295. Memorandum of Conversation1
SUBJECT
- Secretary Kissinger’s Meeting With Peruvian Foreign Minister de la Flor
PARTICIPANTS
-
Peruvian Delegation
- General Miguel Angel de la Flor, Minister of Foreign Relations
- Ambassador Luis Marchand, Undersecretary for Foreign Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Mr. Oscar Faura, Interpreter
-
US Delegation
- Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger
- Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Jack Kubisch
- Legal Adviser Carlyle Maw
- Donald Barnes, Interpreter
- David E. Zweifel, Second Secretary, US Embassy
HAK: Mr. Minister, everyone has told me that you will be my biggest problem.
Fon Min de la Flor: And what do you say?
HAK: I tell them that you were the first Latin Foreign Minister I spoke to in New York and that we got along very well.
[Page 784]Fon Min de la Flor: Yes indeed. And I want to reiterate and make formal the invitation I extended to you in New York to visit my country.
HAK: I accept with great pleasure. When I visit Latin America, Peru will be among the first of my stops. I will not visit all countries, but only will go to 4 or 5 including Peru.
Fon Min de la Flor: When will this be?
HAK: I do not know for sure. Much depends on the President. I hope it will be in the Spring.
Fon Min de la Flor: That would be a good time—it will be Autumn in Peru. You travel a lot.
HAK: All the time.
Fon Min de la Flor: I want you to know that we sincerely hope you will come. As I told Assistant Secretary Kubisch, such a visit enables one to get to know a country and its people.
HAK: If you will take one or two of my trips to the Middle East, I will come immediately. (laughter) Compared to the Arabs, Latin Americans have a Scandanavian temperament.
Fon Min de la Flor: You mean we are colder than the Arabs?
HAK: Yes, you are colder than the Arabs but warmer than we are. I like the Latin temperament.
Fon Min de la Flor: We are very emotional, but motivated by humanism. We have a very constructive attitude. Probably we talk too much and do too little. In fact, I told my colleagues this afternoon that we had talked 3 hours without having accomplished anything.
HAK: Don’t feel you are alone. We had a 3-day Energy Conference with European and US participation last week. At the end, I was not sure what we had discussed.
Fon Min de la Flor: I hope this meeting does not end the same way.
HAK: I have come with the full expectation and determination that this meeting succeed. We will not be able to satisfy all your desires. I do not want to promise anything on which we cannot deliver. On some issues we will not be able to meet your positions. Nonetheless, we will consider your opinions very seriously.
Fon Min de la Flor: Having arrived at this point, may I comment that great expectations have been aroused concerning what will come out of this meeting—both on the part of the press and the public. We believe that all of these expectations center on your contribution, especially what you can say on our eight points and on the two which you have raised. We don’t want this to be a repetition of just one more meaningless conference like the many that have taken place in the past.
HAK: What we have to avoid is a high-sounding proclamation, followed by no action.
[Page 785]Fon Min de la Flor: Exactly.
HAK: We must design a program to work on for years to come. I want you to know that I have brought one of the highest-ranking US delegations to attend such a conference in years. My purpose is to create an atmosphere of unity and direction so that the public in the US will come to take Latin American relations very seriously. Besides a program per se, we must create a new spirit of equal partnership; that is what I wish to bring about.
Fon Min de la Flor: I know Mr. Secretary, that you have studied all of our eight points very carefully. I would like to ask if, in your public address tomorrow, you plan to treat all of the eight points equally, or will you emphasize some more than others?
HAK: I will deal with all in some detail. In my speech tomorrow I will not refer to them simply as “your points”, but will give an answer; otherwise the press will say this is just another platitudinous speech. At the same time my Latin American colleagues are so temperamental that they will attack me whatever I say (laughter). What do you think?
Fon Min de la Flor: If you express your points of view publicly, the Latin Americans will have to respond publicly. If you refer to the points in your speech and a member of the media then asks my opinion, I must give it. If your speech is very general, the press can attack it as being only a repetition of previous statements of goodwill. If it is too detailed, you then will have committed yourself publicly to a position that you will have to defend in private. You will have to choose between those points you address in public as opposed to those you want to make in private. The press can misinterpret your remarks—we all know how the press is.
HAK: I will have to consider your recommendation. What we need in the US is public support for a new policy. If I speak only in generalities, the people here will be disappointed and people in the US will say that it has been “just another meeting”. If I make good proposals, you, of course, will agree with me.
Fon Min de la Flor: If your proposals are good I would have to recognize it. The problem is that we face the possibility of real frustration since it has been so long since we have met. Another possibility (as I mentioned to Assistant Secretary Kubisch) is that many Latin Americans will not agree on your proposals. A third possibility is that the US will be seen as leading Latin America just as she has done in the past—paternalism. I can tell you that the press will be very harsh if you deal only with points of interest to the US and not with others. Hence, on the eight points, your opinions will have tremendous import for the future of Latin America.
Peru’s position has never been one of confrontation or friction with the US. Our position is a realistic one of a people in transition, seeking [Page 786] maturity. We are humanists. We are faced with problems such as the role of foreign capital in our economy; this is important in discussing your desire to change the basis for US-Latin American relations. I repeat: ours is a firm, non-violent position which we maintain with our heads held high. Although there are seeming contradictions in our two governments’ policies which might be misinterpreted, we know that if and when we find ourselves in opposition, we shall be frank, sincere, and friendly.
