We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2010
The differing perspectives and actions of US government, business and labour towards the Guatemalan government and Guatemalan trade unionists themselves in the half-decade or so following the overthrow of the Arbenz administration in 1954 are the focus of this study. Few areas were more important to the US project for Guatemala following the Castillo Armas invasion than helping the Guatemalans to create a ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ labour movement – and few areas would prove more frustrating. Part of the problem was the intransigent stance of Guatemalan elites. An additional challenge was strong opposition from the major US-based companies operating in Guatemala, most notably the United Fruit Company and its affiliates. This work contests interpretations that regard US policy towards countries like Guatemala at the time as simply beholden to business interests or as seeking domination. Rather, as Washington's interest in the transition diminished, officials in the US embassy and representatives of US labour in Guatemala were left isolated, unable to fulfil their vision for a democratic labour movement in the teeth of such opposition.
Este artículo se centra en las perspectivas y acciones divergentes del gobierno, los empresarios y los trabajadores norteamericanos, en relación al gobierno y los sindicalistas de Guatemala en la media década que siguió al derrocamiento del gobierno de Árbenz en 1954. Pocas áreas fueron más importantes al proyecto norteamericano para Guatemala después de la invasión de Castillo Armas que ayudar a los guatemaltecos a crear un movimiento laboral ‘libre’ y ‘democrático’. Sin embargo, pocas tareas mostrarían ser tan frustrantes. Parte del problema se debió a la actitud intransigente de las élites guatemaltecas. Un reto adicional fue la fuerte oposición de la mayoría de las compañías basadas en Estados Unidos que operaban en Guatemala, en particular la United Fruit Company y sus afiliadas. Este artículo cuestiona las interpretaciones que consideran que la política norteamericana en esa época en países como Guatemala simplemente representaba los intereses empresariales o buscaban la dominación. Más bien, en la medida que el interés de Washington en la transición disminuyó, funcionarios de la embajada norteamericana y representantes de los trabajadores estadounidenses en Guatemala fueron aislados, incapaces de cumplir su misión de lograr un movimiento laboral democrático en vista de tal oposición.
Este estudo se concentra nas ações e perspectivas divergentes do governo, empresariado e trabalhadores norte-americanos em relação ao governo e aos próprios sindicalistas guatemaltecos ao longo de aproximadamente cinco anos que seguiram a derrubada da administração Arbenz em 1954. Após a invasão de Castillo Armas, poucas áreas foram consideradas mais importantes ao projeto norte-americano para a Guatemala do que auxiliar os guatemaltecos a criarem um movimento sindical ‘livre’ e ‘democrático’. Porém, poucas áreas provar-se-iam mais frustrantes. Parte do problema provinha do posicionamento intransigente das elites guatemaltecas; outro desafio era colocado pela oposição das grandes empresas estadunidenses operantes na Guatemala, notavelmente a United Fruit Company e suas filiais. Este trabalho questiona as interpretações que consideram a política norte-americana para países como a Guatemala na época como simplesmente presa aos interesses empresariais ou buscando a dominação. Ao invés, em meio à tamanha oposição, à medida que o interesse de Washington pela transição diminuía, funcionários da Embaixada Americana e representantes do sindicalismo estadunidense ficariam mais isolados, incapazes de realizar sua visão de um movimento sindical democrático.
1 Quoted in Serafino Romualdi, Presidents and Peons: Recollections of a Labor Ambassador in Latin America (New York, 1967), p. 113 (emphasis removed). Meany led the AFL/AFL-CIO from 1952 to 1979.
2 The quotations are from Stephen G. Rabe, Eisenhower and Latin America: The Foreign Policy of Anticommunism (Chapel Hill NC, 1988), pp. 39, 87; see also Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge MA, 1998), p. 347. For a mix of perspectives on US foreign policy under Eisenhower relevant to Latin America, see Robert R. Bowie and Richard H. Immerman, Waging Peace: How Eisenhower Shaped an Enduring Cold War Strategy (New York, 1998); H. W. Brands Jr., Cold Warriors: Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy (New York, 1988); Gilderhus, Mark T., ‘An Emerging Synthesis? U.S.–Latin American Relations since the Second World War’, Diplomatic History, vol. 16, no. 3 (1992), pp. 429–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Immerman, Richard H., ‘Confessions of an Eisenhower Revisionist: An Agonizing Reappraisal’, Diplomatic History, vol. 14, no. 3 (1990), pp. 319–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McMahon, Robert J., ‘Eisenhower and Third World Nationalism: A Critique of the Revisionists’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 101, no. 3 (1986), pp. 453–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rabe, Stephen G., ‘Eisenhower Revisionism: A Decade of Scholarship’, Diplomatic History, vol. 17, no. 1 (1993), pp. 97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and David F. Schmitz, Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921–1965 (New York, 1999).
