The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project AMBASSADOR ERNEST V. SIRACUSA Interviewed by: Hank Zivetz Initial interview date: June 1989 Copyright 1998 AD T TABLE OF CONTENTS Background aised in California Stanford University, MIT Entered Foreign Service - 1941 US Navy, ,orld ,ar II Buenos Aires, Argentina 195.-1956 Political officer Eva Peron0s funeral Milton Eisenho1er0s mission to 2atin America 3uan Peron and US position Peron and the Catholic Church Anti-Peronism Embassy under fire Peron overthro1 Arturo Frondi5i and UC ome, Italy 1960-196. Advisor on Mutual Defense Affairs 7NATO8 Stockpiling of 1eaponry United Nations 196. Advisor on 2atin America Cuban Missile Crisis 9overnor Stevenson 2ima, Peru 1963-1969 Deputy Chief of Mission Fernando Belaunde Terry IPC issue Territorial 1aters fisheries dispute Internal political situation 1 9uerilla activity obert Kennedy visit Hickenlooper amendment The 9reen Mission Military intervention 2a Pa5, Bolivia 1969-1973 Ambassador President Siles Time article controversy Terrorism CIA OI9A0s blast at ambassador Security situation US interests and issues 9eneral Miranda0s =almost“ coup US Marine house attacked Anti-US violence The E2N President Nixon and 2atin America evolution 1971 9eneral Torres Peace Corps expelled Mary Harding case Hugo Ban5er Henry Kissinger Special Projects AID program Montevideo, Uruguay 1973-1977 Ambassador Profile of Uruguay Tupamaros aul Sendic President 3uan Bordaberry Human rights Mayor Koch interest in Uruguay US interests ,ives and children in the Foreign Service INTERVIEW Q: Before we examine some of the more significant periods of your years in the Foreign ervice, may I ask you what prompted you to choose a career in diplomacy? . SI ACUSA: ,ell, thatAs easy to ans1er. I began 1ith the idea of being a la1yer but shifted to petroleum engineer during my first year in college 1hen I became fascinated 1ith my first course in geology. Also, as my father 1as in the oil 1ell tool business it seemed a logical objective. Ho1ever, at the end of my freshman year, I 1ent to Europe 1ith my father, 1ho had been an immigrant to the United States from Italy 7alone at age 1.8 and 1as returning for his first visit after 45 years. And there my life changed 1hen I met a cousin 7by marriage8 1ho 1as a Cice Consul in Milan. I 1as so attracted by his lifestyle and the glamour of the Foreign Service as I sa1 it, that I decided on the spot to study for that career, 1hich I did at Stanford University. After graduation in 1940 I took the Foreign Service exam at age .1 and, luckily, passed and 1as admitted after oral examination in 3anuary, 1941. Q: ,ell, that-s an interesting way. /ou started out with tours in Mexico and Central America and then had service in the 1. Navy during the econd ,orld ,ar and then had a year at MIT as a graduate student in economics. Afterwards, you were assigned to Buenos Aires as a political officer. This was in the final years of the Peron period. Could you share with us some of your impressions of the political atmosphere in Argentina in the mid41950s? SI ACUSA: ThatAs a big subject, as you 1ell kno1, but I 1ill try to hit some highlights 1ithout, I hope, rambling too much. I did go to Buenos Aires. About September, 195. if I remember correctly--arriving in October, 195., to be exact. 7it took about ten days to get there by ship8 That 1as about a month or a bit more after Evita PeronAs funeral. Our Ambassador, Albert Nufer, a career officer8 had been my boss in ,ashington 1here I 1orked as Officer in Charge, Central America and Panama Affairs, after finishing my courses at MIT. ,hen Nufer 1as assigned to Buenos Aires, he asked if I 1ould like to go 1ith him as the number t1o officer in the political section and I happily accepted. 9iven our past association and the basis for my being there, I enjoyed a special trust of the Ambassador not exactly commensurate 1ith my middle rank in the Embassy. Ambassador Nufer had arrived in Argentina just in the 1eek of Evita PeronAs death and funeral and, although it earned him the criticism of The Ne1 Dork Times, and especially from editorialist Herbert Matthe1s 1ho 1as bitterly anti-Peron, Ambassador Nufer felt, after some soul-searching and doubt, that the proper thing 1as to go and pay his respects. 7After all, he said, Peron 1as human and his 1ife had died after long suffering8. And so, 1ith Eva Peron lying in state for several days, 1hile tens of thousands of Argentines, 7especially the 1orking class and mostly 1omen8 passed before her bier, Ambassador Nufer appeared, unannounced and unescorted, and stood Euietly and respectfully for a 1hile beside the coffin, much to the surprise of the mourners and especially of Peron 1hom he had not yet met. 7The Ambassador, just arrived, had not yet presented credentials and 1as therefore 1ithout official standing8. 