188. Memorandum of Conversation1
SUBJECT
- The Secretary’s Breakfast Conversation with Foreign Minister Carvajal of Chile of May 8th, 1975
PARTICIPANTS
- Chile
- Foreign Minister Patricio Carvajal
- Ambassador Manuel Trucco
- Ambassador Enrique Bernstein (Foreign Ministry Political Advisor)
- U.S.
- The Secretary
- Assistant Secretary William D. Rogers
- Deputy Assistant Secretary Hewson A. Ryan (Notetaker)
[Omitted here is discussion of reform of the Inter-American system; the U.S. Trade Bill; a possible Kissinger trip to Latin America; Cuba; an Uruguayan initiative on commodities and energy; and the Panama Canal treaties.]
Amb. Trucco: We are also faced with the problem of the Human Rights Commission report. It is not really a report, but rather a document prepared for us and then given to the United Nations at Geneva. This is an item on the agenda. Some countries have come to us saying they do not want a discussion but indicate a statement from Chile stating that the U.N. Commission is coming and that any discussion now would prejudice the U.N. investigation.
The Secretary: What do you want?
Amb. Trucco: We are prepared to discuss the case if it is a serious approach and not a propagandistic approach. We have made much progress in recent months.
The Secretary: I hold the strong view that human rights are not appropriate for discussion in a foreign policy context. I am alone in this. It is not shared by my colleagues in the Department of State or on the Hill. We are interested in foreign policy, but there are strong pressures which must be taken into account. Chilean foreign policy [Page 508] supports the United States. Your government is much better for U.S. interests than its predecessor. However, it is in our mutual interest for us to avoid embarrassment. We will not do anything to embarrass your government but we cannot go through this General Assembly without some mention of human rights. We will give strong support to keep it in the lowest key possible. We will not harass you. We think you have made progress in human rights.
It would be helpful, however, if before my arrival something more could be done, but that is your sovereign decision to make. We will have to make some statement on human rights in this session, but we will show it to you and listen to your views in advance.
Mr. Minister: This matter could lead to a very long session, perhaps of several days length. Some countries prefer to say in the conversations that “We will send the matter to the U.N., so let us not take it up here.”
The Secretary: We have no reason to oppose this. That would probably be best. Will it be acceptable?
Mr. Rogers: We could perhaps arrange a very short discussion with a mention of the U.N. human rights group.
Amb. Trucco: We have indications that Mexico will make a sharp speech. That would produce a reply.
The Secretary: You mean you will reply?
Amb. Trucco: Yes.
The Secretary: We will not be the first to speak.
Mr. Minister: We prefer to send this matter to the U.N.
The Secretary: Wouldn’t you have problems when you take it to the U.N.?
Amb. Trucco: It is already there.
The Secretary: Who is on the U.N. group, Uganda?
Amb. Trucco: Pakistan, Ecuador, Senegal, Austria and Sierra Leone.
The Secretary: Pakistan? There is a great defender of human rights.
Mr. Rogers: It’s really a fairly good group.
The Secretary: We will not use the human rights issue to harass Chile. We will show you what we plan to say.
Amb. Trucco: If it could be transferred to the conversations, it may be better.
Mr. Rogers: We will have a statement in reserve and will show it to you.
The Secretary: I will not initiate it in the conversation. If it comes up in the general debate, we will have a short statement. We intend to help you avoid ostracism. I think that Chile’s record on human rights is improving. Our particular intention is to be as helpful as [Page 509] possible to the Government of Chile as we can. We cannot always do this in view of the current Congressional climate.
Mr. Minister: Thank you.
The Secretary: What other problems?
Mr. Minister: Weapons, particularly defense weapons, are a great need.
The Secretary: Didn’t we work out an agreement for sales through a commercial channel?
Mr. Rogers: The guidance systems for the TOWs are manufactured only in arsenals.
The Secretary: Couldn’t they buy some third country’s, like Iran?
Mr. Rogers: No.
The Secretary: Who thought that arrangement up? How did we get involved in this retroactive business?
Mr. Rogers: Congress. But hopefully it will expire on June 30. We have to persuade Congress that if there is a continuing resolution that part of the law will not be included. We are going to do our best.
The Secretary: I am in complete disagreement with the lawyers and I will take it up with the President. I will call Schlesinger today. What are the items—TOWs?
Mr. Rogers: Yes TOWs, the weapons support on aircraft, are the main problem.
Amb. Trucco: Also spare parts for the Army.
Mr. Rogers: And Navy, too . . .
Amb. Trucco: In the Air Force there is also the case of the engines in England. We can’t have the engines on our Hawker Hunters overhauled.
Mr. Minister: If we can be of any help to the United States, we wish to offer our assistance. I remember that the Chief of Naval Intelligence came to Chile and indicated interest in information which we might develop on the activities of Russian submarines and ships in the area. We had on Easter Island some U.S. surveillance equipment which was removed in the time of the previous government. We would be glad to offer our collaboration on Easter Island now, but we don’t have the equipment.
The Secretary: We had this program before?
Mr. Minister: Yes, but if you made this offer now, we would be willing to collaborate.
The Secretary: I’ll look into the sales problem. I want the paper on this before 9:45 when I go to the President. I’ll take it up with him.
What’s Kennedy’s attitude?
Mr. Rogers: I talked with his staff yesterday and they had not heard of the new developments in human rights. They were pleased.
[Page 510]The Secretary: I’ll look into the problem. What’s the basis of the disagreement?
Mr. Rogers: Differences between our lawyers and the DoD lawyers.
The Secretary: I’ll do my best. I wish to reaffirm my attitude on human rights. Our intention is to avoid economic isolation. If you can help us with our domestic problems, it would be most helpful. I am not making it a formal issue, but it would be helpful if something could be done when I go to Latin America. Since you extended the courteous invitation, I will certainly stop in Chile.
Who’s in the chair?
Mr. Rogers: It’s a temporary Chairman now and there’s some talk of Lievano.
The Secretary: Will there be any order?
Mr. Rogers: No.
The Secretary: Then there will be chaos. Do I have to reply to all of the issues?
Mr. Rogers: No, not all of them are against the United States.
The Secretary: Are we expected to express a view on all of them?
Mr. Rogers: No, in fact on the Uruguayan issue on oil, we probably shouldn’t.
The Secretary: Rogers thinks that I shouldn’t because it’s the one issue I know something about.
Mr. Minister: Thank you again Mr. Secretary for your kindness.
The Secretary: Mr. Rogers will see you to the door downstairs.
-
Summary: During a breakfast meeting, Kissinger, Rogers, Carvajal, and Trucco discussed human rights violations in Chile and the junta’s efforts to obtain weapons from the United States and other countries.
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P820125–0227. Secret; Nodis. The meeting took place in the James Madison Dining Room in the Department. Drafted by Ryan; cleared by Rogers; approved by Gompert on May 13. A memorandum of Kissinger’s conversation with Ford at 9:30 a.m. on May 9 does not indicate any discussion of military sales to Chile. (Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Memoranda of Conversation, Box 11, May 9, 1975)
↩