3 See Robert A. Packenham, Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science (Princeton, 1973); and Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton NJ, 1994).
4 One indicator of this parallel was the amount of US foreign assistance to Guatemala, which was exceptional for a Latin American country during the Eisenhower period; see Stephen M. Streeter, Managing the Counterrevolution: The United States and Guatemala, 1954–1961 (Athens GA, 2000), pp. 108–36.
5 For an insightful exploration of the Nicaraguan failure see Michel Gobat, Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule (Durham NC, 2005); more generally, see Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York, 2006).
6 Stephen G. Rabe, U.S. Intervention in British Guiana: A Cold War Story (Chapel Hill NC, 2005); Jan Knippers Black, United States Penetration of Brazil (Philadelphia, 1977); also see Ronald Radosh, American Labor and United States Foreign Policy (New York, 1969), for good discussions of this period in the Dominican Republic as well as Brazil. See also Tim Shorrock, ‘Labor's Cold War: Freshly Unearthed Documents may Force the AFL-CIO to Face Up to Past Betrayals’, The Nation, 19 May 2003.
7 Brockett, Charles D., ‘An Illusion of Omnipotence: U.S. Policy toward Guatemala, 1954–1960’, Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 44, no. 1 (2002), pp. 100–3Google Scholar.
8 ‘Proposal that Governor Herter Invite United Fruit Company and AFL-CIO for Joint Session’, 7 Aug. 1958 (emphasis removed), US National Archives, Department of State (hereafter USNA), RG59/815.06/8-758.
9 Notable are Cole Blasier, The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America (Pittsburgh PA, 1976); Piero Gleijeses, Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944–1954 (Princeton NJ, 1991); and Richard H. Immerman, The C.I.A. in Guatemala: The Foreign Policy of Intervention (Austin TX, 1982).
10 The groundbreaking work is Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (Garden City NY, 1982); see also Thomas O'Brien, The Century of U.S. Capitalism in Latin America (Albuquerque NM, 1999), and Making the Americas: The United States and Latin America from the Age of Revolutions to the Era of Globalization (Albuquerque NM, 2007). Also see Radosh, American Labor; Siekmeier, James, ‘Latin American Economic Nationalism and United States–Latin American Relations, 1945–1961’, The Latin Americanist, vol. 52, no. 3 (2008), pp. 59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘“[T]he Most Generous Assistance”: U.S. Economic Aid to Guatemala and Bolivia, 1944–1959’, Journal of American and Canadian Studies, no. 12 (1994), pp. 1–46. Having spent many days across many years examining the relevant documents at the US National Archives, I find the national security argument compelling. As Guatemalan communist leader José Manuel Fortuny told Glejeises, ‘They would have overthrown us even if we had grown no bananas’: Gleijeses, Shattered Hope, p. 366. This comment is not intended to endorse either the policy or the underlying perceptions.
11 Lowenthal, Abraham F., ‘United States Policy toward Latin America: “Liberal”, “Radical”, and “Bureaucratic” Perspectives’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 8, no. 3 (1973), pp. 3–26Google Scholar.
12 See John H. Coatsworth, Central America and the United States: The Clients and the Colossus (New York, 1994), p. 88; Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (New York, 1983), p. 16; and Schoultz, Beneath the United States, pp. xiv–xvi. A more recent example is Greg Grandin, Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (New York, 2006). A broader framework for assessing the relevant Cold War debates is found in Gilbert M. Joseph, ‘What we now Know and Should Know: Bringing Latin America More Meaningfully into Cold War Studies’, in Gilbert M. Joseph and Daniela Spenser (eds.), In from the Cold: Latin America's New Encounter with the Cold War (Durham NC, 2008), pp. 3–46.
