Tag: RESEARCH DOCUMENT

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : How Do You Solve a Problem like (South) Korea ?

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : How Do You Solve a Problem like (South) Korea ?

    image001 10

    The Carter-Park summit meeting on June 30, 1979. The smile on Carter’s face belied the deep divide between the two leaders over keeping U.S. forces in Korea and human rights. Four months later, Park would be assassinated by the head of the Korean CIA.

    Courtesy: Jimmy Carter Library

    How Do You Solve a Problem like (South) Korea ?

    U.S.-ROK Relations during the Carter Years Faltered over Troop Withdrawals, Human Rights, an Assassination, and a Coup

    Carter Faced Pushback from South Korean Leaders and His Own Top Advisers

    Posted June 1, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 595
    Edited by Robert A. Wampler, PhD
    For more information contact: Robert A. Wampler, 202/994-7000 or wampler

    Washington, D.C., June 1, 2017 – President Jimmy Carter entered office in 1977 determined to draw down U.S. forces in South Korea and to address that nation’s stark human rights conditions, but he met surprising pushback on these and related issues from both South Korean President Park Chung Hee and his own top American advisers, as described in declassified records published today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

    Carter made no secret of his deep misgivings about Park’s suppression of his political opposition. When the two met for a summit in June 1979, Park attempted to turn the tables, lecturing Carter rhetorically: “If dozens of Soviet divisions were deployed in Baltimore, the U.S. Government could not permit its people to enjoy the same freedoms they do now.”

    At the same time, senior U.S. officials including Cabinet officers tried to put the brakes on U.S. troop withdrawals and other policy initiatives such as holding tripartite talks with the two Koreas. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael H. Armacost complained to Defense Secretary Harold Brown before the summit that the latter was a “lousy idea,” a “loser” and “gimmicky.” The president faced similar resistance from a range of American officials on the ground in South Korea.

    Carter was forced to postpone troop reductions for a time while continuing to press for political liberalization. But his challenge grew appreciably greater after Park’s October 1979 assassination by of the head of the Korean CIA, and a subsequent coup in December of that year by strongman General Chun Doo Hwan.

    How Do You Solve a Problem like (South) Korea? The Carter Years

    By Robert A. Wampler, Ph.D.

    It should be no surprise that events on the Korean peninsula have presented early challenges for the Trump administration.[1] History shows that the combination of North Korean provocations and South Korean political crises has repeatedly confronted the U.S. with difficult policy choices. Previous electronic briefing books posted by the National Security Archive have addressed the limits of military options against North Korea [see EBB 322], the difficulties in understanding Pyongyang’s actions and goals [see EBB 421], and U.S. efforts to rein in South Korea’s nuclear weapons program [see EBB582 and EBB584].

    For the Carter administration, the rocky course of Korean relations moved from the deep divide between Seoul and Washington created by Carter’s determination to withdraw U.S. forces and his criticism of Park Chung Hee’s human and political rights abuses, to the assassination of Park and subsequent military coup, followed by the rise of coup leader Chun Doo Hwan to the presidency and U.S. concerns over his authoritarian regime centering on the looming execution of South Korean political dissident Kim Dae Jung.

    The historical backdrop to the documents posted here today can be sketched quickly.[2] President Carter entered office in 1977 determined to draw down U.S. forces in South Korea, and deeply concerned about Park Chung Hee’s suppression of political opposition. Both of these issues imposed immense strains on the alliance during Carter’s term in office. Carter faced significant push-back on the troop withdrawal issue not only from Park, but also from his senior advisors, particularly his secretaries of state and defense, as well as senior U.S. military officers in Seoul, who seized upon new intelligence estimates that showed a much stronger North Korean military capability to argue against the withdrawals.[3]

    Following a tense and contentious summit meeting with Park in June 1979, the U.S. announced that further withdrawals would be put on hold until 1981. For his part, Park agreed to pursue increased military spending and to take steps to release political prisoners, though he continued to press the U.S. not to criticize publicly his actions against the political opposition, arguing that if given sufficient “running room” he would try to avoid “extreme” actions. (See Document 10)

    Park would have little time to take any steps to address U.S. concerns, however, for on October 26, 1979, the director of the South Korean CIA would assassinate him during a dinner which was marked by intense and bitter arguments over Park’s handling of political discontent. In the aftermath of the assassination, once the identity of the assassin was determined, U.S. concerns centered on ensuring that this shock to the Korean political system did not result in political instability that could undermine democracy or tempt North Korea to further shake up conditions on the peninsula.

