373. Telegram From the Embassy in El Salvador to the Department of State and the Embassy in Costa Rica1
2597. San Jose please pass to Ambassador Devine. Subj: High-level Dialogue With GOES: First Meeting. Ref: (A) State 39568,2 (B) San Salvador 2436,3 (C) San Salvador 2428,4 (D) San Salvador 2479.5
(S-Entire text)
2. At invitation of GOES, Ambassador, accompanied by DCM and Pol officer, met at 1115 May 16 with high-level Salvadoran commission [Page 930] composed of Vice President Julio Astacio, Foreign Minister Rogriquez Porth, Minister of Planning Jose Eduardo Reyes, President of Supreme Court Rogelio Chavez and Subsecretary of Defense Col. Jose Eduardo Iraheta to initiate high-level bilateral dialogue.
3. Ambassador Devine led off meeting by expressing appreciation for opportunity to meet with high-ranking members of the Salvadoran Government, adding that points he was about to cover were probably among most important he would make during his tenure as Ambassador.
4. Ambassador then reviewed for all members of Salvadoran commission history of mutual efforts to initiate high-level dialogue since GOES first proposed talks last November. Noting that he had precise instructions regarding the dialogue from the Department, Ambassador proceeded to give a point-by-point presentation in Spanish of USG’s position regarding (A) the purpose of dialogue (ref A, para 2) and (B) the specific talking points contained in ref A, para 7, which emphasized USG interest in broad discussion of human rights situation in El Salvador. Commission listened without interruption to entire presentation with Col. Iraheta taking copious notes.
5. In Ambassador’s discussion and explanation of the three categories of human rights as seen by USG, he noted in category 2 that poverty itself is not a violation of human rights but that lack of honest effort and attention to correct living conditions is violation. Regarding category 3, he stressed relevance is an open political system to prevent extremism, terrorism and radical [garble] noting that he had earlier elaborated on this point in an extended discussion with President Romero last week (refs B and C).
6. Ambassador concluded presentation by stating that USG looks forward to pursuing the dialogue. If both countries can agree on real—not cosmetic—steps to improve human rights situation, Ambassador said that USG would be prepared to respond in positive manner commensurate with GOES actions. For example, real and significant GOES measures toward human rights improvement could bring official, public US declarations of recognition and approval. Further GOES moves, the Ambassador explained, could elicit more concrete USG response, such as greater flexibility in area of economic assistance. USG views dialogue process as phased, gradual and reciprocal, if dialogue should ultimately prove completely successful, even USG resumption of military assistance could be contemplated. Rather than respond on a one-for-one basis, however, the USG will react to a clearly positive trend.
7. On other side of the coin, if dialogue fails to produce real and effective progress in the area of human rights and past trends continue, impact on USG relations with El Salvador will inevitably be negative and would probably result in disassociation and reduction in US pro[Page 931]grams and personnel. Ambassador then cited US disassociation in Nicaragua as example of what could happen in US-Salvadoran relations even though situations in Nicaragua and El Salvador are different. He reiterated Carter administration’s strong commitment to human rights as a major tenet of US foreign policy and warned that lack of progress toward human rights improvement would sharply increase pressures for US disassociation from the GOES.
8. Citing his recent conversation with Salvadoran Ambassador Roberto Quinonez (ref d), Ambassador emphasized special relationship which has characterized relations between US and El Salvador, adding that an historic change in this relationship leading to disassociation would be a great tragedy. Ambassador reiterated US willingness to cooperate with GOES in improving human rights situation and thereby our relations. If this cannot be done “almost certain” alternative is a distancing in relations. In view of mounting feeling and pressures in US and serious polarization in El Salvador Ambassador said meaningful dialogue is a matter of great urgency.
9. Vice President Astacio responded by emphasizing interest of GOES and President Romero in maintaining friendship with US. He said GOES understands USG concern about situation in El Salvador and Central America as seen in context of US human rights philosophy. He stressed that GOES is also deeply concerned. While it sees opportunities for mutual cooperation, GOES fears there have been distortions of reality. Sincere dialogue, however, can help overcome these. He labelled problem in El Salvador and Central America as “terrible”, adding that area is “in crisis” and that dialogue under these circumstances is “vital necessity”. If both governments were to draw apart, only mutual enemies would benefit, and El Salvador could “pass to the other side”. He repeated that GOES is sincerely interested in dialogue and genuine—not cosmetic—improvement. More important than such things as loans and financial assistance is continuation of our “shared ideology”. Vice President said it is time to revitalize this “identity” through subsequent dialogue meetings.
