380. Telegram From the Embassy in El Salvador to the Department of State1
4784. Subj: (S) High Level Dialogue With Government of El Salvador—Preliminary Evaluation. Ref San Salvador 3271, 3297, and 3328.2
1. (S-Entire text)
2. As Department is aware, we have been engaged in a high level dialogue with GOES. This came into being as result of President Romero’s naming a commission (San Salvador 6290, 12/2/78)3 to discuss with US the problems arising in the general sector of human rights.
3. Representing GOES in the high level dialogue have been the Vice President, Foreign Minister, President of Supreme Court, Minister of Planning, and Subsecretary of Defense. Embassy officers and I have represented the USG point of view.
4. Our basic instruction has been State 39568 which by now, in a series of discussion meetings has been rather fully conveyed to our Salvadoran counterparts.4 As a matter of fact, because of the passage of time and the occurrence of related events, we have had to go beyond the literal text of that instruction but have been careful always to do so in a manner fully consistent with its spirit and intent.
5. After hearing us out in presentation of the USG position, the GOES commission jointly shared in the task of giving us a formal reply. This was done on June 13, was grouped under the same three category headings which we had used, that is category human rights, Category II, and Category III, and has been reported to the Department in three separate but related telegrams, SS 3271, 3297 and 3328. The single outstanding item remains the written memorandum promised us by [Page 951] Subsecretary of Defense Col. Iraheta confirming and expanding upon his presentation relative to Category I human rights and their violations. Although we have subsequently reminded Col. Iraheta of this, the memorandum has yet to reach us. In view of our expectation that it will add relatively little to his oral presentation, the Embassy concludes that it should not further delay preliminary evaluation of the high level dialogue to date.
6. Our initial evaluative comment is that the GOES deserves credit for its initiative in recognizing the appropriateness of such discussion and for naming to high-level a commission to undertake same.
7. We would, secondly, give credit to the high-level GOES officials for the seriousness with which they have approached this dialogue, the very considerable amount of time they have put into it, the effort which they have expended, and the collaborative attitude with which they have accepted our inherently critical remarks and attempted to respond to them.
8. With regard to substance, we would rate the three Salvadoran presentations in very general terms as follows:
A. Category I human rights—Col. Iraheta did a soldierly job of denying the undeniable and trying to defend the indefensible (SS 3328). There can really be no question but that the GOES is guilty of serious violations of Category I human rights. At the same time, it has never admitted to any of these, rejects charges of political murders, challenges the concept of political disappearances, denies that it holds any political prisoners, and maintains that police are strictly enjoined against torture or mistreatment of those arrested. The weight of evidence and allegation is overwhelmingly to the contrary, but at the same time we must ask ourselves if it is reasonable to expect a government to repudiate its publicly expressed and oft repeated position on such matters. Col. Iraheta did his best to carve out something of a middle position.
B. Category II human rights—Minister of Planning Reyes, with some assistance from the Vice President, argued strongly and sometimes emotionally that El Salvador’s record here is considerably better and more defensible than we depict it (SS 3271 and A-50).5 In spite of all the bad publicity which this country receives, they maintain that El Salvador’s statistics on economic performance, distribution, share of the [garble] allocated to socio-economic development, and effort to move in the direction of socio-economic reform are indeed a reflection of its poverty but do not compare all that badly with those of many other Latin American countries. In terms of current initiatives, they [Page 952] argued, El Salvador is making a good faith effort to move in the right direction. The Vice President suggests that it is somewhat venturesome for the U.S. or any other outsider to interpose its judgment over that of the national authorities as to the rate and the rhythm with which the GOES can, for example, attempt to move toward land reform (as it is doing) without inviting serious damage to national production upon which the entire economy rests. Both the Vice President and the Minister of Planning feel the United States in the name of human rights has slowed and interfered with the very development plan which is designed to advance the Category II human rights of the people of El Salvador.
C. Category III human rights—The Vice President and the President of the Supreme Court struck an open and forthcoming note in their attitudes toward establishment of an acceptable electoral climate (SS 3297). Since then, significantly, President Romero has publicly assured that the forthcoming elections will be free and honest, has invited all political exiles to return, has promised reform of the electoral law, has announced that a new central commission of elections will be named, and has taken various other steps seemingly conductive to a political opening.
9. We have reached more or less the end of the first phase of high level dialogue based upon state 039568. In view of this mixed bag of somewhat differential progress, I would recommend that we continue with the high level dialogue but on the basis of renewed and updated instructions from Washington. I believe that the Embassy should be instructed and authorized to express our general appreciation for the high level dialogue conducted to date, then to seek such clarifications as the Department may consider appropriate, and finally to push forward along the following lines:
A. Category I human rights—Without belaboring the point in an unacceptable fashion, let the GOES know that we are by no means taken in by their protestations of innocence, refrain from pressing for a probably unobtainable public confession of guilt for [garble], and concentrate instead on forcefully convincing the GOES that a dramatically better performance and record beginning immediately are very much in its own best interest in terms of survival and of relations with the rest of the world, particularly the United States.
B. Category II human rights—Give the GOES some credit for its achievements and efforts to date but then press it for future action which will be less palliative in nature and more bold and structurally reformist.
C. Category III human rights—Reiterate our approval for the measures which have been publicly promised by President Romero but make clear that deeds, not words, will make the difference. Point out [Page 953] that time is short and may be running out. On this basis, press for immediate, continuing, and demonstrable implementation of all that has been promised, plus such other measures as will add up to internationally acceptable elections and offer some change of restoring the faith in democracy of the by now disillusioned people and youth of El Salvador.
10. Somoza has fallen and we face something of a new situation in Central America. Attitudes and traditional positions in El Salvador have been seriously shaken. At the same time, we may have an increased stake in bringing about reform as opposed to revolution or collapse in this country. The interaction of these two factors is suggested in support of continued and more urgent high level dialogue on the basis of renewed and updated instructions drafted in the light of the situation which today confronts us.
- Source: Department of State, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Nicaragua/El Salvador Working Files, Lot 81D64, El Salvador Telegrams, 8/79. Secret. Sent for information to Bogotá, Caracas, Guatemala City, Managua, Mexico City, Panama City, San José, Tegucigalpa, USCINCSO Quarry Heights, and the DIA.↩
- Telegram 3271 from San Salvador, June 15, reported the first part of Devine’s third meeting in the high level dialogue on human rights in El Salvador, focusing on economic and social rights. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790271–0083) Telegram 3297 from San Salvador, June 15, reported the second part of Devine’s third meeting in the high level dialogue on human rights in El Salvador, highlighting political development between the U.S. and Salvadoran Governments. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790292–0705) Telegram 3328 from San Salvador, June 18, reported the third part of Devine’s third meeting in the high level dialogue on human rights in El Salvador, focusing on individual rights. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790278–0406)↩
- See Document 367.↩
- See Document 370.↩
- See footnote 2, above. Airgram 50 from San Salvador, June 21, included a memorandum from Reyes. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P790091–0706)↩