Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XII, American Republics

117. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to All Posts in the American Republics¹

Washington, October 17, 1961, 8:41 p.m.

721. Request by Peru for application Rio Treaty to Cuban situation² has precipitated showdown this issue in OAS at time and under circumstances not of Department’s choosing. Issue having been planted, however, particularly in such well-reasoned challenging terms as contained Peruvian OAS Representative’s statement (Depcirtel 718),³ Department believes best strategy is endeavor combine surprise Peruvian initiative with Colombian initiative and rally maximum support, including most of large LA states.

In theory easy combine two initiatives. Both contemplate action under Rio Treaty. Peruvian seeks appointment by COAS, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation, of Investigating Committee to go to Cuba to investigate series of acts falling under categories violation human rights, subversive activities abroad and rejection inter-American commitments by association Sino-Soviet bloc, and submit report. Peruvian initiative does not specifically contemplate further action beyond this, but logical next step would be for meeting Organ of Consultation (i.e. Meeting of Foreign Ministers) to adopt resolutions, based on findings of Committee, along lines of those proposed by Colombia.

In practice may not be so easy combine two proposals and achieve same degree support which Colombian alone might have obtained. Indications are however that President Lleras looking upon situation created by Peruvian initiative realistically and desirous work out combination to move ahead rapidly. Department consulting Colombians and Peruvians on feasibility and best manner coordinate their initiatives.

If queried re US position you may state:

1. USG believes Peruvian proposal and its sound well-reasoned supporting statement warrant most careful consideration.

2. Of utmost importance any move in COAS on Cuban issue clearly constitutes forward step and not be subject to interpretation OAS inactive or negative on Cuban problem.

3. We are developing views on best means for insuring coordinated OAS steps to contribute to steady progression in OAS action.⁴

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 371.05/10-1761. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Bowdler and Jamison; cleared by William Barnes, John H. Crimmins, Alton W. Hemba, and Samuel O. Lane, Deputy Directors of the Offices of Central American and Panamanian Affairs, Caribbean and Mexican Affairs, East Coast Affairs, and West Coast Affairs, respectively; and approved by Coerr. Repeated to Ciudad Trujillo, POLADCINCLANT, POLAD SACLANT, and USUN.
2. Circular telegram 712, October 14, reported that Peru had requested a special meeting of the OAS Council relating to the Cuban situation; the Department had had no advance notice of the move and was considering how it might affect the Colombian initiative. (Ibid., 371.05/10-1461)
3. Dated October 16. (Ibid., 371.05/10-1661)
4. On October 25 the OAS Council voted 19-1, with 1 abstention, to refer the Peruvian initiative to Council’s General Committee. The decision was a compromise, worked out after it became clear that the Council was divided. Documentation on this subject is ibid., 371.05 and 737.00.