Enclosure No. 1

MERWIN L. BDHAN

A U g U S t 2 7 , 1 9 7 0 6902 WEST-LAKE AVENUE

AREA CODE 214 DALLAS. TEXAS 75214

MiBS Shirley R. Newhall, Editor, Foreign Service Journal, 2101 E Street H.W., Washington, D.C. £00037.

Dear Miss Newhall:

I did not pay too much attention to James Reston's reference to "savage criticism" on the Jacket of Present at the Creation since I had always associated criticism by Mr. Acheson with the rapier rather than the broadsword. Nor did I find any reason to change this impression as these magnificent memoirs carried »e back to the days of the "old" State Department and forward Into the exciting early forties when our efforts to carry economic warfare to our enemies abroad were so often handi­capped by the guerrilla tactics of our bureaucrats at home. Hence, I was unprepared when Mr, Acheson suddenly took up a meat cleaver in Chapter 21 and took out after two of our most distin­guished envoys to L«tin America.

I had the good fortune to serve under Spruille Braden In Colombia and G-eorge Messersmith in Mexico. I had always assumed that the clash of these two strong personalities over Argentine policy was what led to the resignation of Mr. Braden and the retirement of Mr. Messersmith. Krl Acheson's account of the affair is quite different. True, the conflict over Argentina led Secretary Marshall, when "he was able to give attention to hemisphere matters", to the conclusion that our policy "was not all of one piece". "In this situation", con­tinues Mr. Acheson, "Messersmith moved to Mexico City, and the conflict between the two men continued in a new setting and over a new issue", i.e. the refusal of the Department of Agriculture to agree to Mexico's request that it be allowed, "under arrange­ments existing between Mexico ^nd the United Spates", to quar­antine a shipment of "prize bulls — from some area infected with hoof-and-mouth disease Messersmith combatted the decision; Braden supported it. General Mcrshall directed that no con­cession be made. The bulls were landed and quarantined, with -It was charged - Messersmith's collusion, if not consent. To General Marshall this appeared to be direct disobedienseJ8__The facts Immediately became clouded in dispute". Thereupon, Mr. Acheson requested and obtained the Secretary's approval to deal with the problem by eliminating it - "that is, by*acting in his name to recall and retire Messersmith end to fflsk for Braden's resignation.

While memory of the action remained in the Service, it had the powerful effect of transforming an instruction from the Department from an invitation to debate to an order to act."

Page 2.

The entire section "Bull in a Good-Neighbor Shop" (pages 187-190) from which I have quoted is so out of character that I find it hard to believe that Mr. Acheson wrote it. The treatment of Mr. Braden is biased and unbalanced while the anonymous charges of collusion in the case of Mr. Messersmlth are, unless Mr. Acheson has hard evidence to the contrary, nothing short of libelous.

The Argentine policy of Sprullle Braden was admittedly highly controversial. Sumner Welles is even more critical of that policy than Mr. Acheson (see Where are We Heading, pages 215 ff) but he balances his criticism by reference to the services Mr. Braden had rendered hl3 country as U.S. representative on the Chaco Commission and as Ambassador to Colombia. True, Mr. Acheson admits bias (over "the battle for intelligence" which Mr. Braden had won) and freely admits participation in the Argentine crusade until he learned "the hard way what Woodrow Wilson's experience with Huerts In Mexico should have taught me". This admission, from one of the keenest minds the Department has commanded, is merely evidence of the extraordinary low level of Mr. Acheson1s interest in Latin American affairs, patent through­out his memoirs but no place clearer than here. It also probably explains the far too restricted view he gives us of the Argentine affair. "Peron or Braden" was admittedly a powerful vote-getting slogan but there is little question but that Peron would have won anyway. Long before Mr. Braden had pny Influence on our Argentine policy, vendetta inspired actions on our part were undercutting democratic strength in Argentina and helping- to prepare the ground for some such opportunistic demagogue as Peron. I do not think it unfair, in discussing so basic an historical document a s Present at the Creation, to criticise the author for making Mr. Braden the sole scapegoat when others, including his immediate superiors and their predecessors, bear far more responsibility than Mr. Acheson's account would indicate. Further, it is to be regretted that so just a man as Dean Acheson, who supervised our economic warfare activities during World War II, failed to lighten the black picture he draws of Mr. Braden by mentioning the contri­butions he made to our national security during his service as Ambassador to Colombia (1939-1942). It was fcpruille Braden who, against formidable odds, forced the expulsion from Colombia of the German pilots, many of whom were reserve officers in the Ger­man Air Force, and whose SCADTA planes had the freedom of the skies over the Panama Canal. Of course, no one knows what might have happened if Mr. Braden had not acted; all we do know is that nothing happened. For which all Americans, in the light of Pearl Harbor, should be devoutly thankful. As one of them put it (a PAA vice president to his head office in New York) in an early postal Intercept that came across my desk in Bogota: "Spruille Braden may be an s.o.b. but he Is the best damn Ambassador we have in South America". I vrould only add that he was also a wonderful man to work for.

