182. Telegram From the Embassy in the Dominican Republic to the Department of State1
7319. Department for Secretary Vance and Vaky. NSC for Pastor. From Ambassador Bowdler. Subject: Nicaraguan Mediation No. 281: English Text of Proposed Revised NG Replies to PLN Letters of December 21 and 26. Ref: Santo Domingo 7318.2
1. (C-Entire text)
2. Following is the revised English text of the proposed replies to the PLN letters of Dec. 21 and 26.3 I have coordinated these with Foreign Minister Jimenez, but we shall have to seek approval of ING. Obiols via Embassy Guatemala. I will do this by separate cable to Ambassador Boster.4
3. Begin text of reply to December 21 letter: Quote the International Commission of Friendly Cooperation and Conciliation acknowledges receipt of the communication dated 21 December of the Negotiating Commission of the PLN, which make reference to the Project of Agreement (Acta-Compromiso) presented to solve the political crisis in Nicaragua in a conciliatory, democratic and peaceful way.
In this communication, the Negotiating Commission of the PLN makes various assertions with regard to the work of the International Commission, which the International Commission wishes to comment upon with a view to reaffirming its position of absolute impartiality in the face of the great responsibility with which it is charged.
The International Commission as a matter of record wishes to state that the closing of the session of December 20th in an “incontienti” fashion was due to the unusual reaction by some of the representatives of the PLN during the official presentation of the proposal by the President of the International Commission.
[Page 469]Confronted with the accusation that “there was no compliance with the norms convened on for the development of negotiations, having ignored point four”, the International Commission would like to establish clearly and definitively that there was no violation of said norms on its part, and that instead it was the PLN delegation which contravened the same when it tried to reopen consideration of points which had been previously agreed upon.
The Commission would also like to record that it at all times followed the agenda at all times after it had been accepted by the parties in the session of December 16,5 and the agenda was followed until the representatives of the PLN created an impasse on the second point on ‛consequences of the popular consultation’, and did not allow for the consideration of the remaining points. This forced the International Commission, in order not to stop the negotiations, to present proposals on the third point (‛conditions for the popular plebiscite’) and fourth (‛mechanics for the national plebiscite’), without direct negotiations among the parties, but gathering, nevertheless, the impressions of each of them, obtained throughout the entire process, and having present at all times that what was at stake was the destiny of the Nicaraguan people.
The International Commission reiterates that its proposal was never inspired nor did it insinuate an unconstitutional solution, and it understood that in the search for a peaceful and lasting solution for the Nicaraguan crisis there were no limitations in the measures to obtain that goal when these fall within the provisions of, or are not prohibited by, the Constitution.
In the seventh paragraph of its communication, the Negotiating Commission of the PLN asserts that the FAO rejected as “irreduceble” the holding of a plebicite or national consultation. The International Commission wishes to declare that, on the contrary, the Political Commission of the FAO has communicated to us its acceptance of the proposal (Acta-Compromiso) made by the Commission on December 20, as set forth in the document of December 21 that is attached.6
The International Commission affirms that at no time did it take upon itself constitutional attributions of any kind, like the ones referred to, i.e., the destitution on Supreme Court justices, dissolution of the national Congress and others which “would imply a serious detriment of the functions which can only be executed by organs of the constitutional government of the republic.”
[Page 470]The foregoing is evident from the fact that it simply restricted itself to submitting a proposal which was subject to the consent and approval of the parties. Furthermore, it should be remembered that on page four of the document of November 6,7 presented by the National Liberation Party, “its decision to discuss the reforms with the political opposition is manifested, among others: the reorganization of the Supreme Court, as a first step, of the judicial branch through the appointment of judges whose professional competence and civic qualities, accepted by all sectors, guarantee its integrity and political independence”; and in that same document, the purpose of the revision, reorganization and restructuring of the Electoral Board and the revision of the National Guard is also clearly expressed. Unquote.
Begin text of reply to December 26 letter: Quote
The International Commission of Friendly Cooperation and Conciliation acknowledges receipt of the communication from the Negotiating Commission of the PLN of December 26, 1978 to which is attached a counter-proposal to the agreement (Acta-Compromiso) suggested by the International Commission.
The International Commission, meeting in Santo Domingo, has given careful consideration to the counter-proposal with a view to determining whether it offers an acceptable solution to the political crisis through which the people of Nicaragua are passing.
After detailed study of the document and taking into consideration all the factors at play, practical as well as psychological, in the Nicaraguan situation, the International Commission has reached the conclusion that the counter-proposal does not offer the conditions necessary to achieve a peaceful solution.
In the evaluation of the Nicaraguan situation, following extensive consultations with all sectors of the nation, there emerged two fundamental aspects: (1) a deeply and widely held belief that the present crisis is due to the continuation of General Somoza in power, and (2) a profound distrust by the people of Nicaragua in the electoral processes of the country.
The foregoing considerations led the International Commission to include in its proposal: a plebiscite based on a simple question understandable to all the people; and the organization, control and supervision of the entire plebiscite by an international authority, with the participation of the PLN and FAO, which would restore credibility, both within and outside Nicaragua, and ensure the purity of the results.
[Page 471]Among other aspects, the International Commission finds that the counter-proposal of the PLN has negative aspects which makes it unacceptable to important sectors of the country whose support is indispensable if a peaceful solution is to be achieved. These aspects are as follows:
A) The use of a national system of elections which lacks the necessary credibility;
B) The complicated question which does not clearly express the basic issue in the Nicaraguan crisis;
C) The use of a system of prior registration of voters and the existing system of voting districts and polling places that in present moments would serve to inhibit the free expression of opinion;
D) The elimination of various measures with regard to the National Guard and local authorities (Jueces de Mesta y Canton y Capitanes de Canada) that if not retained, would likewise work against achievement of an appropriate atmosphere for the plebiscite.
The International Commission considers that its proposal of December 20 overcomes these negative aspects and therefore offers a reasonable and workable solution that deserves the support of all the Nicaraguan people.
The International Commission reiterates its proposals contained in the agreement (Acta-Compromiso) of Dec. 20, already accepted by the FAO, and hopes that the President and the PLN, conscious of the grave responsibility and consequences of a negative response, will accept it as soon as possible, considering the need of the people for a democratic, peaceful and lasting solution of the present Nicaraguan crisis.
The International Commission of Friendly Cooperation and Conciliation in the same manner expresses the desire to know prior to January 8, 1979 whether the President and the Partido Liberal Nicionalista would be disposed to accept the “Acta-Compromiso” proposed by the International Commission. In the case of an affirmative answer, the International Commission would be prepared to return to Nicaragua, as soon as called, to make the necessary adjustments which may be agreed upon and to proceed with signature of the document.
If the answer is negative and after the expiriation of said date, the International Commission of Friendly Cooperation and Conciliation will submit its report through its governments to the meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Americas. Unquote.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790001–0204. Confidential; Niact Immediate; Exdis. Sent for information Immediate to Caracas, Managua, Guatemala City, San José, Panama City, and USSOUTHCOM Quarry Heights.↩
- In telegram 7318 from Santo Domingo, December 30, the Embassy sent an initial version of the proposed NG reply to the PLN counterproposal. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780540–0042)↩
- See Document 169; footnote 3, Document 172; and Document 176.↩
- In telegram 7321 from Santo Domingo to Guatemala, December 31, Bowdler requested that Boster coordinate with Obiols regarding the Negotiating Group’s proposed replies to the PLN letters of December 21 and 26. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790001–0190)↩
- See Document 166.↩
- Not attached.↩
- See Document 132.↩