13 Morley, Morris H., ‘Reinterpreting the State–Class Relationship: American Corporations and U.S. Policy toward Cuba, 1959–1960’, Comparative Politics, vol. 15, no. 4 (1983), p. 69Google Scholar.
14 Ibid. For a similar statement see Streeter, Managing the Counterrevolution, p. 4.
15 Raymond G. Leddy (Officer in charge of Central American and Panama Affairs, State Department) to Thomas C. Mann (Deputy Chief of Mission, Guatemala), 27 Sep. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/9-2754.
16 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Labor: Problems of Rural Labor Organization’, 30 Aug. 1957, USNA, RG59/814.062/8-3057.
17 Department of State, Office of Intelligence Research, ‘Intelligence Report #7680: Political Change and Probable Trends in Guatemala’, 1 April 1958, USNA, RG59.
18 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Labor Situation in Guatemala’, 23 July 1954, USNA, RG59/ 814.06/7-2354.
19 A case brought before the International Labour Organisation claimed 45 dead among UFCO trade unionists alone, while a special Amnesty International report estimates over 200 workers killed; see Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, Guatemala: causas y orígenes del enfrentamiento armado interno (Guatemala City, 2000), vol. 1, p. 180, n. 70; vol. 2, p. 390.
20 US Embassy, ‘Labor Situation in Guatemala’, 23 July 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/7-2354.
21 US Department of State, Incoming Telegram #181 from Guatemala City, 11 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.062/8-1154.
22 Serafino Romualdi, ‘Report on Guatemala’, American Federationist (Sept. 1954), pp. 28–9.
23 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Guatemalan Labor Situation Deteriorates’, 20 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/8-2054.
24 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Revision of United States Aid to Guatemala’, 9 July 1959, USNA, RG 59/814.00-TA/7-959.
25 Burrows to Holland, 13 July 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 95, Box 5; folder: ‘Relations with New Guat Gov’. As evidence of its continuing importance, three years later, a report on the Guatemalan labour situation from a visiting State Department official addressed to the then assistant secretary, R. Richard Rubottom, began: ‘Spence King has emphasized to me your continued interest in the Guatemalan labor picture’: Fishburn to Rubottom, 26 June 1957, USNA, RG59, Lot 59 D 573, Box 2; folder: ‘1957 – Guat’.
26 Burrows to Holland, 13 July 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 95, Box 5; folder: ‘Relations with New Guat Gov’.
27 Fisher to Woodward, 28 June 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00/6-2854.
28 ‘ORIT Statement on Guatemala’, 25 June 1954, Serafino Romualdi Papers, Cornell University Library, Ithaca NY, Collection #5459, Box 3, Folder 13 (hereafter Romualdi Papers).
29 Romualdi, Presidents and Peons, p. 110.
30 Philip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary (New York, 1975), p. 214.
31 Romualdi, Presidents and Peons, p. 127. Even a radical critique of ORIT notes that ‘Nationalist tendencies within ORIT made it less than reliable as an instrument of US policy’ by the late 1950s: Tom Barry and Deb Preusch, AIFLD in Central America: Agents as Organizers (Albuquerque NM, 1986), p. 4. In 1961 the US government and AFL-CIO switched their emphasis from the regionally based ORIT to the unambiguously US-controlled American Institute for Free Labor Development, which Romualdi then directed between 1962 and 1965. For a more general discussion of both organisations, see Paul G. Buchanan, ‘The Impact of U.S. Labor’, in Abraham F. Lowenthal (ed.), Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America (Baltimore MD, 1991), pp. 296–328, as well as Victor G. Reuther's account of ‘the seduction of AFL-CIO by the Central Intelligence Agency’ in The Brothers Reuther and the Story of the UAW: A Memoir (Boston MA, 1976), pp. 411–27.
32 ‘Report and Recommendation on Guatemala’ (20 May 1954), Romualdi Papers, Folder 13.
33 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Guatemalan Labor Situation Deteriorates’, 20 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/8-2054.
34 US Department of State, Incoming Telegram #283 from Guatemala City, 22 Sep. 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00/9-2254.
35 Ibid.
36 US Embassy in Guatemala, Joint Weeka #11, 17 March 1955, USNA, RG59/714.00(W)/3-1755.
37 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘First Trade Union Legally Recognized by Government’, 10 Nov. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.062/11-1054.
