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

347. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Montevideo, January 27, 1976.

PARTICIPANTS

• The Ambassador
• Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Blanco

SUBJECT

• Human Rights

I met with Foreign Minister Blanco today for over an hour at my request. The subject of my call was Human Rights and our discussion was wide-ranging.

I began by telling the Minister that I had come on a delicate subject. I hoped he would understand that I came as a friend of Uruguay and in the best possible spirit to promote continuation of the good relations which traditionally existed between our two countries. I was prompted at this time to raise with him again the subject of human rights by knowledge of the fact that we had been informed that Amnesty International intends to launch an all-out campaign against Uruguay on this subject. I have been given to understand, I said, that this would be the first such campaign directed at a single country. I am told, I said, that they have assembled over 100 pages of “documentation” on reported violations since June 1973 and they claim that this includes 22 deaths by torture. I said the report is apparently to be released soon and to be given broad circulation. I said it was my understanding that the Uruguayan Embassy in Washington is informed of this and that for this reason, perhaps, my information is not news to the government of Uruguay.

I then went on to remind the Minister of the deep moral concern which the U.S. has always had for the rights of individuals because of its open democratic and liberal traditions. Recently, I said, this concern has become even more intensified in the international field because of circumstances and trends in the world today which have led increasingly to violation of the broad principles contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The concern of the American people, I said, has strong echo in the Congress as well as in the Executive Branch, and this subject, which can affect our foreign relations, is becoming a matter of increasing concern to the Department of State.

As U.S. representative in Uruguay, I said, it is my responsibility to inform my government as best I can of the actual situation in this country with respect to human rights. At the same time, as a friend of Uruguay interested in promoting continued good relations, it is also my responsibility, objectively to try to interpret with sympathy and understanding the circumstances under which the government of Uruguay is trying to deal with its problems. I have done this, I said, together with my associates in an even-handed manner which has, I believe, given the Department of State a true, unbiased and objective picture of the situation (in which propagandistic distortions and exaggerations have been filtered out), and an accurate appreciation of the forces which have created the situation in Uruguay today characterized by a setting aside of many traditional institutions, liberties and guarantees. The serious problem is, I said, that even looked at from the most objective and considerate point of view one cannot escape the fact that violations do occur. I noted for example, that in the GOU’s current campaign to counter and expose military, financial and political activities of the communist party several hundred people have apparently been arrested. It is commonly believed, I said (and confirmed to me by direct knowledge of at least one individual case that I have), that persons taken in this round-up are taken in a manner which must give concern to human rights. Typically, I said, they are taken from their homes without warning and thereafter simply disappear. Their families do not know where they are or what their circumstances may be. In one case that I am familiar with the family was finally told, after several weeks, that if they wished to send clothing and small personal items, they could do so;—but they were not told of the prisoner’s whereabouts or welfare. Such a situation can apparently persist for weeks or months, I said. It is to be assumed, I said, that such people are not arraigned before a judge nor are they, at least at this stage of their detention, given access to legal advice and assistance. Even more disturbing, I said, are widespread reports that such detainees are typically covered immediately with a capucho and that during interrogation they may be subjected to other forms of pressure including water immersion, the constant playing of loud volume music in their cells, being forced to stand on their toes for protracted periods, and threats of physical abuse. Quite apart from the question of physical torture, about which I have heard no direct reports, it is clear if there is truth in these allegations, human rights in general, as they are commonly understood, are being ignored and psychological torture, at the very least, is being applied not only to the prisoners but also to their families. I acknowledged that while the picture I was painting was a grim one, it did appear that physical torture, which is commonly believed to have occurred during the height of the anti-Tupamaros campaign is uncommon if it occurs at all and that this, presumably, reflects more rigid controls by the GOU. However, I said, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the lesser, but still harsh, procedures I had described must at least be condoned by GOU officials and military/police high commands.

We briefly discussed AI and I was frank in telling the Minister that I had found the style of some AI reports to be propagandistic in tone rather than judicious and even-handed, and their content, as regard Uruguay, sometimes shockingly exaggerated. On the other hand, I said, I also know that they have attacked communist countries and others for human rights violations. AI, I said, is generally considered humanely inspired although many believe that they see political motivation and manipulation behind it. In summary I told the Minister that there is no question on that the forthcoming report of AI is going to focus attention once again on the situation in Uruguay and that this kind of attention could have repercussions harmful to our good relations, especially since, even when the distortions are filtered out, this will still remain a considerable residue of truth. Undoubtedly, I said, such a report would generate strong interest in Congress in knowing exactly what the situation is here. It could generate interest in the media as well and there might be a greater than unusual number of foreign correspondents visiting Uruguay to study this situation. There could then be, I said, pressure for U.N. action or for study visits by such organizations as the Red Cross, the Human Rights Committee of the OAS and perhaps by AI and the ICJ. How Uruguay would react, and the degree of openness with which it would be willing to give its side of the story, and perhaps, to prove it by permitting visitations would be greatly important.

