184. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassies in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic1
2585. Guatemala/Santo Domingo for Ambassadors from Bowdler. Subject: Nicaraguan Negotiation No. 284: Revised Draft of NG Reply to PLN Counter-Proposal. Ref.: Santo Domingo 7319 and 7320.2
1. (C-Entire text)
2. Reproduced below is further revision of proposed Negotiating Group reply to the PLN counter-proposal for a plebiscite. I would appreciate your personally giving a copy to Jimenez and Obiols, respectively, with the following oral explanation from me:
—I have carefully reviewed the PLN counter-proposal and our suggested reply with my superiors. The view here is that while the substance of our reply should be essentially retained, it would be prudent to vary the concept of our international authority to allow combination with the idea of a national plebiscite authority contained in the PLN counter-proposal.
—There are two reasons for this: (1) it removes a vulnerability in our proposal stemming from almost exclusive outside control of an [Page 477] election process; and (2) it makes our proposal more acceptable in the OAS context. These advantages can be achieved without giving up the necessary degree of supervision essential to maintain confidence and credibility in the process.
—Secretary Vance has reviewed the draft with President Carter and both believe that the modified version places the NG in the strongest position for insisting with Somoza that he accept the NG proposal as reflected in the proposed reply.3
—I hope this further change will meet with your approval. Alfonso Robelo was in Washington today and I had the opportunity to test the general idea (but not repeat not the specific language) with him. He said he favored a mixed body provided the supervisory role of the international authority is clearly established and our other essential conditions are maintained.4
—I look forward to seeing you in Santo Domingo to finish our reply and consider our next steps.
3. Begin text: 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 basis for negotiating a solution to the political crisis through which the people of Nicaragua are passing.
After detailed study of the document, and taking into account all the factors at play, practical as well as psychological, in the Nicaraguan [Page 478] situation, the International Commission finds that with regard to the mechanism for conducting the plebiscite the concept of a special National Plebiscite Authority (NPA) is one which warrants careful consideration by the parties, provided that the authority is carefully and systematically supervised and monitored by the Plebiscite International Authority (PIA) and that any disputes which arise between the parties working in the national authority should be resolved by this International Authority. In the opinion of the International Commission it would be important, in order to establish public confidence and acceptance of said authority, for the parties to agree to the following delineations of responsibility between the national authority and the PIA.
—The PIA Executive Director should have the right to participate in all the deliberations of the plebiscite national council, and his representatives at the departmental and cantonal levels should have the same right. Any disputes which arise between the parties working in the NPA shall be resolved by the PIA.
—The PLN and FAO, with the assistance of the PIA Executive Director, should prepare the guidelines under which the national authority is to operate.
—In the event that the PLN and FAO representatives are unable to agree on the choice of a third Nicaraguan citizen to preside over the national and departmental councils and cantonal directorates, the corresponding PIA representative should choose the person from a single list of candidates prepared by common agreement by the corresponding PLN and FAO representatives.
—Once the ballot design has been approved by the parties, with the concurrence of the PIA Executive Director, the printing and distribution to the voting places for election day of the numbered ballots should be handled by the PIA Executive Director and his representatives.
The International Commission finds that the plebiscite provisions of the counter-proposal of the PLN have other key aspects which we anticipate will make it unacceptable to important sectors of the country whose support is indispensable if a peaceful solution to the nation’s political crisis is to be achieved. In the evaluation of the Nicaraguan situation, following extensive consultations with all sectors of the nation, there emerged two fundamental issues in achieving an agreed solution:
1) A deeply and widely held belief by significant sectors of Nicaraguan opinion that the central issue of the present crisis is whether President Somoza should continue in power, and 2) A profound distrust by these sectors in the traditional electoral processes of the country.
The principal aspects of the PLN plan which cause serious concern are:
[Page 479]A. The phrasing of the question in a complicated way which does not clearly convey what the basic issue is, and which may therefore not be understood by large segments of the electorate;
B. The use of a system of prior registration of voters and the existing system of voting districts and polling places that in present circumstances the opposition believes would serve to inhibit the free expression of opinion;
C. The elimination of various measures with regard to the National Guard and local authorities that if not retained would likewise, in the view of many Nicaraguans, work against achievement of an appropriate atmosphere for the plebiscite.
The differences on these points are so deep that the International Commission does not believe they can be compromised or negotiated on the basis of the conceptual premises of the PLN plan.
On the other hand, the International Commission considers that its proposal of December 20 does offer—without violating national sovereignty or dignity—a reasonable and workable solution that can receive the support of all Nicaraguans.
The International Commission, therefore, in commending to the parties the mechanism of the national plebiscite authority as described in preceding paragraphs, reiterates all other aspects of its proposals contained in the proposed agreement of December 20. The Commission hopes that, considering the need of the Nicaraguan people for a democratic, peaceful and lasting solution of the present crisis, the President and the PLN, conscious of the grave responsibility and consequences of a negative response, will accept as soon as possible the foregoing as a basis for reaching an agreement with the FAO. End text.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790006–0618. Confidential; Immediate; Exdis. Sent for information Immediate to Managua, Caracas, Panama City, and San José. Drafted by Bowdler; cleared by Vaky and Tarnoff; approved by Vance.↩
- For telegram 7319 from Santo Domingo, see Document 182. Telegram 7320 from Santo Domingo, December 31, 1978, included the revised Spanish-language text of the proposed Negotiating Group’s replies to the PLN letters dated December 21 and 26. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790001–0189)↩
- Vance sent Brzezinski a revised draft of the Negotiating Group’s response to the PLN “counterproposal” under a January 3 covering memorandum, upon which Brzezinski wrote at the top of the document “RP OK as changed.” Pastor had added the following language to the section of the draft that endorsed the special Plebiscite National Authority: “provided that it is carefully and systematically monitored by the OAS or its designated instrument, and that any disputes which arise between the parties working in the National Authority should be resolved by this international instrument.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 34, Nicaragua: 1/1–16/79) An unknown hand wrote on another copy of Vance’s January 3 memorandum to Brzezinski: “ZB called Pastor who suggested several changes—notably giving power to arbitrate to an international authority—which CV accepted.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Office, Outside the System File, Box 67, Nicaragua: 10/78–7/79)↩
- In telegram 4016 to Managua, January 5, the Department described Robelo’s January 4 meeting with Vaky, Bowdler, and Barneby. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 34, Nicaragua: 1/1–16/79)↩