    Hopes for an orderly political transition were dashed, however, when a group of “Young Turk” South Korean political officers, led by ambitious Korean Army general Chun Doo Hwan, staged a coup on December 12. In its aftermath, the limits on U.S. ability to influence political events in South Korea become ever more evident, as Chun, using his authority under martial law, imposed his own crackdown on political dissent, including the arrest of Kim Dae Jung, which was the spark that set off the May 1980 Kwangju uprising. The Chun regime brutally put down this uprising, and many South Koreans still see the U.S. as complicit in the crackdown because of claims made by the Chun government of U.S. support. Kim Dae Jung would be sentenced to death for his alleged role in fomenting the Kwangju uprising, and U.S. efforts to secure leniency for Kim would drive much of U.S. diplomacy with the Chun government (Chun, despite denials of political ambition, would be elected president in August 1980) until the end of the Carter presidency. It would be left to the incoming Reagan administration, which entered office determined to restore the alliance relationship, to finally secure commutation of Kim’s sentence.[4]

    The documents posted here today come primarily from the Pentagon records of Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, and are supplemented by documents from the Digital National Security Archive collections on U.S.-Korean relations, as well as files obtained from the U.S. National Archives. As secretary of defense, Brown had the unenviable task of being Carter’s point man on defense issues in dealing with Park and then Chun. His role was to advance U.S. policy goals that were less than attractive to the South Korean leadership, as well as to advise President Carter on policy options that the president would find less than ideal.

    Among the insights provided by these documents are these:

    General John Vessey, the senior U.S. military officer in Seoul, described Park Chung Hee to new president Jimmy Carter as “a lonely man” who seemed to be “withdrawing more and more into himself.” [Document 1]

    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael H. Armacost called Carter’s idea for tripartite U.S.-ROK-North Korea talks a “lousy idea,” a “loser” with “atrocious” timing with little chance of success, possibly “ginned up” by the White House PR staff as a Camp David-style TV “spectacular.” [Document 4]

    During their summit meeting, Park lectured Carter on human rights: “If dozens of Soviet divisions were deployed in Baltimore, the U.S. Government could not permit its people to enjoy the same freedoms they do now. If these Soviets dug tunnels and sent commando units into the District of Columbia, then U.S. freedoms would be more limited.” [Document 9]

    Pentagon analysis of the situation immediately following Park’s assassination warned about the challenges facing the U.S. in trying to influence political developments towards greater democracy, arguing that the U.S., through “sensitive and judicious advice,” may be able to affect developments at the margins. In the short run, Washington needed “to avoid even the appearance of manipulating a puppet.” [Document 11]

    South Korean General Lew found it conceivable that a “temporarily deranged” KCIA Director Kim Dae Kyu had decided to kill Park, driven by fears he was going to be replaced because of his “incompetence.” [Document 12]

    After the December 12 military coup, Ambassador Gleysteen’s gloomy assessment spoke of how U.S. “missionary work” to guide the new government “seems washed down the drain.” [Document 13]

    One Pentagon official referred to coup leader Chun Doo Hwan as the “Pete Dawkins” of the ROK army, a reference to a well known Army officer, who served in Korea in the early 1970s, because of his rapid rise through the ranks and professional achievements. [Document 14]

    National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned the South Korean ambassador that Chun must avoid letting the Kim Dae Jung case drag out into a “no-win” scenario, noting that this had happened to President Zia in Pakistan when his hand was allegedly forced in the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [Document 16]

    Defense Secretary Brown gave a grim assessment of his final effort to persuade Chun to spare Kim Dae Jung in December 1980: “We have taken our best shot; I hope it is enough.” [Document 18]

    *Thanks to Bill Burr for his assistance, especially for providing copies of documents 1 and 16.

