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

363. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, October 8, 1976, 4 p.m.

SUBJECT

• US-Uruguayan Relations

PARTICIPANTS

• Uruguay

  • Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Blanco of Uruguay
  • Uruguayan Ambassador to U.S., Perez Caldaz

• United States

  • Acting Secretary Robinson
  • Assistant Secretary Harry W. Shlaudeman, ARA
  • Ambassador Ernest V. Siracusa
  • Mr. Robert W. Zimmermann, Director, ARA/ECA
  • Mr. Donald C. Tice, Special Assistant to Acting Secretary Robinson

Following the initial amenities, Foreign Minister Blanco stated that terror in Uruguay had created a serious disbalance which the government is now seeking to rectify with a new approach to meet the subversive situation and at the same time rebuild the economy. Uruguay, he said, has all the problems of a small country seeking further development. The personal contribution of the new President, Aparicio Mendez, can be important to the design of new institutions that retain human values but place them in a new framework required by current conditions. On the political side this does not mean that there will soon be a Congress or general elections. The Congress that eventually may be established should perhaps set out general guidelines rather than address itself largely to details. Uruguay must also consider the experience of countries in other parts of the world such as Portugal, Spain and others in Latin America.

The Acting Secretary responded that one of the basic problems Uruguay faces in the United States with regard to human rights is the absence of appreciation for the difficulties with which the country has had to cope. Human rights are relatively academic until a system has been established that permits individual freedoms. When subversive activities threaten the overthrow of a government, that government must take appropriate steps, and when it does so these steps are interpreted here as violations of human rights. This perspective is reflected in our Congress. The United States is a stable country and thus the people have very broad rights; consequently U.S. citizens react when people abroad do not enjoy the same human rights. The U.S. believes in human rights but must see them in relation to the problems existing in any particular place. At the same time we have the responsibility to administer our laws in this area, as in others. A way must be found of working with countries such as Uruguay which have problems of stability. The problem is to assure the protection of human rights while effectively recognizing the special security situation in certain countries. Meanwhile our Congress has imposed restrictions on economic and military assistance in selected instances.

Ambassador Siracusa commented that he has had discussions with the Foreign Minister and the President of Uruguay and has sought to explain the Koch and Harkin Amendments to them. He said he has also endeavored to transmit his views on the situation in Uruguay as factually as possible. We are now trying, he said, to deal with the aftermath of the problem created by these amendments, and at the same time convince Congress that the law is being honored. Picking up on a comment by the Acting Secretary, Ambassador Siracusa noted that the new “law of danger”, which will largely replace the Medidas Prontas, will tend to provide more open treatment of prisoners and speedier trials, and access by family and lawyers. Nevertheless, he said, the U.S. Congress is more impressed with the reports of Amnesty International than the information submitted by the Embassy.

Replying to a reference by the Acting Secretary to that portion of the Foreign Minister’s speech at the UNGA relating to international standards for human rights, Foreign Minister Blanco said that a reexamination of this issue must begin with a clear, strong statement on the substance of the problem. Uruguay is much more interested in human rights in Uruguay than anyone else in the world. Uruguayans are born, he continued, with special sensitivity to this issue and any foreign action in this area complicates the nation’s internal problems. When there is outside interference people become more radical and there is a distinct negative effect that interferes with the internal process of relaxation. Uruguay is quite aware of what is wrong but it is in the tradition of the country to seek to move to higher and higher standards. A practical way must be found to deal with this issue. The stability of the social order and human rights go together and it is for this reason that Uruguay is seeking to find new institutions to promote a social order that will encompass personal freedoms.

Responding to a question from the Acting Secretary whether he had proposed international action in his UN speech, the Foreign Minister stated that any international or unilateral action must be taken equally with regard to all countries. All aspects of life in each country should be charted. For example, how are women treated? Are the people free in their personal lives? Uruguay today is among the 30 or 40 countries with the highest living standards. Thus Uruguay becomes deeply angered when it is attacked in the manner of the Koch Amendment in spite of its problems and its high standards. International mechanisms are being used in an arbitrary fashion for political purposes with the intent to create difficulties for a nation that has successfully put down leftist subversion. The movements of the left in the world today are attacking such nations.

Prior to the Tupamaros, the Uruguayan political intelligence apparatus, he continued, consisted of only four or five men who did not even have a car and only a small house for headquarters. The whole structure that has been erected today was built to meet this new kind of warfare. Now some people say the Tupamaros are finished and there is no longer a problem, but this is simply not so. Leftists have assassinated the Uruguayan Military Attaché in Paris and have drawn up a list of future targets, including Blanco. Moreover, Uruguay is now providing more information regarding the number of people in jail and those released. As of 15 days ago the total number of subversive prisoners in Uruguayan jails was 2,054. Also 1,800 prisoners have been released without any further ado and have resettled themselves except for those few who have chosen to go abroad. The Foreign Minister said that he had told McDermott of the International Commission of Jurists that if Uruguay had simply killed the terrorists and dumped them into the Rio de la Plata nothing would have been heard from human rights organizations. Instead the Tupamaros were put in jail under better conditions than ordinary criminals.

