Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, Volume XXIII, Mexico, Cuba, and the Caribbean

167. Letter From Mexican President Lopez Portillo to President Carter¹

December 8, 1979

Mr. President:

This is a personal letter, not a protocol letter. It is in response to the protest made to me through Ambassador Margain about my statements related to the freezing of Iranian assets by your Government.²

I profoundly regret that an opinion of mine about a public decision of your Government might have added tensions to the many which you are facing with firmness and courage in the painful case of the attack on the United States Embassy in Teheran.

What concerns me most is that an uncivilized, medieval act—which we have condemned in every forum and on every occasion—might have the potential of causing the modern world to lose its way and provoke a chain reaction of painful situations, errors, and confrontations which, in our case, even though we are only indirectly concerned, are still very serious and could cause the further deterioration of the contemporary world in which we live. For you, as the head of the most powerful country in the world, and for me in this modest nation of Mexico.

I understand the irritation of your country, and the sensitivity with which you receive the positions of the rest of the world, and that of your neighbors. We are concerned by, but not responsible for, the grave events. We are not part of the causes and we do not wish to be (part) of the consequences. This can not bother anyone.

I expressed in a press conference an opinion—which, by the way, was generalized by the press and in the financial world—about the effect the freezing of funds of one petroleum exporting country could have on the International Monetary System, funds which are obligatorily recycled within the industrialized economies, because in the developing world, they have neither a discrete destiny nor guaranty. I considered this decision precipitous because if the funds are frozen, they are not recycled and this runs the risk of not producing the petroleum that generates them. This will further complicate the energy crisis.

I do not know if this opinion is considered the cause of an injury or is the reason for the protest. I confess my disappointment. I have already said that I am sorry. Such an honest opinion manifests a concern on my part that we should never face (these types of) arbitrary Iranian measures and less, that it should pit us against the United States. The international situation worries me. I know that you have the serenity to avoid a violent confrontation and that you will find peaceful means to the solution. But there will remain the consequences, the lack of confidence, the animosities and an even greater deterioration in the economic world which we cannot effectively rationalize. And this is without considering the political and social aspects.

It would be painful if one of the secondary effects or consequences of an action which we all find reprehensible—the abuse of fanaticism—would be to separate two neighboring countries which, despite their dissimilarities, are encountering better ways of renewed understanding, given the permanence of being neighbors. I hope that the lack of communication, inertia, misunderstandings, will not separate us. I find no reason nor utility in this. Our enemies would celebrate this.

I have opinions about world problems and I have expressed this with sincerity and intellectual honesty.

That which is happening and that which will happen in the future is important to all of us.

I fear that the democratic world no longer has the answers to all of the economic problems and express my concern as I have already done in our conversations, that many poor countries in the area of your influence are giving up their hopes, for not even in the repressive regimes are they resolved. The powerful world does not manifest itself through rational decisions at a universal (global) level, and on the other hand, it seems to contemplate violent measures. It is sad that the reasonable does not appear to be the possible.

In summation, even though there is much more to say, I shall not distract you from your grave responsibilities. I conclude:

I am concerned about the protest made to our Ambassador.

I hope that an opinion, which is not exclusively mine, and not stated to create, but rather to put forth problems, shall not be the cause for animosity, nor for the grave deterioration of bilateral relations between our two countries, as was formulated in the protest.

With all simplicity and sincerity, I want to protect a relationship, which being permanent, everyone agrees that it should be good, and which desirably should be improved.

The times require cool heads and serenity on the part of everyone. In all modesty, I aspire to this and I say that to you.

Please receive affectionate greetings (best wishes) from someone who wants to maintain a good friendship.³

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, President’s Correspondence with Foreign Leaders File, Box 13, Mexico, President Jose Lopez Portillo, 6/78–6/80. Secret. The letter is an unofficial translation; the original letter in Spanish is attached. According to a typed note on the letter, Lopez Portillo wrote it while “In Flight Over Chihuahua State.”
2. Lopez Portillo criticized the American action during a December 3 press conference. He characterized the U.S. decision to freeze Iranian assets as “aggressive,” and stated that it was “going to impair seriously the international monetary system because the petroleum producing companies will think twice before converting a real resource that is deep in the ground for foreign currencies that will be devalued.”(Telegram 20583 from Mexico City, December 4; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790560–0093) Newsom met with Mexican Ambassador Margain on December 5 and delivered a strong demarche regarding Lopez Portillo’s remarks. Margain replied that the Mexican President’s remarks were not intended to be viewed as supportive of Iran. (Telegram 314177 to Mexico City, December 6; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790584–0488)
3. In an undated memorandum to Carter, Brzezinski summarized the Mexican President’s remarks and mentioned that the National Security Council was “considering how best to reply.” The President wrote on the memorandum, “When drafting, remember the Shah, Puerto Rico, his toast remarks, his criticism of action on Iran funds, and his call to boycott the $.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North/South, Pastor, Country, Box 30, Folder: Mexico, 10–12/79) In his reply to Lopez Portillo on December 20, Carter wrote, “Thank you for your letter of December 8, 1979, in which you expressed regret over the adverse reaction of the American Government and people to your statements criticizing my response to the intolerable acts of Iran.” “What is of central importance to me and the American people is that our hostages be released unharmed and be reunited with their families and fellow countrymen. Any statements or actions that might be injurious to this urgent purpose inescapably risk giving serious offense to the people of the United States.” “It is important that we and our peoples maintain the mutual respect and understanding that must be the foundation of the relationship between our nations. Let us work together to achieve accords exemplifying that respect and that understanding.” (Ibid.)