38 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Legal Recognition Restored to Railroad and Fruit Company Unions’, 22 Nov. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.062/11-2954.
39 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘CSG Labor Congress More Problematic than Ever’, 6 Feb. 1961, USNA, RG59/814.062/2-661.
40 McLellan to Jáuregui, 9 June 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
41 McLellan to Monge, 6 Feb. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15; US Department of State, ‘Guatemalan Labor Leaders’, Outgoing Telegram #A-124 to US Embassy in Guatemala, 8 April 1957, USNA, RG59/814.06/4-857.
42 McLellan does not appear to have been successfully recruited by the CIA: see Agee, Inside the Company, p. 614. However, CSG General Secretary Mario Mencos claimed in 1962 that ‘McLellan is known in Central America as an “FBI agent”, rather than a trade unionist’: US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Dispute at United Fruit in Bananera’, 15 Feb. 1962, USNA, RG59. This allegation might have been more a manifestation of Mencos' bitterness at ORIT, as discussed later. McLellan rubbed some ORIT officials the wrong way too: see Carroll Hawkins, Two Democratic Labor Leaders in Conflict (Lexington MA, 1973).
43 McLellan to Jáuregui, 9 June 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
44 ‘Report on Guatemala’ (undated), Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
45 Serafino Romualdi, ‘Time is Running Out in Guatemala’, American Federationist (June 1956), pp. 23–4.
46 Julio Vielman, ‘Guatemala Hopes for Strong Year’, New York Times, 5 Jan. 1956.
47 ‘Visit of President Castillo Armas of Guatemala’, Memorandum from Holland to Acting Secretary, 24 Oct. 1955, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 293, Box 3.
48 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report’, 28 March 1958, USNA, RG59/ 814.06/2-2858.
49 McLellan to Monge, 6 Oct. 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
50 McLellan to Jáuregui, 23 June 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
51 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Labor: Problems of Rural Labor Organization’, 30 Aug. 1957, USNA, RG59/814.062/8-3057.
52 Handy, Jim, ‘“A Sea of Indians”: Ethnic Conflict and the Guatemalan Revolution, 1944–1952’, The Americas, vol. 46, no. 2 (1989), pp. 202–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 McLellan to Romualdi, 9 Aug. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
54 McLellan to Romualdi, 12 Sep. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
55 McLellan to Monge, 12 Jan. 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
56 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
57 McLellan to Romualdi, 19 May 1959, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
58 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Dispute at United Fruit in Bananera’, 15 Feb. 1962, USNA, RG59.
59 Asociación de Investigación y Estudios Sociales (ASIES), Mas de 100 años del movimiento obrero urbano en Guatemala, vol. 3: Reorganización, auge y desarticulación del movimiento sindical, 1954–1982 (Guatemala City, 1995), pp. 26–113; Deborah Levenson-Estrada, Trade Unionists against Terror: Guatemala City, 1954–1985 (Chapel Hill NC, 1994), pp. 35–48.
60 El Imparcial, 2 May 1955: El Imparcial was consulted using the clippings files at the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica in Antigua; ASIES, Mas de 100 años, pp. 53–6.
61 El Imparcial, 2 May 1956; Levenson-Estrada, Trade Unionists against Terror, p. 38; US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘May Day Celebration’, 4 May 1956, USNA, RG59/714.00 May Day/5-456; US Embassy in Guatemala, Joint Weeka #44, 30 May 1956, USNA, RG59/714.00(W)/5-3056.
62 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘May Day Celebration’, 4 May 1956, USNA, RG59/714.00 May Day/5-456.
63 El Imparcial, 2 May 1959 and 2 May 1960.
64 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘May Day in Guatemala’, 9 May 1960, USNA, RG59/350.212.
65 Gleijeses, Shattered Hope, p. 189; Levenson-Estrada, Trade Unionists against Terror, p. 36.
66 ‘Report on Guatemala’ (undated), Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
67 McLellan to Romualdi, 12 Feb. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
68 Paul P. Kennedy, ‘Reds Infiltrate Guatemala Union’, New York Times, 4 April 1957.
69 McLellan to Monge, 18 May 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
70 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘CSG Petition for Juridical Personality’, 10 July 1957, USNA, RG59/ 814.062/7-1057.