HAK: And tough! (laughter)
Fon Min de la Flor: Ambassador Marchand has just handed me a very apt phrase—“Mental colonialism is as dangerous as imperialism”.
HAK: As we seek to move from a position of domination to one of cooperation, we do so not as a favor to you but as a recognition of the times. If the US tries to lead Latin America by the hand, we will exhaust ourselves. Such an attitude is incompatible with our objectives. Either we will bring about a cooperative spirit between peoples of dignity or the Latin community will disintegrate with each country going its own way. This is the choice which faces us.
In regard to concrete items, I have to tell you frankly that I have studied your paper on such issues as economic coercion, and that we cannot move to your position. I will suggest some ways in which we might handle future disputes. At the same time, I want you to know that whatever we promise we will achieve. You will not agree with all we offer. I ask you to look at the direction in which we are moving as well as at the specifics we propose. You will find this in my speech.
Fon Min de la Flor: I appreciate that. I also know you won’t promise to eliminate all legislative restrictions. This is out of your hands. However, if you convince us that you understood our position and are willing to make your maximum effort along these lines, we will be satisfied.
HAK: This is exactly what I will do, but can I do so publicly?
Fon Min de la Flor: If you do state such a position publicly, I immediately will back you up on it.
HAK: I will do this.
Fon Min de la Flor: We have just signed a very important bilateral agreement. We very much wanted to sign it before this meeting.
HAK: In fact you went home to sign it.
Fon Min de la Flor: That is why I can appreciate your travels (laughter). Moving from this agreement, I see an improvement in our relations. However, there are still points which endanger even better relations. I refer to the tuna issue—specifically the Pelly Amendment. So long as this exists we will have difficulty in moving smoothly to truly harmonious relations.
HAK: We can—although not publicly—as long as our present laws exist, and considering that we have put our relations on a new basis, [Page 787] make sure that the laws will be applied in the most flexible manner. As we move from confrontation to trust, I will do what I can to alleviate the legal obstacles.
Fon Min de la Flor: Would you like a whiskey?
HAK: No thank you. I must go. I must work on my speech.
Fon Min de la Flor: You spoke of cooperation. For us this is vital. We have made a proposal which you may have seen—I refer to a system for collective economic security. This has two aspects: one is a program which would operate in such cases as natural disaster and would provide for collective effort to reduce the repeated calls for bilateral and unilateral assistance. The other aspect is for collective action in situations such as the present scarcity of resources. We would propose that we meet, review the situation, and then take positions which place full value on Latin American views.
HAK: For foreseeable problems, consultation is essential. We sometimes differ, especially when you insist that we have an obligation to act rather than that we act voluntarily. This is a matter of principle, not action. Assistant Secretary Kubisch is having a heart attack. He thinks I am antagonizing you (laughter).
Fon Min de la Flor: I understand fully. I also am frank. It is the only way for non-diplomats to understand each other.
HAK: I already told Jack Kubisch that the only way I could enter the State Department was as Secretary. I am not qualified for any other entry (laughter).
Fon Min de la Flor: Really, we don’t pretend to set forth precise obligations; at the same time the US does have an obligation towards Latin America.
HAK: Moral but not legal.
Mr. Kubisch: Furthermore, our people and our Congress would not accept any legal obligation.
Fon Min de la Flor: At least you should refrain from measures which retard development.
HAK: We must do better, we must contribute on a long-term systematic basis. You will see tomorrow.
Mr. Kubisch: We should go.
HAK: I have an appointment for which I am late.
Fon Min de la Flor: Two more small points. Will you say anything on Cuba?
HAK: I will be very frank. Cuba is primarily a domestic problem within the US. From a foreign policy point of view, a government which can deal with Peking can deal with Havana. What I am trying to do is to create a new spirit. If we mix in our discussion too much [Page 788] talk about Cuba, this will lead to a domestic (US) debate on the wrong issue. This does not mean that I am asking you to change your view at all. I hope this is not our last meeting. I ask that the Cuba issue be deferred for a later time. I will not mention Cuba in my speech. My opposition is not dogmatic. I hope you will not repeat what I have said to others.
Fon Min de la Flor: Today we received with great satisfaction one of your statements in which you referred to “convivencia pacifica”. Some Latins may not realize that we must cooperate for development. I think your phrase is significant. This, plus the frank talk we have had is most encouraging. I think you should repeat the phrase in your speech.
HAK: I will include it.
(The Secretary rose and took leave of Minister de la Flor.)
-
Summary: Kissinger and de la Flor discussed regional issues and the dispute over fishing rights.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P820043–2412. Confidential; Nodis. Drafted by Zweifel; cleared by Kubisch; approved by Bremer on February 21. The meeting took place in the Foreign Minister’s suite in the Hotel Camino Real. Kissinger and de la Flor were in Mexico City for a meeting of the hemisphere’s Foreign Ministers. The meeting followed a November 14–16, 1973, Latin American Foreign Ministers Conference in Bogotá that approved eight points as the “bases for a new dialogue between Latin America and the United States”: cooperation for development, prevention of coercive economic measures, restructuring the inter-American system, solution of the Panama Canal question, restructuring the international commerce and monetary systems, compelling multinational enterprises to respect the sovereignty of their host nations, transfer of technology, and a reconsideration of the general panorama of relations between Latin America and the United States. (Telegram 9438 from Bogotá, November 17, 1973; ibid., [no film number]) Kissinger’s Mexico City speech is in the Department of State Bulletin, March 18, 1974, pp. 257–262.
↩