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

369. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of Inter-American Affairs (Shlaudeman) to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (Habib)¹

Washington, December 31, 1976.

Uruguayan Intelligence Personnel to the US

On December 17 you authorized me to inform the Uruguayan Ambassador that the assignments of Col. Fons to the Inter-American Defense Board and Maj. Gavazzo as Assistant Military Attaché here would not be welcome. I did so, and the Uruguayan Ambassador indicated his understanding of our position.

The démarche, however, has precipitated something of a dust-up in Montevideo. The essence of it is well described in the attached [3 lines not declassified] Our Ambassador, who originally favored the position I conveyed to the Uruguayans, has now reconsidered his views and appears to believe that we should reverse course to permit Fons, at least, to take up his assignment at the IADB. His most recent views are at Tab 2.

I continue to believe that if we allowed either individual—and particularly Fons, who is both involved in CONDOR and uttered the original threat against Congressman Koch—to come to Washington, we would be buying trouble. The fact that the Director of the Uruguayan Defense Intelligence Service felt it necessary to go out of his way [less than 1 line not declassified] “that there were no other motives for these assignments” and that neither officer “would have (any) mission other than those officially and legitimately connected with their jobs while assigned to the US” gives me some pause.

The cost of denying visas to the two individuals could be an increase in the security risks to American personnel in Montevideo. [3 lines not declassified] and that the Uruguayans will continue doing (as presumably they have in the past) whatever they think to be in their national interest in their relationships [2 lines not declassified] as comparable in benefit to the costs which could be incurred should it become known that we had deliberately allowed Fons, in particular, to take up residence here.

Since the IADB is an international organization, the only grounds on which we could refuse a visa to Fons is Section 212(A) (27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., “Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasons to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

I do believe the presence of either individual in the U.S. would be prejudicial to the public interest. On the other hand, I would send rather precise instructions to our Ambassador simply to convey our desire not to have these two individuals in the United States without referring to the law.

[1 paragraph (2 lines) not declassified]

Recommendation:

That you reaffirm our original decision to deny entry to Fons and Gavasso.

Approve Disapprove

1. Summary: Shlaudeman reported on the results of the démarche to the GOU regarding the appointments of Fons and Gavazzo to positions in Washington.

   Source: Department of State, INR–IL Historical Files, Africa, Latin America, Inter-Agency Intelligence Committees, Uruguay 1973–1980. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by C. W. Bray of ARA on December 30. The memorandum was copied to INR. Tabs 1 and 2 are attached but not published. There is no indication of approval or disapproval of the recommendation.