3 That gesture, ho1ever, 1as, I believe, very important in establishing a basis for the kind of personal relationship 1hich Nufer 1as able to develop 1ith Peron and 1as a factor in the improvement for a time in U.S.-Argentine relations 1hich later occurred.. Peron, apparently, rightly vie1ed the AmbassadorAs act simply as one of human consideration, 1hich it 1as, and responded to it in kind. A fe1 months after my arrival in Argentina 9eneral Eisenho1er 1as inaugurated as President and gave some priority to his desire to strengthen 2atin American relationships. So in early 1953, shortly after his inauguration, he sent his brother, Milton Eisenho1er, on a very highly publici5ed visit of fact-finding and good1ill to key 2atin American countries. The Embassy had considerable difficulty against strong opposition in the Department and even from some nearby posts, in having Argentina included in his South American itinerary. Although Peron 1as an elected President, there 1as much bitter feeling against Argentina 1hich 1as seen as a dictator-led, hold-over Fascist country 1hich deserved to be snubbed by the PresidentAs brother. 3ust after 1e had fought a long and costly 1ar to rid the 1orld of Fascism, Peron 7and Argentina itself 1ith 1hich country 1e had never had 1arm relations8 1as especially unpopular. Also, ArgentinaAs ambiguous role and attitude during the 1ar and PeronAs ne1ly developing, pretentious FThird PositionF in the gro1ing post-1ar struggle bet1een the ,est and Soviet-Communism 1as more than adeEuate basis disapproval and resentment. In short, Peron and PeronismoG his Mussolini-like but al1ays eloEuent balcony addresses to his manipulated union follo1ers mandatorily packed into the Pla5a de MayoG their shouted FdemocraticF endorsement of his proposals 7often re1arded on the spot 1ith a paid holiday-cynically called SAN PE ON8G and, EvitaAs sho1y exploitation of her FadoringF masses, coupled 1ith her scornful vindictiveness to1ard all others, made it all hard to s1allo1 as all the things 1e 1ere opposed to seemed to be reflected in PeronAs character, in Peronismo and in the kind of government he 1as running. Such antics 1ere by their very nature most distasteful to most Americans. Also, Peron had the intractable opposition of the American media. If simple antipathy on grounds just mentioned 1ere not enough, Peron had also nationali5ed one of the great ne1spapers of the 1orld, 2a Prensa of Buenos Aires. and turned it into a controlled caricature of its former status in the 1orld of journalism. That act, in addition cost the Associated Press one of its biggest accounts. Thus, 1hile the media had plenty of reason to oppose Peron for his affront to democracy and press freedom, the accompanying financial damage to the Associated Press may have added something to the solidarity of all the American media and their unrelenting and determined opposition to Peron. 4 As a footnote I might add that 1hile Peron had indeed been elected by an over1helming majority--something like 75H or more of the votes--it had certainly not by our lights been a fair campaign. The opposition 1as hamstrung at every turn, had no free press support as there 1as none such, had limited access to radio, etc., etc. Nonetheless it 1as generally considered by most observers that he 1ould have received at least majority support of Argentines even in a fair election and there 1as opposition representation in the 2egislature, po1erless as it 1as. The leading opposition figure 1as Arturo Frondi5i of the Union Civica adical 7 adical Civic Union8 1ho finally became President for a time in the post-Pron period. Finally, a factor in PeronAs attitude to1ard the U.S. 1as that a former American Ambassador, Spruille Braden, had virtually campaigned against him. Many Argentines thought that in a campaign 1here a patriotism-inspiring slogan--Braden O Peron--1as gleefully exploited by the Peronistas, PeronAs margin of victory 1ould not have been so large had Braden behaved more correctly.8 ,hile recogni5ing the many good reasons for Milton Eisenho1er to skip Argentina and thus deliver a clear and in many 1ays satisfying message, it 1as hard to see 1hat in fact this snub delivered to one of the three most important South American countries Bra5il, Argentina, Chile8 1ould accomplish or ho1 it could serve US interests, especially since he 1ould be going to the other t1o. 2ooking beyond such immediate though Euestionable satisfaction 1hich PeronAs humiliation might bring, Ambassador Nufer and most 7but not all8 of his policy-advising staff believed it more important to try to influence Peron to1ard our side in the developing cold 1ar and felt that 1ith Evita gone there 1as a chance for a change to our advantage.