71 US Department of State, ‘Guatemalan Labor Leaders’, Outgoing Telegram #A-124 to Embassy in Guatemala, 8 April 1957, USNA, RG59/814.06/4-857. For an example of this continued characterisation, see US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March Through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
72 ASIES, Mas de 100 años, p. 108.
73 King to Rubottom, ‘Guatemalan Labor’, 5 July 1957, USNA, RG59.
74 See, for example, US Department of State to US Embassy in Guatemala, Outgoing Telegram #254, 14 Nov. 1957, USNA, RG59/714.5-MSP/11-1457; and US Department of State to US Embassy in Guatemala, Outgoing Telegram #574, 16 May 1958, USNA, RG59/714.00/5-458 (apparently coded in error).
75 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Communism and the Present Crisis’, 30 Oct. 1957, USNA, RG59/ 714.00/10-3057.
76 Mann to Leddy, 27 Sep. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/9-2754.
77 Fishburn to Rubottom, 26 June 1957, USNA, RG59, Lot 59 D 573, Box 2; folder: ‘1957 – Guat’.
78 Office of Intelligence Research, ‘Intelligence Report’, 1958, USNA, RG59. In this and some other documents the AGA is referred to as the Asociación Guatemalteca de Agricultores.
79 Ibid.
80 Rachel M. McCleary, Dictating Democracy: Guatemala and the End of Violent Revolution (Gainesville FL, 1999), p. 11, 30–35. Richard N. Adams refers to this period as witnessing ‘the maturation of the interest group’ in Crucifixion by Power: Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 1944–1966 (Austin TX, 1970), p. 341.
81 R. Richard Rubottom, ‘Memorandum of Conversation, 8 July 1957’, USNA, RG59, Lot 59 D 573, Box 2; folder: ‘1957 – Guat’.
82 Martin to McGhee, ‘Guidelines Policy Paper for Guatemala’, 3 April 1962, RG59.
83 McLellan to Romualdi, 25 Feb. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
84 Fishburn to Rubottom, 26 June 1957, USNA, RG59, Lot 59 D 573, Box 2; folder: ‘1957 – Guat’.
85 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Revision of United States Aid to Guatemala’, 9 July 1959, USNA, RG59/814.00-TA/7-959.
86 The other large and problematic US corporation in Guatemala was Empresa Eléctrica. The power company's public relations, according to the State Department, ‘over the years [had] been inadequately, if not badly, handled’: Lyon to Prochnow, 30 Jan. 1956, USNA, RG59/814.2614/1-3056. The problem here was not so much the company's labour relations but instead, in the words of the Guatemalan ambassador in Washington, Cruz Salazar, ‘poor service, high rates, lack of foresight, and generally deteriorating public relations’: ‘Guatemala: Electric Power Problem’, 20 Feb. 1956, USNA, RG59/814.2614/2-2056. For a discussion of these same companies from a different perspective, see Streeter, Managing the Counterrevolution, pp. 164–88. In one of the best analyses of US business in Latin America, UFCO is one of three companies singled out as ‘the most important exceptions to a gradual fifty-year trend toward political neutrality’: Elizabeth A. Cobbs, ‘U.S. Business: Self-Interest and Neutrality’, in Lowenthal (ed.), Exporting Democracy, p. 284.
87 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Anti/ORIT-CSG Maneuvers’, 11 Sep. 1958, USNA, RG59, 814.062/9-1158.
88 McClintock to Mann, 20 Feb. 1952, USNA, RG59/814.2376/2-2052.
89 Ann Whitman file, Eisenhower Library, Abilene KS, White House Papers, NSC Series, Box 5; folder: ‘June 17, 1954’.
90 US Embassy in Guatemala to Department of State, Incoming Telegram #26, 7 July 1954, USNA, RG59/714.001/7-754.
91 ‘United Fruit Divestment’, 4 March 1966, USNA, RG59, Lot 69 D 43; folder: ‘INCO-6 United Fruit Co’.
92 Marcelo Bucheli, ‘United Fruit Company in Latin America’, in Steve Striffler and Mark Moberg (eds.), Banana Wars: Power, Production, and History in the Americas (Durham NC, 2003), pp. 80–100.
93 US Embassy in Guatemala to Department of State, Incoming Telegram #58, 9 July 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00/7-954.
