

U.S. Position: We believe the Act can provide concrete trade benefits for Mexico.

Your Talking Points

—Latin American countries will be primary beneficiaries of our tariff preference system.

—Based on 1973 data and the President’s proposed product list, about one billion dollars of Latin American exports to the United States (including over 425 million of Mexico’s) would have benefited from GSP had our system been in effect then.

—We hope Congress will amend the OPEC exclusion provision for nations which did not engage in the oil embargo to the United States.

—We look forward to working with the Mexican Government during the multilateral trade negotiations, and will endeavor to be responsive to the needs and objectives of Mexico.

—We will seek to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to the maximum extent possible on products of particular interest to Mexico. In turn we plan to seek Mexico’s support on issues that are important to the United States.

4. Mexican Officials’ Gratuitous Attacks on the U.S.

Mexican Position: In response to our expressions of concern over recent public attacks on the U.S., the Mexicans blithely inform us that we should not pay any attention to what they say, they are really friendly to the U.S., and that the statements are made for “domestic political purposes.”

U.S. Position: Statements such as those made by Echeverria and other GOM officials are an unnecessary irritant to U.S.-Mexican relations and are not conducive to the cooperative relationship that both we and the Mexicans desire.

Your Talking Points

—We are concerned over public statements made by President Echeverria and other Mexican officials alleging U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Allende and CIA manipulation of Mexican agitators.

—We believe such statements are not conducive to the cooperative relations we both desire.

—We have listened to, but do not really understand, Mexican explanations that such statements are necessary for “domestic political purposes.”

—We are confident that the Mexican Government’s domestic political problems can be taken care of by means other than gratuitous public attacks against the United States.

5. Narcotics Flow from Mexico to the United States

Mexican Position: The GOM believes it is already doing a great deal to cooperate in what it considers a U.S. problem, and is unhappy about its vulnerability to domestic criticism for allowing DEA personnel to operate on Mexican soil.

U.S. Position: The rate of heroin entering the U.S. from Mexico continues at an intolerably high level. Referring to statements by DEA officials, a recent New York Times article criticized the GOM for ineffectiveness, alleged corruption by a “high official” of an important ministry, and claimed that DEA has a list of 70 major Mexican traffickers. The Mexican press reported these allegations and faulted the Mexican Attorney General for permitting U.S. law enforcement officials to operate in Mexico. We hope that our cooperation in narcotics will not be affected by this.

Your Talking Points

—We have a high regard for GOM anti-narcotics efforts, contrary to the impression created by the recent unfortunate articles in the press. We hope that Mexican-United States cooperation will continue.

—(If asked) The DEA Administrator informed us that the so-called “high official” alleged to be corrupt in the press article is actually a medium-level officer working for the Attorney General who has been demoted and removed to a non-sensitive position. The Mexican Attorney General knows of this case. A list of 70 suspected traffickers compiled by DEA was turned over to the Mexican Attorney General on April 24.

6. Legal Rights of U.S. Prisoners

Mexican Position: The treatment of U.S. citizen prisoners is equal or better than that given to Mexicans. They are given every right to due process under Mexican law. Drug trafficking is a serious matter and Mexico is increasing its anti-narcotics effort.

U.S. Position: The growing number (nearly 600) of U.S. citizens imprisoned in Mexico, most of them arrested on narcotics charges, is drawing increasing public attention. We commend Mexico’s anti-narcotics drive, but must make an effort to protect the rights of the prisoners. Many prisoners have sought the aid of relatives and Congressmen and have caught the attention of the press. Although the GOM is concerned with human rights, we sometimes have difficulty obtaining timely consular access to arrested Americans.

Your Talking Points

—We commend Mexico’s anti-narcotics effort and the arrest of traffickers, but in cases involving U.S. citizens insist upon timely consular access.

—Allegations of mistreatment and torture of prisoners in Mexican jails have appeared in the press and a congressional hearing has begun. Timely access to the prisoners will enable us to deal with allegations of mistreatment before they develop into sensational news stories.

—Contrary to provisions of the Mexican Constitution prisoners are sometimes held over a year in pretrial detainment. Such delay is hard to explain to Congressmen concerned with human rights.

1. Summary: In preparation for a May 8 bilateral meeting between Kissinger and Rabasa, Rogers briefed the Secretary on key issues in U.S.-Mexican relations, including the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, verbal attacks on the United States by Mexican officials, narcotics control, the treatment of U.S. prisoners in Mexico, and the Trade Act of 1974.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, ARA/MEX Files: Lot 77D264, POL 7 Emilio O. Rabasa, 1975. Confidential. Drafted by Dreyfuss. No record of a Rabasa-Kissinger meeting on May 8 was found. Rabasa was in Washington for an OASGA meeting.

2. Source: Ibid. Confidential. The New York Times article was published on April 21. (Nicholas Gage, “Latins Now Leaders of Hard-Drug Trade,” New York Times, April 21, 1975, p. 1)