But most important of all, I said, is the urgency for Uruguay to take steps now to eliminate such abuses as do occur. In this regard I suggested that the Uruguayan Government, which seems to me to have the understanding and support of the overwhelming majority of the Uruguayan people, should have more confidence in itself and be more open in its actions in this area. I said that we have always assumed on the basis of our analysis that crude violations and torture did not reflect the true policy of the political leaders of this government or military and police high command; there is, however, evidence already described that other questionable practices appear to be condoned. We also had been led to believe that the Council of State charged with a vigilance obligation in this area had been working to good effect and was itself convinced that it was promptly informed of new arrests so that it could guarantee the rights of individuals. Recent experience, I said, seems to suggest that this system has at least for the moment broken down. I suggested that it would be helpful if the Uruguayan Government would see to it that clear instructions forbidding inhumane treatment are given from the top of the government and through the military hierarchy, and move to provide for disciplinary action if they are violated.

The Minister listened most attentively to all of this. In his own response he started by saying that he perfectly understood and appreciated my motives in coming to him and the frankness with which I had spoken. He said he considered this an act of friendship and that he would discuss in detail the whole thing with President Bordaberry.

He then went on to say that I was absolutely right in the view that the use of torture is not the policy of the government or of the military or police high command. He said it is probably true, however, that the system of information established by the Council of State has recently broken down. He hoped that I would understand that what he was about to say was in no way intended to justify torture which must be condemned in all circumstances—it was intended however to explain why the system of detention without notice is in fact practiced in Uruguay today.

He then described in some detail his theory of the “Third World War” which he believes is now underway. Nuclear stalemate, and even the impossibility of conventional warfare which carries within it the potential for escalation to nuclear exchange, has produced the policy of détente and all of its implications between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But this, he said, had caused warfare of a different type to break out on a widespread front. This, he said, is the warfare involving the international communist apparatus which seeks to exploit any discontent and any opening that it can, anywhere in the world, to promote its long-range purpose of winning out over the democratic, free and non-communist world. In a place such as Uruguay, this took the form of communist providing the Tupamaros (who at the outset had no political content or plan of government) with a conceptual framework within which to operate. And in his mind, he said, this is what amounts to an international conspiracy, backed by communism to carry out this battle on a worldwide front.

The Government of Uruguay, in accordance with this theory and the evidence of it which they have had all too greatly at hand, actually considers itself at war with these forces. The purpose, he said, of the arrest system which is in practice, and including the holding of prisoners incomunicado for protracted periods, to benefit by the advantages of cross interrogation. On first interrogation a certain prisoner may not reveal much of value; but something said by another may lead to reinterrogation which will produce something of value and promote a picture of the workings of the apparatus. This is, he acknowledged, inconsistent with a system of prompt arraignment and trial of detainees but is believed to be justified by the threat faced. In all situations of warfare, he said, acts viewed from the perspective of those at peace appear to be monstrous. He then repeated with conviction, however, that physical torture of detainees is against GOU policy, not knowingly condoned by it and that it occurs at all it is very rare. He acknowledged, again, however, the other forms of pressure which I had described do exist.

After the Minister had replied I repeated my concern that the spotlight for human rights violations is going to focus on Uruguay; that however exaggerated it might be, the residual truth of practices inconsistent with the Human Rights declaration will put great pressure on the U.S. to take some stand on this issue. I told him that I for one did not believe that any form of pressure by governments in this field is likely to be effective; probably just the reverse, whereas quiet, understanding diplomatic representations might be productive. But I felt it my duty to point out that recent legislation did call for some action where “gross violation” is judged to exist. What “gross violation” might be, I said, is hard to define.

It is my hope, I said, as well as my government’s hope that the government of Uruguay would act with all promptness in such a way as to eliminate those violations as may occur, and would act with increasing openness. I said that I could appreciate his theory of the “Third World War” but that this clearly had in it the seeds of a self-serving justification of long-range repression. In all my observations of current evidence and of history, I said, it has been made clear that long-term repression ultimately ends in an exaggerated exploitation of freedom, once the repression is eased, and that this seems to give advantage to those against whom the repression was aimed all along. I called attention to current events in Portugal and in Spain in this regard. I expressed the hope that the Government of Uruguay, being sufficiently confident in itself, in the support of the people and in its own authority, would take steps to restore respect for individual freedoms generally and for the humane treatment of detainees especially. Having at this time, I said, what appears to me to be the overwhelming support of the Uruguayan people as well as the requisite authority, the necessary steps could be taken with minimum threat to internal security and the long-range restorative objectives of the government which, I said, I was convinced are aimed at defending cherished traditions of the Uruguayan people.

The meeting ended on the most friendly terms with the Minister again repeating his appreciation of my having come to him and his promise to discuss the whole issue with President Bordaberry. I told him that I would be glad if he or the President thought it to be useful to discuss the issue with the President himself.²

1. Summary: Siracusa and Blanco discussed human rights.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840001–0333. Confidential. Drafted by Siracusa. The meeting took place at the Foreign Ministry. The memorandum of conversation was sent to Ingersoll under a March 4 covering memorandum from Rogers and Wilson, summarizing Siracusa’s approach as “quiet diplomacy” and noting that it had been commended by Rogers. Siracusa was scheduled to meet with Ingersoll on March 10. A briefing memorandum for that meeting, which describes human rights as the “one potentially significant issue” in U.S.-Uruguayan bilateral relations, is in the National Archives, RG 59, HA Country Files 1977, Lot 80D177, Human Rights Uruguay—1976.

2. January 28, 1976. Foreign Minister Blanco telephoned me this morning. He said he had had a long and thorough discussion with the President of the meeting which I had had with him yesterday. He said the President, like himself, wanted me to know that he clearly understood and appreciated the friendly spirit which had motivated my action on this subject and that he thanked me for it. [Footnote is in the source text.]