Foreign Relations of the United States 1977–1980; Volume XV; Central America, 1977–1980

364. Paper Prepared in the Department of State¹

Washington, undated

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN EL SALVADOR AND U.S. ACTIONS

SETTING

In recent months, El Salvador has undergone several developments which have disturbing human rights ramifications. Both leftist and rightist terrorist activities have increased markedly. Among other actions, leftists have assassinated the Salvadoran Foreign Minister and other officials, and rightists have murdered two priests. During this period, the country’s February presidential election was marred by fraud, demonstrations (in which allegations were made that as many as 200 people were killed), and the subsequent exile of some opposition leaders.² As a result, the country was placed under a temporary state of siege, which finally ended on June 30. (The state of siege comprised the suspension of certain Constitutional rights of Salvadorans, such as freedom of assembly, movement, speech and private correspondence.) Contributing significantly to growing peasant discontent with the Government has been the virtual abandonment since late 1976 of a long-promised agrarian reform program. At the same time, United States relations with El Salvador have become strained because of our human rights scrutiny of Salvadoran affairs in general, and the unresolved case of a missing American in particular.³ El Salvador renounced FY 78 security assistance because of U.S. Congressional hearings on its elections.⁴

HUMAN RIGHTS

Within the context described above, the Government of El Salvador (GOES) has become increasingly sensitive about persons and activities which it considers a menace to the country’s stability and security. There have been accusations, which the Embassy and intelligence reports support, that the security services and/or National Guard have engaged in harassment, intimidation and physical abuse of those it considers suspect, i.e., anti-government. The GOES has been highly critical of outspoken or socially active priests working among the peasants. At least a dozen such clergymen have been expelled from the country (or not permitted to reenter), accused of subversive activities. Meanwhile, rightist elements have railed against communists and leftists, and have bombed a Catholic center.

Amid these developments, the Catholic Church of El Salvador has become increasingly estranged from the GOES. The Archbishop of San Salvador has accused the Government of persecuting the Church under the guise of combatting communism. The Government, on the other hand, has campaigned against religious involvement in political matters. In particular, the Jesuit order (consisting of some 30–50 priests) has become a prime target of criticism from the Government and other rightist groups. The present emphasis of the Jesuits is on the temporal well-being of the flock (or peasants, in this instance). Their activities and exhortations, therefore, place them in conflict with the landed elite and oligarchy of El Salvador as well as with the military. Also, the Government of El Salvador claims it has evidence that four ex-Jesuits (none American) are members of the FPL leftist terrorist group, which was responsible for the murder of the Foreign Minister in May.⁵ These circumstances have focussed rightist attacks on the Jesuits.

Other incidents have kept the country in sporadic emotional upheaval. On May 1, in the main park of San Salvador a clash between National Guards and civilians ended in the death of at least eight of the latter. There was some debate whether the guards had been the victim of a planned assault by the civilians who were lightly armed.

On May 17, after watching the situation for several months, Government troops moved into the “Hacienda San Francisco” near El Paisnal to dislodge “thousands of peasant land invaders.” The Government claims that the eviction was done without the use of lethal force and that no one was injured. Six youths died as a result of another scuffle between soldiers and civilians, also in May, in the city of Aguilares, located north of San Salvador. There are unconfirmed reports from Church groups that 40 or 50 died. It is reported that some 200 persons were arrested later that same day. Policemen have been killed by leftists in rural areas. Government forces have stormed leftist hideouts, confiscating subversive material and uncovering weapon caches. Assaults and counter-assaults are almost weekly affairs.

On June 21, a rightist group—the White Warriors Union (UGB) issued an ultimatum for all “Jesuits and other communist priests” to leave El Salvador within 30 days, i.e., by July 20. To date the GOES has taken no public stand regarding the threat (which, we are told, was not published in the Salvadoran press.) Speculation as to the origin and financing of the White Warriors Union includes the possibility that elements of the Security Services themselves are involved. We have no firm evidence of this.

Both in Washington and El Salvador, USG officials have expressed our concern with the human rights situation. This concern led us to request that the Salvadoran Government postpone consideration of a $90 million loan in the IDB over which we had veto power as an alternative to our probable inability to support it on human rights grounds.⁶ More recently we voiced concern that the GOES has not denounced the threat to the Jesuits.⁷ We have expressed our hope that the Salvadoran Government will be as vigorous in its actions against rightist threats to human rights as against those of leftist elements. We were told that our views would be taken under advisement.