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1977-02-18

    Memorandum of Conversation with President Carter by General John W. Vessey, February 18, 1977 (Secret)

    Source: RG 218, CJCS Brown Records, Box 3, Folder: 001 President/Vice President 1 August 1976 – December 1977

    This memorandum records a quick review of the situation on the Korean peninsula provided to the recently-inaugurated president by General John Vessey, the commander of U.S. forces in Korea. It reveals a president who has many detailed questions about the military capability of North and South Korea, delving into discussion of specific weapons systems, South Korea’s military development plans and the role the U.S. plays in these plans and the overall defense against North Korean aggression. The discussion is interesting for the way in which it foreshadows most if not all of the factors that would complicate Carter’s desire to withdraw U.S. troops, given the way in which the U.S. commitment to South Korea’s security was so tightly linked to issues of South Korean economic growth, seen as the essential foundation for increased military spending by Seoul, and Carter’s interest in human rights. It is clear that Carter is probing for areas in which South Korea could take on more of the deterrent and defense responsibilities, and Vessey’s briefing provided some hope for this goal in the future, given South Korea’s growing economy and its force improvement plans, albeit couched in ways that made it clear that such a shift could not happen quickly. Vessey painted North Korea under Kim Il Sung as determined to reunify the peninsula under communism in his lifetime, noted Pyongyang’s recent significant push to increase its military forces, and said it was U.S. forces that deterred war. Any U.S. force withdrawals would have to be carefully phased in line with the build-up of South Korean forces to avoid undermining this deterrent and the South’s ability to defend against an attack. Vessey also provided a somber assessment of Park Chung Hee, whom the general admitted he did not know well personally. Vessey described the South Korean leader as a “lonely man,” who seemed to be “withdrawing more and more into himself.” Regarding Carter’s desire to improve the human rights situation in South Korea, Vessey went to some lengths to tell how Park saw civil liberties as subordinate to the dictates of national security, and the need to understand the different political background in South Korea, which subordinated individual liberty to the good of society.

    Document 02

    1977-07-25

    Memorandum of Conversation, President Park Chung Hee, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, et al., July 25, 1977 (Secret)

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA request

    This memorandum records a high-powered meeting bringing together South Korea’s political and military leadership at the Blue House with Defense Secretary Brown, the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, the chairman of the JCS and the commander of U.S. forces in Korea. Not surprisingly, Carter’s plans to withdraw U.S. forces and steps to counter the negative impact of this move are the main points of discussion. Brown’s primary brief was to reassure Park about the U.S. security commitment. One step in this direction was Carter’s decision to phase out the withdrawal through 1981-1982, and to leave over half of the 2nd Division forces in South Korea after the withdrawals. Other steps were the establishment of the Combined Command in Korea, and new security assistance to Seoul to help improve ROK forces through FMS credit sales of military weapons, no-cost transfer of military equipment and forces, and additional FMS credit over currently planned levels. All in all, the proposed U.S. aid (which would require Congressional action) would come to approximately $1.9 billion. Park welcomed these proposed compensatory steps, but insisted they must be 100 percent complete before the final withdrawal of U.S. forces, something Brown said he could not promise. Other steps Brown discussed included augmenting the number of tactical aircraft in South Korea, increasing the length, frequency and size of their joint military maneuvers, and assisting in the development of South Korea’s military manufacturing.

    Document 03

    1978-11-07

    Memorandum of Conversation, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and President Park Chung Hee, et al., November 7, 1978 (Secret)

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA request

    At this meeting, Secretary Brown seeks to highlight what he sees as significant advances in the alliance relationship since their last meeting. Among the items he checks off are: the April 1978 adjustment in the U.S. troop withdrawal plan, showing Washington would conduct the withdrawal in a “careful and prudent fashion;” Congressional approval of legislation authorizing the cost-free transfer of equipment from the withdrawing forces; the increased size and tempo of joint exercises; expanded U.S. support to Korea’s defense industry; the formal activation of the Combined Forces Command; and the continued coordination of U.S.-South Korean diplomatic efforts, especially with regard to any possible talks with North Korea. Looking ahead, Brown notes the need to emphasize to the American public (and thus Congress) the growing and equitably distributed economic prosperity in South Korea, and to persuade the South Korean public it should have no doubts about the U.S. security commitment. Congressional views are clearly a point of concern for Brown, who more than once notes the need for Congressional approval of U.S. plans to increase FMS credits to South Korea, other military sales, such as the F-16 aircraft, and co-production of military aircraft. Brown also sees signs for enhancing ROK security in international developments, such as the apparent cooling of Pyongyang’s relations with Moscow, and the emphasis in Beijing on rapid modernization with the help of the West, which should increase China’s stake in avoiding conflict in Korea.

