Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–11, Part 2, Documents on South America, 1973–1976

342. Letter from Russell E. Olson, Political Officer of the Embassy in Uruguay to Aurelia A. Brazeal, Country Officer for Uruguay and Paraguay, ARA–LA/APU¹

Montevideo, August 8, 1975.

Dear Rea:

The Ambassador, Jim Haahr and I discussed your letter of July 29 in some depth. Inasmuch as it arrived only yesterday I will provide herein only a partial response thereto. And yes, we will review A–23 with a mind to up-dating where appropriate.

With respect to the past we believe we have done a good job. We have monitored the situation, reported accurately and completely the information available, provided perspective (not apologies) and made U.S. views and concerns known to the GOU from lower levels up to the President himself. On the operational side we (and a GAO team) took an in-depth look at MAP and found that we were doing nothing which might contribute to police-type activities or capabilities. At the same time the GAO concluded that when the Public Safety program was terminated no facet of it was being carried on through any type of subterfuge.

With respect to the future we have been and will be continuing to follow leads and compile information with which to keep the Department informed. However, Rea, we cannot put the Embassy in the position of becoming a policing or investigatory agency pursuing every rumor of human rights violations without jeopardizing our larger mission. To really pursue what would amount to investigations would be counterproductive as the resentment here would be intense, not because of fear for what might be uncovered but because it would be considered unjust foreign intervention not in keeping with proper relations between friendly states. As you put it so well in the May 10 Luers to Kessler memo, do we really want to disassociate ourselves from a friendly government? I might add, particularly in a case when abuses probably are minimal compared with many other states and where we have limited leverage to begin with. In summary, we have a larger mission here which we do not wish to jeopardize.

The foregoing in no way affects the substance of what we do but rather the tactics we employ. We will keep the GOU well informed as to our position and will gather information but we will tread carefully in gathering it.

That which follows is an off the top of the head response to the questions in para 5 of your letter.

You ask whether more extreme treatment of prisoners is taking place. Assuming that there was physical abuse of prisoners in the past, the answer is no. Are more subversives—economic and political—being arrested? In the sense of continuing arrests, yes. In the sense of a higher volume of arrests, no. We believe that the number of arrests has diminished greatly. On the economic side the only case in months was Ramon Diaz who was held a few days, was released, and immediately returned to publishing his economic journal. Political arrests, per se, are also down to virtually nothing. I can think of none recently. The arrests of subversives, in this case those who are distributing communist propaganda, painting walls and the like, continue. However, there is not a great deal of such activity so there are not many arrests—compared with a few years ago.

There is some torture of prisoners. We are quite sure that a prisoner died on July 31 as a result of mistreatment and that the Minister of Interior has ordered an internal investigation. We believe it to be an isolated case and absolutely contrary to policy and intent.

The Council of State Human Rights Committee is functioning. It does receive reports (confidential) on all arrests of subversives. How effective it is I don’t know. We have several friends on the committee and will ferret this out soon.

Censorship exists. It is not “creeping” or evolving from the decree to seize communist literature in the mail.

I know of no pattern concerning persons being released. Some leave the country voluntarily and others stay, get jobs and move back into society. Many others are given provisional releases before their time is up and re-enter society. Psychologically this is tough because I assume they live in constant fear of being picked up again. On the other hand it probably is no worse than a U.S. prisoner on probation who happens to draw a particularly tough probation officer who looks for any pretext to re-commit him.

With respect to Aresmendi I do not know the condition of his release. It may have amounted to voluntary expulsion if that’s not a conflict in terms. Michelini may just have rushed off to Argentina without a passport (Uruguayans often use just their cedulas to travel there) and may not have even tried to obtain a passport at the Uruguayan Embassy in BA. We do not know.

I repeat, the foregoing is off the top of my head. We will up-date A–23 with the best information available and it will be authoritative as this is not.

Must rush to get this in the pouch. Will keep you posted.

Sincerely,

Russell E. Olson

1. Summary: Olson responded to Brazeal’s queries on the Embassy’s practices regarding human rights and on the human rights situation in Uruguay.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840001–0317. Confidential. The July 29 letter from Brazeal to Olson has not been found. “A–23” refers to a March 8 airgram entitled “Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Uruguay.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P750047–1488)