94 US Embassy in Guatemala to Department of State, Incoming Telegram #99, 19 July 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00/7-1954.
95 Leddy to Holland, 12 Oct. 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 95, Box 5; folder: ‘Cent Amer – Guat: Oct–Dec, 1954’; US Embassy in Guatemala, Joint Weeka #44, 4 Nov. 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00(W)/11-454.
96 US Embassy in Guatemala, Joint Weeka #48, 2 Dec. 1954, USNA, RG59/714.00(W)/12-254.
97 Leddy to Holland, 28 Dec. 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 95, Box 5; folder: ‘Cent Amer – Guat: Oct–Dec’.
98 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘The New Phase in Guatemalan Political Life and its Relation to U.S. Policy’, 24 June 1955, USNA, RG59/714.00/6-2455.
99 ‘Telegram from the Secretary of State to the Embassy in Guatemala’, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, vol. 7 (Washington DC, 1987), p. 52.
100 Henry Raymont, Troubled Neighbors: The Story of US–Latin American Relations from FDR to the Present (Cambridge MA, 2005), p. 102.
101 Fishburn to Holland, 4 June 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 58 D 18 and 78, Box 3; folder: ‘UFC 1954’.
102 Romualdi to Schnitzler, 22 March 1955, Romualdi Papers, Folder 11.
103 ‘Embassy Comments on United Fruit Co. Labor Dispute’, 13 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/ 814.2376/8-1358; US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘FY 1960 Program Presentation’, 11 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG 59/714.5-MSP/8-1158.
104 ‘United Fruit Company Labor Policy to be Brought to Attention of Secretary Dulles’, 18 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.06/8-1858.
105 McLellan to Bury, 21 Feb. 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
106 McLellan to Romualdi, 12 Aug. 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
107 ‘Embassy Comments on United Fruit Co. Labor Dispute’, 13 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/ 814.2376/8-1358.
108 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘President Ydígoras’ Labor Policy', 2 Oct. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/10-258.
109 McLellan to Monge, 29 March 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
110 ‘Embassy Comments on United Fruit Co. Labor Dispute’, 13 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/ 814.2376/8-1358.
111 ‘Embassy Comments on Latest Developments in United Fruit Company Labor Disputes’, 12 Sep. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.2376/9-1258.
112 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Settlement of United Fruit Co. Labor Dispute’, 29 Sep. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/9-2958.
113 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
114 ASIES, Mas de 100 años, pp. 190–2.
115 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘May Day in Guatemala’, 9 May 1960, USNA, RG59/350.212.
116 Dreier to Secretary of State, 5 Nov. 1958, USNA, RG59, Lot 60 D 647, Box 6; folder: ‘1958-Guat-IRCA’.
117 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
118 Minutes of Meeting, 8 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 295, Box 3; folder: ‘Guatemala 1954’.
119 ASIES, Mas de 100 años, p. 15.
120 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Guatemalan Labor Situation Deteriorates’, 20 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/8-2054. In addition to its railway workers, IRCA also threatened dire consequences to workers at the docks it controlled in Puerto Barrios should they attempt to reorganise their union: ‘Difficulties Facing Guatemalan Labor Movement’, 1955, Romualdi Papers, Folder 16. When they eventually did, McLellan charged that the company bought off its leaders: McLellan to Romualdi, 12 Aug. 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
121 ‘Labor Problem in Guatemala’, 31 Aug. 1954, USNA, RG59, Lot 57 D 295, Box 3; folder: ‘Guat 1954’.
122 Mann to Leddy, 1954, USNA, RG59.
123 Woodward to Hoover, 29 Sep. 1954, USNA, RG59/814.06/9-2954.
124 McLellan to Jáuregui, 9 June 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
125 McLellan to Jáuregui, 9 Sep. 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 14.
126 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Labor Agitation’, 21 Jan. 1957, USNA, RG59/814.062/1-2157.
127 ‘Trade Union Situation in Guatemala’, 10 Dec. 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12.
128 Rubottom to Mallory, 19 April 1958, USNA, RG59/714.5-MSP/4-1558.
129 ‘Embassy Comment on SAMF-IRCA Developments’, 25 Sep. 1958, USNA, RG59/ 814.062/9-2558.
