368. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Vaky) to Acting Secretary of State Christopher1
El Salvador
Issue For Decision
Whether, and on what basis, to engage the Government of El Salvador in a dialogue on substantive internal reform.
Essential Factors
GOES officials have offered to establish a high-level civil-military group to review with the U.S. the feasibility of a step-by-step program to improve relations, now strained by the repressive policies of the Romero government.2
The NSC–IG/ARA met December 12 to consider how we might respond to this Salvadoran initiative.3 After reviewing various possible approaches, from negotiation of a reform package to further disassociation, the IG concluded that, although events might ultimately lead us to adopt tougher or more cooperative positions, we should initially accept the offer of dialogue to explore whether improvements in human rights conditions can, in fact, be achieved.
The Romero government’s record, and its unresponsiveness to our discussions over the past 20 months, lead us to be skeptical of its commitment to the needed reforms. The main purpose of trying again is to determine whether, once ambiguities about what we “really” mean are dispelled, some genuine progress can take place, particularly now that increasing terrorism poses the alternative of a deepening spiral of polarization and violence.
[Page 912]The dialogue, probably conducted initially by Ambassador Devine, would begin with a meeting with President Romero, followed by several exploratory sessions with his high-level group.
We would:
—probe in detail the government’s perceptions, the depth of its understanding of the situation and its likely future actions;
—make clear our views of the human rights situation by suggesting specific internal reforms on individual, political, and socio-economic rights, and commenting on what we are told without attempting to negotiate or mediate.
—make no commitments on a U.S. response, explaining that U.S. policy depends, not on the existence of the dialogue, but on actual GOES performance on the points identified in the dialogue.
An outline of talking points along these lines for use with Romero and the high level group is attached.4 To counter any impression that our acceptance of dialogue implies acceptance of the GOES’ poor human rights record, the talking points are quite specific on abuses and make clear that cosmetic or piecemeal changes will not suffice to improve relations, and that lack of improvement in human rights conditions will yield a further deterioration in relations as we take additional appropriate steps in response.
In addition, we would keep the Church and the political opposition generally apprised of what we are doing.
The ARA/IG will monitor the discussions closely, and will recommend any subsequent U.S. actions, positive or negative, that may become necessary.
Recommendation
That you authorize us to enter into discussions with the Government of El Salvador as set forth in the attached Talking Points.5
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Secretariat Staff, Records of the Office of the Deputy Secretary, Warren Christopher, Lot 81D113, Box 16, Human Rights—El Salvador. Drafted by Smith and Einaudi on December 19; concurred in by Richard Feinberg (S/P) and Mark Schneider (HA). Smith did not initial the memorandum; Einaudi initialed for Feinberg and Schneider.↩
- See Document 367.↩
- Vaky sent a paper entitled “El Salvador: U.S. Policy Options” to Clift, Armacost, Lake, Derian, Graham, [name not declassified], Sapia-Bosch, and Pastor on December 6 in advance of the December 12 NSC–IG/ARA meeting. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor Files, Country Files, Box 12, El Salvador: 1/78–12/78)↩
- Attached but not printed. The Department transmitted a similar set of talking points in telegram 39568 to San Salvador, February 16. See Document 370.↩
- Christopher indicated his approval and initialed on December 23.↩