286. Telegram 311 From the Consulate in the Netherlands Antilles to the Department of State1
311. Subject: Secvisit LA: Memorandum of Conversation—the Secretary and Foreign Minister de la Flor of Peru. Secto 176.
1. Secretary of State met with Foreign Minister Gen. Brig. Miguel Angel de La Flor Valle at the Foreign Ministry on May 16, 1973 at 9:45 a.m. Participants were US side: the Secretary, Under Secretary Casey, Mr. Kubisch, Mr. Pedersen, Ambassador Belcher and Interpreter; Peruvian side: Foreign Minister De La Flor, Acting Secretary General Ambassador Juan Jose Calle y Calle, Peruvian Ambassador to the U.S. Fernando Berckemeyer, Director of Economic Affairs Ambassador Juan de la Piedra Villalonga, Director of Protocol Ambassador Guillermo [Page 767] Lohmann Villena, and Director of Public Relations Minister Igor Velazquez Rodriguez.
2. After the customary exchange of pleasantries the Secretary referred to press reports concerning who invited whom. He said he asked to come, and was very pleased to be here to discuss our problems. The Foreign Minister in his opening remarks referred to both President Nixon’s and the Secretary’s recent statements with regard to U.S. policy towards Latin America and noted that they emphasized a search for new dimensions in our relationships and a particular desire to eradicate paternalism. He said he had been very encouraged by President Nixon’s recent message to Congress and considered the references to Latin America most positive. He also expressed appreciation for the Secretary’s arrival comments. In particular as they indicated an appreciation of the revolutionary process in Peru and accepted Peru’s nationalistic approach to its problems. He looked forward to the Secretary’s visit as an opportunity to draw on the basic good will that exists on both sides to solve some of our outstanding problems. He hoped that during his visit the Secretary would have a chance to come to know of Peru’s successes as well as its problems and that perhaps he would see that the revolutionary process here was really a sui generis case. He felt that much information about Peru reached the United States in a distorted form and indeed some of the reporting had been done maliciously.
3. Secretary Rogers said that he thought that perhaps there existed in Peru a misconception of U.S. policy and that it should be clear to all that, as he had stated on arrival, we fully recognize Peruvian sovereignty and the Peruvian rights to opt for any system to solve its problems and that this was the system of government which we would be prepared to deal with. The fact was that we supported the concept of ideological pluralism. Each nation should decide for itself as to its relations with other nations. In these relations there obviously must be a mutality of interest. As far as the U.S. was concerned much depended on whether the other country was friendly or hostile towards US and in this instance the Secretary said he was thinking specifically in terms of Cuba. If a country’s attitude was hostile we would find it difficult to respond with friendly overtures. However, in the case of Peru, there was a tradition of friendship going back to the days of independence and we hoped to build on that basis of friendship and good will to improve our relations. It was for this reason that President Nixon had asked him to come to Peru. Since the U.S. has been able to improve its relations with adversaries such as the Soviets and the Chinese. There was certainly no reason we could not accomplish the same thing with our friends. The Secretary said that he hoped sincerely that, in the speed and the manner in which Peru desired, we would be successful in improving our relationships.
[Page 768]4. The Foreign Minister agreed fully with the Secretary. Certainly traditional friends should be able to settle their differences and there was both the will and the intent on the Peruvian side, with mutual respect and taking into account our respective interests. He said Peru was looking for a new system on which to base its further development and a more equitable sharing of the country’s wealth. He recognized that no country could be fully “independent” in the strict sense of the word. These days this term was a relative one. Peru needs help from abroad and despite its nationalistic attitude, it needs U.S. investment. Unfortunately in any revolutionary process vested interests are adversely affected. Unfortunately in some cases reactions to the Peruvian revolutionary program have resulted in confrontations and obviously a great effort was needed to overcome the results of such confrontations and arrive at solution to existing problems. The Foreign Minister said that in view of the great contrasts between our two countries, issues which were of tremendous impact in Peru were of relatively little importance to the United States and we should appreciate that at times Peruvian reactions might seem stronger than what would be the case in the United States. If the United States wants to help Peru in its development process and if it appreciates the new efforts being made by the government of Peru in this connection, then the United States should try to be measured in its reaction to events in Peru.
5. The Foreign Minister then turned to the question of security and spoke of the need for the U.S. to take Latin America into greater consideration when thinking of its own national security. He felt that the success of development efforts in Latin America was vital to the U.S. and that we should appreciate the fact that if social unrest becomes rampant in this area, the United States cannot consider that its Southern flank is secure.
6. The Secretary said the he could make a number of comments on the Foreign Minister’s observations but that he was in basic agreement. He accepted the fact that there were divergencies between the developed and developing nations and that the GOP should appreciate that our’s is a very complex system with a built-in balance of powers in the federal government and an influential private sector. He pointed out, nevertheless that despite our differences over the IPC expropriation, when the earthquake disaster hit Peru all these sectors moved together to extend help to the people affected by the catastrophe. In referring to the Hickenlooper amendment the Secretary said it had been his decision not to apply it. He hoped that the minister would understand that this was a most serious move on his part and that in making such decision all the various interests involved had to be taken into account. The Secretary said that ever since World War II the people [Page 769] of the United States had been helping other countries, even including our former enemies. We did so because it seemed the right thing to do. What we need and hope for is a little more understanding of our internal problems in extending the help that we would like to give to developing nations. With regard to security he agreed that great contrasts of wealth and poverty within a country could lead to instability. The Secretary pointed out, however, that until very recently the real threat to the security of the world was the strained relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and China. We and the Soviets as nuclear powers could easily destroy the world. Fortunately we had been successful in significantly improving our relations with both the Soviet Union and China, and now we could turn with much greater attention to the problem represented by the developing nations.
7. At this point the meeting in the foreign office ended in order to visit President Velasco.
-
Summary: Rogers and de la Flor discussed U.S.-Peruvian relations, and U.S. policy towards Latin America.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files, 1970–1973, ORG 7 S. Confidential; Immediate. Repeated for information to Lima. In Rogers’s conversation with Velasco, Velasco discussed the reasons behind his 1968 military coup and the Peruvian Revolution, and U.S. policy with regard to Peruvian requests for loans from IFIs. (Telegram 1736 from Rio de Janeiro, May 19; ibid.) President Nixon’s May 3 report to Congress is printed in the Department of State Bulletin, June 4, 1973, p. 717 Rogers’s remarks about Latin America can be found ibid., June 25, 1973, pp. 903–927.
↩