130 King to Rubottom, 16 Oct. 1958, USNA, RG59, Lot 60 D 647, Box 6; folder: ‘1958-Guat-IRCA’.
131 Mann to Bracken, ‘Guatemalan Government–United Fruit Company Proposal’, 29 Dec. 1960, USNA, RG59, Lot #1; folder: ‘Guat’. The 1958 consent decree settling the antitrust action against UFCO gave the company until June 1966 to divest its entire interest in IRCA. Meanwhile, a second suit successfully brought by IRCA stockholders meant UFCO had to pay more than US$ 4.5 million to those stockholders for its unjustified enrichment due to preferential rates from the railway company. In 1967 IRCA was taken over by the Guatemalan government.
132 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
133 Ibid.
134 ASIES, Mas de 100 años, pp. 39–41, 124–31, 173–86.
135 McLellan to Monge, 1 June 1957, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
136 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Tropical Radio Company Labor Dispute’, 27 June 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/6-2758; ‘United Fruit Company Labor Policy to be Brought to Attention of Secretary Dulles’, 18 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.06/8-1858.
137 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Tropical Radio Dispute, ORIT-CSG Relations’, 17 Nov. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/11-1758. Doherty replaced Romualdi as the director of AIFLD in 1965. Also identified as a CIA agent by Agee, in the 1980s Doherty would be a leading AFL-CIO figure for El Salvador: Agee, Inside the Company, p. 607.
138 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Tropical Radio Company Labor Dispute’, 27 June 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/6-2758.
139 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Tropical Radio Labor Dispute’, 5 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/8-558.
140 ‘Proposal that Governor Herter Invite United Fruit Company and AFL-CIO for Joint Session’, 7 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/815.06/8-758.
141 McLellan to Bury, 29 March 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
142 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
143 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘FY 1960 Program Presentation’, 11 Aug. 1958, USNA, RG59/714.5-MSP/8-1158.
144 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Tropical Radio Dispute, ORIT-CSG Relations’, 17 Nov. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.062/11-1758.
145 Stephansky to Rubottom, 8 July 1958, USNA, RG59/814.06/7-858.
146 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Anti/ORIT-CSG Maneuvers’, 11 Sep. 1958, USNA, RG/59, 814.062/9-1158.
147 McLellan to Bury, 20 July 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 12. An outgoing military government which had overthrown Ydígoras in 1963 expropriated Tropical Radio in January 1966: ‘Guatemala Takes United Fruit Unit’, New York Times, 24 Jan. 1966.
148 McLellan to Madariaga, 2 Sep. 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 15.
149 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, Part I’, 10 Oct. 1958, USNA, RG59/814.06/10-1058.
150 McLellan to Monge, 27 Sep. 1956, Romualdi Papers, Folder 11. For a somewhat different view, see Levenson-Estrada, Trade Unionists against Terror, pp. 31–2.
151 ‘Difficulties Facing Guatemalan Labor Movement’, 1958, Romualdi Papers, Folder 16.
152 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Semi-Annual Labor Report, March through October 1959’, 11 Nov. 1959, USNA, RG59/814.06/11-1159.
153 Levenson-Estrada, Trade Unionists against Terror, p. 30.
154 Streeter, Managing the Counterrevolution, p. 173.
155 Frundt, Henry J., ‘AIFLD in Guatemala: End or Beginning of a New Regional Strategy?’, Social and Economic Studies, vol. 44, no. 2/3 (1995), p. 289Google Scholar.
156 O'Brien, Making the Americas, p. 9.
157 The best account of the Ydígoras period is Roland H. Ebel, Misunderstood Caudillo: Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes and the Failure of Democracy in Guatemala (Lanham MD, 1998).
158 Jan Triska, ‘Summary and Conclusion’, in Jan Triska (ed.), Dominant Powers and Subordinate States: The United States in Latin America and the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe (Durham NC, 1986), p. 454.
159 Ibid.
160 Craig Arceneaux and David Pion-Berlin, Transforming Latin America: The International and Domestic Origins of Change (Pittsburgh PA, 2005), p. 185.
161 Fishburn to Rubottom, 26 June 1957, USNA, RG59, Lot 59 D 573, Box 2; folder: ‘1957 – Guat’.
162 US Embassy in Guatemala, ‘Guatemalan Labor Situation’, 21 April 1957, USNA, RG59/814.06/4-2157.