10. Ambassador expressed understanding for the GOES’ viewpoint but said that there is a problem of perception. What are viewed in the US as abuses of human rights, are construed by the GOES as defense against subversion. As a result, there is need to agree on concepts and definitions. Ambassador stated that US policy is fundamentally concerned with the system here which for so long has led to violations of human rights of the poor and campesinos, resulting in endemic violence and counterviolence. As an indication of general attitude in the US, he cited extract from recent US press article on El Salvador which stated: “with a state of lawlessness increasing in this small Central American republic, the military government and its conserva[Page 932]tive business allies are showing no willingness to make the economic and social compromises that might defuse the explosive political situation.” It is absence of willingness to carry out economic and social reforms which seem to many the essence of problem, Ambassador explained.
11. Citing the unfortunate violence last week, including much publicized events at cathedral, Ambassador reviewed his expression of concern to Foreign Minister and his subsequent admonition to President Romero regarding violation of human rights and negative impact in US. As evidence of further USG reaction Ambassador then read text of latest Department statement on the situation in El Salvador contained in State 122982.6
12. In conclusion, Ambassador stated that USG shares GOES’ concern about what is happening in El Salvador and wishes to avoid disassociation in relations by collaborating in solution through dialogue. He said such a process will of necessity be gradual but with firm commitment both countries have opportunity to move closer together rather than still farther apart.
13. At this point President of Supreme Court Chavez said that dialogue can help clarify many things and proposed setting an early date for the next meeting. Vice President Astacio, with agreement of other commission members, and subject to the President’s concurrence, proposed Wednesday, May 23, as a tentative date for the second session. Ambassador’s invitation to working lunch at his residence was accepted.7
14. This message has not been cleared with Ambassador Devine who departed for San Jose prior to its completion.
- Source: Department of State, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Nicaragua/El Salvador Working Files, Lot 81D64, unlabeled folder. Secret; Niact Immediate. Sent for information to Guatemala City, Managua, Panama City, Tegucigalpa, Bogotá, Caracas, Mexico City, and USCINSCO Quarry Heights.↩
- See Document 370.↩
- In telegram 2436 from San Salvador, May 9, Devine reported on his meeting that morning with Romero and other Salvadoran officials to discuss the “underlying political problems of El Salvador.” Devine described his presentation as “long and rather serious” and commented: “I believe it struck a useful blow within the hearing of strategic listeners for the cause of dialogue and the need for a democratic opening.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790170–0676)↩
- In telegram 2428 from San Salvador, May 9, Devine reported that he had met with Romero that morning and Romero had defended his government’s position regarding violent clashes with demonstrators at the National Cathedral. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790170–0583) In telegram 2415 from San Salvador, May 9, the Embassy reported that the media had visited the “National Cathedral to witness and report on continuing occupation of cathedral by forces of the Popular Revolutionary Bloc (BPR)” who were demonstrating for the release of members who had been arrested. The Embassy continued: “News media reps arrived on scene to find large numbers of young people seated in front of cathedral, clapping hands, singing, and chanting revolutionary phrases.” The journalists “agreed that what they encountered was by U.S. standards an entirely peaceful demonstration.” They next witnessed and recorded “prolonged automatic weapons fire” by the National Police on the protestors. The journalists reported “that seven bodies were counted outside cathedral when firing ended but assert that many more wounded must have made it into the cathedral itself.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790170–0143)↩
- In telegram 2479 from San Salvador, May 11, Devine reported on his discussion with Quinonez Mesa about human rights. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790230–1003)↩
- In telegram 122982 to San Salvador, May 14, the Department provided press guidance regarding the situation in El Salvador that urged Salvadorans to avoid violence and seek a political solution “through a spirit of conciliation.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790218–0358)↩
- See Document 374.↩