Action Memorandum

To:
From:
Subject:

President Reagan
Natalie Davis
US Military Aid in Guatemala

February 10, 1984

Issue: Should the United States resume military aid to Guatemala in response to Marxist threats
in Central America despite the nations poor human rights record?
Background: Since the CIA-backed coup of Guatemalas leftist president Jacobo Arbenz
Guzman in 1954, Guatemala has been of particular interest in United States foreign policy. This
coup ushered in 30 years of military repression aimed at squandering any signs of opposition in
the name of suppressing a Marxist-backed insurgency. The United States supported this fight
against communists with military training, equipment, and our second largest police assistance
program in the Western Hemisphere. By 1971, military aid to Guatemala reached $9.8 million.
However, this aid was severely cut back as human rights concerns emerged following reports of
violent repression by Guatemalas military governments, and the military aid package was
shrunken to $2.2 million by 1975. In 1976, Congress added Section 502B to the Foreign
Assistance Act, a human rights observance stating that no security assistance may be provided
to any country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights. As a result of this legislation, the flow of US military
aid came to a halt when Guatemala rejected it rather than accept aid with human rights
conditionalities. However, the 1979 ousting of the US-backed Nicaraguan dictator Anostasio
Somoza Debayle by the Marxist Sandista National Liberation Front incited concern that this
pattern could be repeated in other Central American dictatorships with the support of Nicaragua,
Cuba and the Soviet Bloc. Guatemala is also in the midst of a severe economic crisis with
inflation soaring near 50% and high unemployment that carry the risk of political unrest, which
makes the nation vulnerable to coups and external forces. Multifaceted aid is now considered to
be the primary means for stabilizing the region. Nonetheless, human rights remain a major
concern and complicating factor in reopening a military assistance relationship with Guatemala
as reports of government-sponsored killings and torture continue.
US Interests: Human rights in Central America are a challenging issue for foreign policy
decisions. One the one hand, we are a nation that prides itself in advocating for human rights
throughout the world and many in Washington and the nation as a whole feel that our policies
should focus on protecting and promoting these principles in countries like Guatemala. These
sentiments are evident in the addition of a human rights observance to the Foreign Assistance
Act, the flourishing of non-governmental human rights watch groups and frequent testimonies of
human rights experts at congressional hearing sessions regarding human rights in foreign policy.
On an international scale it is also important for us to maintain our stance of dedication to human
rights, and there is no denying that Guatemala is guilty of extreme human rights violations with
the culture of fear that the militant government has created through torturing, killings and
disappearances. It is thus unbecoming for our nation to be funding a military that commits such
crimes.

On the other hand, the presence and potential multiplying of Marxist governments in Central
America is a serious national security issue, requiring urgent attention in the interest of
preserving the peace and US power in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout the Cold War,
United States foreign policy has diligently sought to prevent the expansion of communism, and
we have an especially heightened interest in regional stability in Central America due to its close
proximity to the United States. We are already deeply invested in keeping communism out of
Guatemala, having provided millions in military aid for that very purpose since the 1954 coup
carried out with the same intent. Therefore, there is added incentive to ensure that the nation
continues to be free from communism and not make waste of the years of our investment in this
objective.
Options: Refusing military aid to Guatemala serves our principled interests in human rights by
not supporting a military government that harms its own people. To many, this is our moral
obligation and American foreign policy must stand firm in these beliefs. This argument carries a
lot of weight, as human rights offenses in Guatemala by its military government are irrefutable
and indirectly funding these abuses through military aid goes against this countrys ethical
standards.
Allowing the political situation in Central America to develop unimpeded and threaten our
national security is also not an option. The Cold War is no less of a foreign policy priority now
than when it started and this danger to our national security needs to be taken seriously. This is
not a time to stand by and watch what unfolds but to exercise our influence in the region.
Military and economic aid is a major source of leverage, and some critics even argue that the
strict human rights aid policies of the 1970s carry a certain degree of responsibility for the
continued human rights abuses in a number of Latin American countries because they caused us
to lose this leverage. Withholding military aid as a punishment for human rights abuses is not an
effective solution to the problem because it sacrifices the influence the United States can hold
over how the military operates with this money and potentially decrease the occurrence of human
rights crimes. Therefore it is in our best interest to resume limited military aid to Guatemala
along with substantial economic and development aid to promote political stability at this crucial
time.
The Kissinger Commissions recent report on how to help Central American countries handle
their insurgencies includes the recommendation of economic and development aid as well as
military assistance. To accomplish this, the Central American Democracy, Peace and
Development Initiative recommends $6 billion in direct economic and development assistance to
the region over the next five years. Military aid is a much more contentious endeavor with
Congress, as sentiments on the Hill lean heavily toward the prioritization of human rights in aid
policy. A plausible starting point is to pick up where we left off at a very low $2 million in
military aid absolutely restricted to non-lethal activities. This would, however, require the waiver
of Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibiting security aid to countries with
internationally recognized human rights abuses. This waiver can be reasonably argued with the
national security threats facing the United States in Central America. Making this aid package
subject to increase only if reports show that human rights conditions are improving in Guatemala
shows that we are remaining committed to our dedication to human rights given what the

circumstances require without the pressure of human rights conditions on aid that led Guatemala
to reject it and suspend our aid relationship in the first place.
Recommendations:

Request the recommended $6 billion Central American aid package.

Draft a statement to the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations detailing the extenuating national security issues that warrant waiving Section 502B
of the Foreign Assistance Act to provide military aid to Guatemala.

Propose to Congress a limited, non-lethal military aid package of $2 million with the potential
for increase on the condition of improved human rights reports, emphasizing the need for
leverage in Guatemala.

Assemble a commission of State Department officials and human rights experts to conduct a six
month investigation on human rights conditions in Guatemala and prepare a report upon which
to base expanded military aid.