U.S. ACTIONS

On July 1, a new President was inaugurated in El Salvador. It is our hope that we can influence the new Salvadoran regime into more positive human rights actions. At the moment we are exploring the idea of sending an emissary, a USG official personally acquainted with the new President, to convey our concerns on the human rights deterioration in El Salvador and to seek ways we can approach the problems in a cooperative, not confrontational, vein. (Any publicity about this approach would probably doom it to failure.)

For this reason we do not recommend a letter from President Carter, at this time. We believe that we should first test the results of the personal approach, as we pave the way for a more affirmative attitude with the new leader. If such a demarche proves unfruitful, then the letter from President Carter could be a useful escalation to impress upon President Romero the gravity of our concern over the Jesuits and other human rights problems.

It may be useful for President Carter in some imminent speech touching upon religion or human rights, to comment on our concern about the threat to Jesuits in El Salvador. We are stressing with the GOES that its image in the eyes of the world will suffer even more if it is unable or unwilling to act to protect the rights of a group which has been threatened within its borders. We are also emphasizing that our interest in human rights applies worldwide, not only to El Salvador. The Department of State is monitoring events in El Salvador as well as it can and trying to exert a positive influence on their evolution.

For your information, Congressman Fraser is planning to hold a hearing on El Salvador on July 21, i.e., timed, we assume, to coincide with the White Warriors’ deadline for the Jesuits’ departure.⁸

1. Source: National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 20, El Salvador: 1/77–1/80. Confidential. Tarnoff sent the paper and a draft letter from Carter to Romero to Brzezinski under a July 11 covering memorandum. In a June 30 memorandum to Tarnoff, Dodson requested that the Department prepare the paper and the draft letter by July 7. (Ibid.)
2. El Salvador held presidential elections on February 21. Both the winning candidate, Romero, and the losing candidate, Colonel Ernesto Claramount Rozeville, claimed victory. (“2 Rivals Claim Victory in El Salvador Voting,” New York Times, February 22, 1977, p. 5)
3. Security forces detained Ronald Richardson in El Salvador in December 1976. In telegram 815 from San Salvador, February 22, 1977, the Embassy noted evidence that “Richardson did not depart El Salvador” and concluded that he “most likely met with foul play at the hands of GOES agent.” (Department of State, INR/IL Historical Records, Tegucigalpa 1963–1979) In telegram 1464 from San Salvador, March 28, Lozano reported that he had “instructed MILGP Commander to inform Salvadoran military authorities of USG decision to reduce MILGP personnel to six as protest over failure Salvadoran Government to respond favorably on Richardson case.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 20, El Salvador: 2–12/77)
4. In telegram 1291 from San Salvador, March 17, the Embassy reported that the Salvadorans had formally renounced U.S. security assistance. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770091–0223)
5. In an undated memorandum to Brzezinski, Tarnoff noted that Borgonovo had been found murdered on May 11 after a terrorist group kidnapped him on April 19. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 20, El Salvador: 2–12/77) In telegram 107807 to San Salvador, May 12, the Department transmitted a message of condolence from Carter to Molina regarding the Borgonovo murder. (Ibid.)
6. In telegram 106224 to San Salvador, May 10, the Department reported that during a May 9 meeting with Department officials Galindo “was informed that the U.S. would seek postponement of vote on $90 million hydroelectric loan pending before IDB. U.S. decision based primarily on human rights concerns, but there was also some question about project’s economic long-range rationale. Richardson case was prominently featured.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770164–1272)
7. In telegram 3074 from San Salvador, June 30, Lubensky noted that he had informed Acting Foreign Minister Castaneda of U.S. “wonderment” at the “lack of any public response on the part of the Government of El Salvador to the warning by the White Warriors Union to the Jesuits to get out of El Salvador within thirty days or be killed.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 20, El Salvador: 2–12/77)
8. Todman’s July 25 briefing memorandum to Vance described Fraser’s July 21 Subcommittee on International Organizations hearings on El Salvador. (Ibid.) See also, Alan Riding, “Salvador Confused by American Moves,” New York Times, July 25, 1977, p. 2.