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

353. Telegram 154322 From the Department of State to the Embassy in Uruguay¹

Washington, June 22, 1976, 1803Z.

154322. Subject: Discussion With Wilson Ferreira on Human Rights in Uruguay.

1. Uruguayan ex-Senator Wilson Ferreira, accompanied by his son, Juan, and a friend, Louise Popkin of New York, called on Deputy Assistant Secretary Luers on June 19. George Lister and Jack Smith of ARA were also present.

2. Ferreira began by complaining about the difficulty he experienced in obtaining a U.S. visa at the American Embassy in London. He said the consular officer seemed to assume he must be a communist since he was living in exile. He said the consular officer insisted on confirmation that he had been invited to testify before a congressional committee, which implied that in the absence of such an invitation he would have been denied a visa. He noted that he had no difficulty obtaining a visa in Buenos Aires for his trip to the U.S. last November. Mr. Smith explained that it is easier for the Embassy in London to issue visas to residents of the U.K. than to non-residents.

3. Ferreira said he considered the American Embassy in Montevideo to be “our enemy”, because it acts as the representative of the GOU. He said the Embassy intervenes in internal Uruguayan affairs and when it does so, it intervenes “against us.” An example of this intervention occurred during the political crisis of last May. On this occasion, he said, Ambassador Siracusa personally approached a number of generals to urge them to support Economy Minister Vegh Villegas. Mr. Smith pointed out that Ambassador Siracusa was not in Uruguay during the May 1975 crisis, but in the U.S. Ferreira said the Embassy was just as bad when the Ambassador was away as when he was there.

4. Ferreira accused the USG of misrepresenting the facts with respect to the human rights situation in Uruguay. He said members of his party had close contact with officers of the Embassy in Montevideo, who expressed to his representatives their “horror” at the human rights situation in Uruguay. The Embassy’s recommendation to his son that he not resume residence in Uruguay after his last U.S. trip confirmed that the Embassy was aware of the seriousness of the human rights situation. In its public statements, however, such as Ambassador Siracusa’s letter to the Washington Post and various letters from the Department to members of Congress, the USG appears to be defending the GOU and thus signals to the GOU that it does not need to improve. Mr. Luers replied that in our public statements we have never asserted that the human rights situation was satisfactory in Uruguay and that in our private discussions with the Uruguayan authorities we have continually pressured them to improve.

5. Ferreira said the GOU was responsible for the deaths of ex-Parliamentarians Michelini and Gutierrez Ruiz because it had told the GOA that they were Tupamaros and had asked for their expulsion from Argentina. In April, Foreign Minister Blanco had made a trip to Buenos Aires for the sole purpose of requesting their expulsion. He said the Peron Government had decreed Michelini’s expulsion about a year ago, but he had appealed the order and the appeal was never decided. On April 29, 1976, the Argentine military government issued another order for Michelini’s expulsion, but for reasons that are not clear, Michelini was never notified of this order. He said the fact that Michelini and Gutierrez were held for several days before being killed and the fact that they were not tortured, i.e., not interrogated, means that the operation was directed from Montevideo. The GOU would have no reason to have them interrogated, since it knew they were not Tupamaros and thus would have nothing to tell.

6. Ferreira said the plans for Michelini’s proposed trip to the U.S. last year were made in secret out of fear that the GOU would try to prevent it. Someone, however, leaked the plans to the GOU, which blocked the trip by annulling Michelini’s passport and warning the airlines against transporting him. He noted that a subsequent letter from the Department of State to a member of Congress said that the USG had informally discussed Michelini’s travel plans with the GOU and had informed the GOU that there was no basis for denying Michelini a U.S. visa provided he was in possession of a valid travel document. Mr. Smith assured Ferreira that it was not the USG which had informed the GOU of Michelini’s travel plans and that our statement re his visa eligibility was made in response to a GOU inquiry on this subject. Ferreira replied that the USG reference to a valid travel document seemed to have suggested to the GOU this means of blocking the trip, because shortly thereafter his passport was revoked. Mr. Smith inquired whether Michelini could not have availed himself of the travel documents issued by the GOA to foreigners. Ferreira replied that the GOA would not even issue Michelini an identity card.

7. Mr. Luers asked how many Uruguayans were in Argentina and how many of these were in jeopardy. Ferreira replied that there were some 500,000 Uruguayans abroad, mostly in Argentina. Of these, some 250 to 300 were in jeopardy. Most of the Uruguayans had gone to Argentina because they could earn twice as much and the cost of living was only one-half that in Uruguay. Thus, they were four times better off. He said he believed President Videla was sincere in his desire to respect human rights, but that he is unable to stop the abuses that are going on. Interior Minister Harguindegui, on the other hand, is “a monster.” Ferreira considered it impossible that the kidnapping of Bolivian ex-President Torres could have been carried out without the complicity of the Argentine police. After his kidnapping, he was taken alive to a point some 120 km from Buenos Aires, where he was killed. This means, he said, that the kidnappers must have passed with impunity through several police or military checkpoints, where cars are thoroughly checked for firearms.

8. Ferreira said the fact that the governmental leaders in Uruguay are civilians tends to lend respectability to the government. In his view, however, the civilians are worse than the military. He said the current government is maintained in power only by massive assistance from the U.S. When Mr. Luers pointed out that our aid to Uruguay is quite modest, Ferreira replied that the USG was behind the assistance given to Uruguay by the private banks and the IMF. Mr. Luers objected that the USG cannot ask private bankers to abstain from doing business with every country which does not have a democratic government. Ferreira replied that this might be so, but it was not necessary to urge them to lend money to such countries.

9. As another example of what he considered an improper attitude by the USG toward the current government in Uruguay, Ferreira said the USG had invited an Uruguayan policeman to join a group of journalists now touring the U.S. When asked for particulars, Ferreira said this was a man named Casale, who, although holding a press card, was widely known to be a policeman.

10. Ferreira said he was aware, from a recent letter from Acting Assistant Secretary Ryan, that the Department was opposed to the Koch amendment to deny military assistance to Uruguay. He, however, intended to lobby for its passage.

Robinson

1. Summary: The Department described a June 19 meeting among Ferreira, Luers, Lister and Smith.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D760242–0007. Confidential; Priority. Repeated for information to Buenos Aires. Drafted by Smith;, cleared by Zimmerman; approved by Ryan. In telegram 2324 from Montevideo, June 23, the Embassy reported that Ferreira’s “broad, sweeping charges, without foundation,” were intended “to involve USG, the Ambassador and this Embassy in Uruguayan internal affairs and to further his own political interests.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D760243–0809)