Page 3,

The charges against George Messersmith are much more serious. Collusion and disobedience are ugly words to cap a distinguished Foreign Service career of over thirty years. Consul General, when that title ranked in prestige just short of Chief of Mission, to Belgium-Luxembourg, Buenos Aires, and Berlin; Ambassador to Urguay, Austria, Cuba, Mexico, and Argen­tina; Assistant Secretary of State; and architect of the merger of the Foreign Services of State, Commerce, and Agriculture it is incomprehensible that such charges would be aired without incontrovertible evidence to back them up. The account of this affair appearing in Present e/fc the Creation is neither convin­cing nor accurate. Specifically, the upri?e bull" affair occurred before rather than after the battle over Argentine polloy; Messer-sraith was moved from Mexico to Argentina, not vice versa; and General Marshall could not have passed on the Mexican quarantine request because this decision had been taken almost a year before he became Secretary. After his retirement in August 1947, Messer-smith returned to Mexico as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Mexican Light & Power Company.

Guy Ray, then Chief of The Mexican Division, has left a resume of the Mexican aftosa question that helps to throw some light on this turbid affair (zee Foreign Relations of the United States 1946, Volume_ , pages 1048-1C50). It checks closely with my recollections' Tl was Economic Counselor in Mexico at the time) and with those of Ruth Hughes (Assistant Chief of the Mexi­can Division, now living in retirement in Virginia), Don Stoops (Assistant Agricultural Attache in Mexico, now a senior livestock official of the IBRD), and Lester Mallory (Agricultural Attache in Mexico in 1945, later Ambassador to Jordan and Guatemala and now living in retirement in Guadalajara). Mr. Ray states that Ambassador Messersmith repeatedly expressed his concern to the Mexican authorities about the shipments of 7-ebu cattle. However, he favored their being permitted to land on Sacrificios Island (just off the coast of Veracruz.) and I.lso pressed strongly for the establishment of an international quarantine station. Mr. Ray also states that Messrs. Ache son and Braden had informed him that Mr. Messersmith had telephoned them urging that no formal protest be made to the Mexican Government. Mr. Ray definitely states that "this Government did everything possible to prevent develop­ment of conditions leading to an outbreak (of aftbsa) and the blame for the present epidemic must be placed sauarely upon the Mexican Government". Further, the hearings before the Committee' on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives held on February 10, 11, and 12, 194? raise no doubts as to the accuracy of Mr. Ray's resume.

I will not comment on the charge of collusion. George Messersmith was a man of honor. Collusion there was aplenty in this affelr, as recorded in the above mentioned Hearings, but Mr.

Page 4.

Acheson when he rechecks, as I am sure he will, will find that this sordid affair will not remotely touch the honor of our then Ambassador to Mexico.

The question of "disobedience" is another matter. Mr. Messersmith took seriously the dictum that he was the personal representative of the President of the United States and he frea.uently had doubts, and expressed them forthrightly, about the infallibility of judgments handed down from even the highest levels in Washington. He was usually, but not always, right. However, he was so fanatically loyal to the Department and to the Foreign Service, that I am quite sure any flat re­fusal to follow Washington instructions would have been accompanied by a letter of resignation.

There is no question that Mr. Messersmith favored quarantine, not exclusion. In October 1945, 120 head of Zebu cattle from Brazil had been landed on Sacrificios Island (see Circular Letter of the American Embassy to U.S„ Consulates in Mexico dated June 3, 1946). At the time, the United States had expressed concern but had grudgingly agreed to the quaran-tineproviding this would not constitute a precedent, Also, if my memory does not trick me,, our own Department of Agriculture was playing with the idea of a Quarantine station on Swan Island at the time. Eventually the 120 head were transferred to the mainland and a number were later shipped to Texas. No outbreaks of hoof-and-mouth disease were ever traced to this shipment.

My own guess is that Mr. Messersmith opposed a formal protest because of the somewhat equivocal attitude of our officials in 1945 and the assurances given by th'i Mexican Minis-ster of Agriculture on April 25, 1946 that the shipment of 327 Zebu cattle which had left Brazil on April 7 would not bs per­mitted to land in Mexico. Of course, the cattle were permitted to land on Sof rif icios Island. This occurred on May 10 and 11 and I do not recall whether Mr. Messersmith heard of the landings since he left Mexico City for his post In Buenos Aires on May 15, 1946.It was six months later that the hoof-and-mouth epi­demic broke out. In the interim, formal assurances were again received that the quarantined cattle would not be permitted on the mainland. Once again, internal political and economic pressures proved stronger than international commitments. The cattle were transferred to the mainland on September 28 and by the end of the year 250 herds in the State of Vsracruz, 15 in the State of Mexico and 75 in the State of Puebla were infected.

Never during the period I have reviewed nor during the remaining three years that T was stationed in Mexico did I ever hear anyone, in Mexico or in Washington, impute improper

Page 5

motives to George Messersmlth or place responsibll aftosa epidemic on hie shoulders. And a final foo Shortly before the Fourth Meeting of Consultation Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American State scheduled to convene in 1951, the Departments fear Peron was contemplating some shenanigans, requeste offices of Mr. Messersmlth to assure the cooperati tlna at that important meeting. Mr. Messersmith j •Buenos Aires and obtained Peron's promise of good Somewhere in the files there must be a copy of the expressing the Department's appreciation for this proof of Mr. Messersmith*a devotion to the Service,

lty for the tnote. of the s "!7as ful that a the good on of Argen-ourneyed to behavior. letter further

I have done my best to check the statements set forth and have consulted all the sources that were open to me. I hope that all my comments have been made with due regard to the deep respect in which I hold all tffiree of the principals involved. \

Sin; *!*& 7 /^>

& J»~, „ MerVi'n L. Bohan.