Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980 Volume XXIV, South America; Latin America Region

46. Aide-Memoire Prepared in the National Security Council¹

Washington, August 9, 1979

SUBJECT

• Secretary Vance’s Trip to Ecuador, August 10, 1979

The Secretary’s trip to Quito comes at a portentous moment in inter-American relations.² The approach to Latin America which the Carter Administration has articulated over the last two and one-half years represents a significant and positive departure from that of previous administrations, but it is seriously threatened at this time. The Secretary’s trip presents us with a unique opportunity to not only preserve the integrity of our approach but to enhance it. (C)

The Carter Administration has approached Latin America, guided by three fundamental principles: (C)

—A commitment to non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. (C)

—A pledge of support for democratization, human rights, and social justice. (C)

—A commitment to multilateral consultation, and to the extent possible, action. (C)

In practice, our policies have distanced the U.S. from the status quo and from authoritarian regimes of the right. (We had already found ourselves at such a distance from the one leftist dictator in the hemisphere that the impulse for communication necessarily led us towards him.) Our commitment to human rights and social reform not only led us to withdraw support from historical “friends” like Somoza, but it also changed the power equation in many countries—increasing the cost of repression, encouraging opposition groups, and in a sense de-legitimizing the arbitrary use of power. Our pledge of non-intervention prevented us from direct involvement when our interests were jeopardized, but it didn’t stop the Cubans and others from intervening. Our preference for multilateral consultations often meant that we would lose critical moments seeking support from others when independent action could have been decisive. (C)

These are the drawbacks of our approach. Critics claim that we have de-stabilized Latin America without providing an alternative. This is a weak argument, attributing too much importance to U.S. influence and too little to indigenous factors, but it is one that has been made. Nonetheless, there have been important and to a great extent unanticipated changes in inter-American relations these past two and one-half years, and unless we take them into account and make some basic changes in our approach, we may find ourselves trailing in the wake of the Cubans. (C)

The Heads of State and/or the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, and Panama will be in Quito. These countries and a few like-minded countries from the Caribbean like Barbados, Dominican Republic, and perhaps Trinidad could form a nucleus of a working group to deal with the problems gripping Central America and the Caribbean. There are three objectives which could be set for the Secretary’s talks: (C)

(1) To seek a common perception of the problems facing Central America and the Caribbean. The problems in Central America are different than those of the Caribbean; the only thread that connects these divergent problems is Cuban policy which seeks to aggravate and exploit local situations for their purposes, as they serve the broader geo-political aims of the Soviet Union. In Central America, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are all troubled, though to varying degrees, by gross inequalities and a rigid and closed socio-political system. The masses are increasingly alienated from the governments; political polarization is growing worse. In the Caribbean, a new and young generation of leaders are looking to Cuba for answers to the economic dilemma posed by non-viable mini-states. (C)

(2) To seek common action among as many of the leaders as possible. In Central America (including Nicaragua) we must actively seek to strengthen the moderate democratic process. In the Caribbean, we must make the Caribbean Group work, and demonstrate to the new leaders that a moderate democratic path can be more just and successful than a radical Cuban model. We must also seek to contain Cuba as a source of revolutionary change, and try to deny Cuba the legitimacy it desperately seeks—from Latin America, perhaps as much as from the U.S. (C)

(3) To develop a mechanism to insure good coordination and immediate action on the problems that face us. We should not look to the O.A.S. at the beginning because it is too slow and too open. We need to develop an ad hoc mechanism to deal with the crisis that stands in front of us. Turbay of Colombia may want to deal in abstractions, searching for the “new dimension” in inter-American relations, but he, like Herrera, is also a problem-solver, and they are beginning to sense a problem. They need to be encouraged to act. (C)

The success of the Cubans in Nicaragua has had a paradoxical impact on Latin America. On the one hand, it has raised the level of concern about Cuban motives and capabilities. On the other hand, it has raised the level of respect by Latin America for Cuba as a political force of global importance. Undoubtedly, there are probably some leaders in Latin America who are questioning our strength and resolve as well, and it will be important to make clear that our policy in Nicaragua was not a reflection of weakness, but of strength. At the same time, we should make clear to them that the Cubans are pushing us to the limits of our tolerance. (C)

These Latin American leaders have a stake in the Carter Administration’s policies for four reasons, which could be used as instruments to weld a new coalition of like-minded American democracies. (C)

—First, the principles which guide our policies are Latin America’s, particularly non-intervention and multilateral consultation. (C)

—Secondly, events in Central America and the Caribbean will affect them as much, if not more, than they will affect the U.S. (C)

—Third, the U.S. made good on its pledge to replace Somoza; our credibility with these countries ought to be high. (C)

—Fourth, Cuban expansion and Cuba’s military build-up should be sources of growing concern for Latin American leaders. Cuba now has one of the largest, if not the largest, Latin American military forces; it has submarines; it has an offensive capability. It has recently increased its subversive political activities through legitimate (Caribbean) groups and illegitimate guerrilla (Central American) groups. (C)

What specifically should be done? A lot, of course, depends on the extent to which agreement can be reached on the three objectives described above; and a lot will depend on what the Latins have to say. The Cubans have set us and our democratic colleagues off-balance, if not on the defensive, and I suspect this will be evident in the conversations. The Venezuelans, Costa Ricans, Panamanians, and others are all afraid that the child—Nicaragua—that they thought they had fathered may actually be Fidel’s. They need to stand together now. We should encourage them to raise their voices in praise of Ecuador and the democratic process and in condemnation of Cuba and the violent revolutionary path. We should share intelligence information more and consult regularly. (The Panamanians, for example, have a lot more information on the Cubans in Nicaragua than we do.) We should all agree to help El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala by the formula we have agreed to: reforms for assistance. If the conversations are productive, we may want to consider a summit meeting along the lines suggested by Colombian President Turbay, only much more specific and only after full staff preparation.³ We may want to try to develop the idea of a multilateral military assistance program for Nicaragua and for other Central American countries. (C)

The Quito meetings have certain similarities with the Commonwealth Summit in Lusaka.⁴ If we can emerge with a unified perception and approach, we will have succeeded in enhancing our policies and retrieving the initiative from the Cubans. (C)

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 17, Ecuador, 1/77–1/81. Confidential. No drafting information appears on the aide-memoire.
2. Vance traveled to Quito for the inauguration of Roldos August 9–12. See Documents 284 and 285.
3. See Document 251.
4. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was held August 1–7.