308. Telegram 4291 From the Embassy in Peru to the Department of State1

4291. Subj: Ambassador Meets With Foreign Minister.

1. Foreign Minister de la Flor called Ambassador to Ministry on May 22 for one and a half hour conversation. While principal topic discussed was civil air problem (septel), meeting touched on several other aspects of U.S./Peruvian relations.

2. Two U.S. protests to GOP:

A. Minister referred to two recent protests U.S. has made to GOP, the first on GOP effort to hold preliminary rump session without U.S. participation prior to OASGA, and the second over GOP’s fulsome congratulations to Viet Cong for their victory over “imperialism.” Both cases, he said, were instances of overreaction by a big, developed country to plausible moves by a small, less developed country. Nothing sinister should have been read into Peru’s effort to call meeting preliminary to OASGA; purpose was to get Latins to talk matters over among themselves (“you know how Latins are—we like to talk.”), and to undertake some advance preparation for session so that subsequent formal meetings would be more businesslike and productive. Unfortunately, U.S. officials do not understand Latin mentality (sic) and so misinterpreted Peru’s efforts.

B. Turning to U.S. protest over GOP’s Viet Cong recognition, de la Flor said that Acting Director General de la Puente had telephoned him that same night (May 9) to tell him of Ambassador’s démarche. Minister said protest caught him completely by surprise, since he had been with Secretary Kissinger both that day and the day before, and the Secretary had made no mention of it. De la Flor granted that subject was raised during his meeting with Secretary the next day. Minister went on to defend GOP action, noting that it is consistent with GOP’s third world policy and does not mean that GOP shares communist ideology. Noting the timing of the two U.S. protests, de la Flor commented that démarche on Viet Cong recognition was probably result [Page 834] of U.S. unhappiness over Peru’s preliminary OAS meeting and would not otherwise have been made. Ambassador said this not the case and drew Minister’s attention to our similar protest to India. U.S. could be expected to make similar protest in all cases in which other countries glorify victory of communism over nations we have befriended.

3. Gulf expropriation: de la Flor said he had been disturbed by questions asked him in Washington as to whether Gulf expropriation was in response to two U.S. protests. This of course not the case. Expropriation was separate development in which, for quite distinct reasons, Peru felt it must act as it did. Minister said he had also been asked why there had been no prior consultation with U.S. This, he said, was because decision had been made in Cabinet meeting and there had been no time to consult. (Note: here Minister contradicted Acting Secretary General de la Puente, who had earlier told Ambassador that decision to expropriate was taken shortly after May 2 revelation of Gulf bribery actions.) Minister then complained that U.S. press in typical fashion had treated expropriation as confiscation; this is not the case and Peru intends make full compensation. De la Flor commented he was used to poor treatment at hands of U.S. press, but this to be expected considering fact that he dealt with difficult issues such as Cuba.

4. Peruvian press treatment of U.S.: Ambassador said that one element contributing to mood de la Flor found in Washington is that USG and business community have become sensitized by constant barrage of anti-U.S. statements on part of Peruvian press and some GOP officials. De la Flor responded that U.S. should not be so thin-skinned. After all, Press is made up of many different elements ranging all the way to Trotskyites, and these elements state their opinions freely, sometimes to the offense of other countries. U.S. is not alone. In one ten-day period, de la Flor recalled, he had received protests from the U.S., the USSR, Argentina, Chile and Yugoslavia. Ambassador responded that one big difference is that attacks on U.S. are constant and unending. De la Flor demurred, but was silent when Ambassador asked him if he could cite one recent article favorable toward United States.

5. U.S./Peruvian relations: Ambassador said that as practical matter Peru should seek to cool rhetoric in Press and by public officials while two countries seek to resolve issues between them. There are aftter all many areas of cooperation. Here Ambassador mentioned recent $20-million FMS credit, hot ship destroyer transfer, sale of A–37B’s and APC’s, forthcoming U.S. attitude at recent Paris meeting of World Bank consultative group, U.S. aid program, etc. De la Flor listened careflly but noted that U.S. has not responded to Peru’s request to buy more APC’s. Ambassador pointed out that request not rejected but remains under study, and if approved Peru now had credits with which to buy them. De la Flor commented that this is all very well, but that U.S. also gives military aid, [Page 835] and perhaps more of it, to Chile. Ambassador said the reverse was true—Peru is receiving aid, but Chile will not. Minister responded, “ah, but there are ways.”

6. Tension with Chile: Ambassador expressed mild surprise at de la Flor’s concern over arms purchases by Chile. He said it was his impression that Peru had made considerable progress in effort to defuse tension with Chile. Here Ambassador referred to President Velasco’s disarmament initiative, Ayacucho declaration, subsequent disarmament meetings, gestures of friendship on Peruvian/Chilean border, etc. These efforts appear to have achieved good results, and Peru is to be congratulated. De la Flor seemed pleased and mollified.

7. Visit to U.S. of Commerce Minister Arias: Ambassador asked de la Flor about Arias visit to Washington. Minister replied that Arias had told him he “had very good visit” and had remarked favorably on calls at Agriculture and Commerce. Ambassador asked why Arias had cancelled scheduled appointments at State and Treasury as well as New York visit. De la Flor said he was under impression Arias had completed Washington visit; when Ambassador said this not in fact the case, de la Flor said he “didn’t know about that”, but that Arias was exhausted by his long European trip and therefore not up to visiting New York. (Comment: this lame excuse was the only one de la Flor had for Arias’ failure to complete his program. We are puzzled by Arias’ action and cannot yet account for it.)

Dean
  1. Summary: De la Flor and Dean discussed regional and bilateral issues, including recent U.S. protests to the Peruvian Government and the expropriation of Gulf Oil.

    Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D750182–0564. Confidential; Priority. In telegram 3973 from Lima, May 14, the Embassy reported that Peru perhaps expropriated Gulf Oil in order to strengthen its credentials in the region and the Third World, and that the expropriation could be adopted by other countries as a precedent. (Ibid., D750169–0967) In telegram 4294 from Lima, May 23, the Embassy reported on the portion of the Dean-de la Flor conversation relating to civil aviation issues. (Ibid., D750182–0601)