Continuing on the same theme, the Foreign Minister stated that the problem of Uruguay is in reality comparatively small. The charges are that the armed forces of Uruguay have killed by torture 22 people in the course of seeking to keep down terrorism. In fact, Uruguay can demonstrate that some of those on the list of 22 were not killed. The total number of people killed during the Tupamaro era on both sides (military, police, and Tupamaros) were only 200 or 150, or even less. Just one death is to be greatly regretted but the world must be reasonable. He cited Lebanon and Cambodia. Very few countries, he claimed, could have achieved the results obtained by the Government of Uruguay at so little cost and yet Uruguay is called a chamber of torturers. He claimed that the Uruguayan military is just as sensitive to the human rights issue as he is. These are people who go to church and take holy communion. Uruguay knows it has problems, he continued, and that there are some excesses, but the armed forces are against such excesses and seek to avoid them. The Koch Amendment, however, complicates the nation’s political life and promotes anti-Americanism in all sectors of society. The GOU is trying to calm the people down. Blanco said he understands the position of the Department of State and the people of the United States, but it is important for the U.S. to understand Uruguayan difficulties as well. The situation is not what Uruguay would wish it to be; but objectively the figures compare favorably with those for any other country in which similar circumstances exist.

The Acting Secretary returned to the question of how to deal with this problem in order to get better understanding on both sides. Assistant Secretary Shlaudeman noted that it was an extremely difficult problem. One aspect of the matter is that there is a great deal of skepticism in Congress regarding whatever the Department of State says; this situation has a long history. Ambassador Siracusa, he continued, keeps us informed and it is not our desire to employ these unilateral measures nor do we believe they are productive. The U.S. view is that the problem should be dealt with by the inter-American system, multilaterally. The misgivings of Uruguay about the IAHRC and Amnesty International are well known but it still seems to be the best method of attack. The advice he would give, he said, is for Uruguay at least to consider inviting the Inter-American Human Rights Commission to make a visit. Obviously there are risks involved but the head of the IAHRC appears to be a fair-minded man. Shlaudeman emphasized that this is just a suggestion as the U.S. is not in the business of providing prescriptions or imposing solutions.

There ensued some discussion of a possible role for the IDB in certifying whether loans would indeed directly benefit the poor of the recipient country. Commenting on how easy it is for a single instance to fuel the entire controversy, Acting Secretary Robinson said that the IAHRC indeed may be the best approach to the problem. It is important that the Congress have some separate source of information that would assist in their understanding of the situation. The Foreign Minister pointed out that Uruguay has been answering all charges that have arisen in the Inter-American system but no response had ever been received. Shlaudeman said that we understood this but Uruguay’s cooperation in that respect was simply not sufficient to satisfy general public opinion; what he had proposed was to invite the IAHRC to visit Uruguay.

The Foreign Minister responded that at first Uruguay had tried to be open with international organizations, first in 1974 with Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, and later with the International Red Cross. The GOU explained to the ICJ the physical problem that faced Uruguay in terms of the large number of people detained during the Tupamaro period vs. limited court facilities which led to delays in bringing people to trial. Nevertheless, when the ICJ team left it gave a very hostile press conference and made wild charges. In the case of the IRC, which visited prisons, the GOU sought permission to make public the report of that organization but the Red Cross raised technical difficulties; up to now Uruguay has not been able to make any release on that visit. Hence Uruguay is very skeptical about future visits by international commissions. Perhaps, he added, (and he emphasized this was not official), the new composition of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission would make it more acceptable.

The Acting Secretary asked whether it is not possible to refute the charges against Uruguay point by point. The Foreign Minister replied that in terms of statistics this would be possible, but otherwise it is extremely difficult to answer in this way. Ambassador Siracusa then commented on the recent visit by various members of the Diplomatic Corps to Uruguayan prisons and underlined the fact that the simple mathematics of total prison capacity in itself refuted AI charges about the number of prisoners held. He stated, however, that to be convincing to Congress and the American people these judgments must come from outside sources.

The conversation then turned to the Harkin Amendment. The Acting Secretary explained that we are required to vote against loans in the IDB if there exists a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights and the loan is not of direct benefit to the needy. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on the Department of State to prove that there is not a consistent pattern. If some acceptable investigating board could issue a report perhaps enumerating isolated cases, but coming to a conclusion that a pattern of violations does not exist, then the Department of State would be in a better position to make a judgment. The IAHRC would seem to be the most likely group for this task.

The Foreign Minister said that there is an immediate problem however in that there are two or three loans to be considered in the near future by the IDB in the area of fishing, a dam, and refrigeration facilities for meat. The Foreign Minister said that he is deeply worried about the effect in Uruguay of a Harkin Amendment negative vote, not just in economic terms but more importantly in terms of political impact. The Foreign Minister was told we would look into these loans immediately but there may be no problem if it is possible to show that they benefit the needy. It was explained that basically the problem loans are those which provide credit for industrial development and for export credits, i.e. where the use of the money is very general. Shlaudeman noted in this connection that during the next several months when we have this problem facing us, it is very important that the loans be structured so that the benefits to the needy are clear.

1. Summary: Robinson, Shlaudeman and Siracusa discussed Uruguayan politics, human rights, the IAHRC, and the Harkin amendment with Blanco and Perez Caldas.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P760167–2864. Confidential. Drafted on October 13 by Zimmerman; cleared in D and by Shlaudeman and Siracusa; and approved in D. The meeting took place in the Deputy Secretary’s Office. An October 6 memorandum from Zimmerman to Shlaudeman regarding preparation for the meeting is in the National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840051–0493, and an October 8 Briefing Memorandum from Shlaudeman to Robinson is National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P760161–2360.