    Park for his part is appreciative of all the steps the U.S. has taken to alleviate concerns raised by the troop withdrawal plans, which also demonstrated that North Korea could not take advantage of these withdrawals. He is not so sanguine about the impact of events on the wider world stage. Despite what Japanese and Chinese leaders said at the signing of the Sino-Japanese treaty – that the treaty would result in a reduction of tensions on the Korean peninsula – Park sees no such reduction and no sign Pyongyang wishes to change its policy, other than perhaps using the treaty to improve relations with Japan at the expense of South Korea. Park also worries about possible Soviet reactions to the normalization of China’s relations with the U.S. and Japan, suggesting that Moscow may look to improve its ties with North Korea and tempt the latter to disturb stability in Northeast Asia. Park also warns Brown about building up China too much, reminding the American official that they are communists. In response, Brown tries to reassure Park that at present China serves to pin down Soviet divisions on their eastern front, and that the U.S. has no plans to sell weapons to China.

    Document 04

    1979-05-22

    Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael H. Armacost, Subject: Habib Mission to Korea, May 22, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    In an interesting foreshadowing of President Carter’s role in the Clinton administration’s negotiations regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, Carter pushed for a U.S. initiative to broker trilateral talks among Washington, Seoul and Pyongyang during his summit meeting with Park Chung Hee in summer 1979. This initiative met fierce resistance within the administration, as seen in this memorandum from Michael Armacost to Harold Brown, which labeled it a “lousy idea,” “gimmicky” and “substantially a loser,” with “atrocious” timing. Carter wanted to send former U.S. Ambassador Philip Habib to Seoul to lay the groundwork for such a meeting, and Armacost presents his indictment of the proposal: it would make a “mockery” of policy-making processes; it elevates form over substance; neglects the need to create real inducements for Seoul and Pyongyang to enter such talks seriously, a need that Carter’s troop withdrawal policy seriously undercuts by removing significant U.S. leverage; forfeits an opportunity to use normalization of U.S.-China relations to seek to engage Beijing into playing a productive role in such talks; it is highly unlikely Park would cooperate, given his existing concerns over Carter’s policies and distrust of North Korea; and overall the move would only create doubts in Asia about U.S. goals and steadiness.

    To avoid this raft of undesirable repercussions, Armacost suggests that Brown talk to Brzezinski to find out what the White House really hopes to accomplish, fearing that it may be an idea “ginned up” by the PR people as a “TV spectacular” for the summit along the lines of the Camp David peace talks. Brown should make clear that such an effort would be “feckless” without prior discussions with Park regarding adjustments the U.S. was willing to make in the troop withdrawal schedule as part of an integrated effort to reduce tensions on the peninsula and work for “durable North-South peace arrangements.

    Document 05

    1979-06-06

    Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from Russell Murray, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis & Evaluation, Subject: PRM-45, June 6, 1979, Top Secret

    Source: Korea II Set (Digital National Security Archive)

    A key factor in rethinking Carter’s push to withdraw U.S. forces from South Korea was the production of new intelligence assessments of North Korea’s military power. This memorandum, and the tables following, illustrate the nature of this reassessment and its impact on U.S. military planning for hostilities on the peninsula. The memorandum summarizes analysis and conclusions regarding South Korea’s future defense programs reached by the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in connection with PRM-45, an overall review of U.S. policy towards Korea begun in early 1979. As the memorandum notes, the new intelligence re-estimate of North Korean ground forces indicates that these forces are about 70 percent stronger than estimated in 1977. This means that the U.S. might have to introduce substantial ground force reinforcements in a war to prevent defeat, a situation that would hold until 1985 given planned South Korean force improvements.

    To address this situation, Assistant Secretary of Defense Murray recommends that the U.S. substantially delay the planned withdrawal of forces, that it make strengthening South Korean forces one of the highest priorities, and that the two policies be linked. To this end, Murray argues that South Korean defense spending can be increased significantly, based on OSD and CIA economic analyses, and counter to what PRM-45 and the U.S. embassy and military leadership in Seoul held. In addition to taking steps to improve South Korea’s military, Murray also suggests the Pentagon rethink its war termination policy for the peninsula. Current understanding is that an allied counter-offensive would stop at the DMZ, which weakens deterrence in his view. To address this concern, the U.S. should make clear that its reinforcements would have the ability to end any war on terms more favorable to the defense of Seoul than the DMZ, thus putting Pyongyang on notice that the “North would place its own territory at risk if it attacked the South.

    Document 06

    1979-06-08

    Charts re Reporting on North Korean Military Strength, June 8, 1979, Top Secret

    Source: Korea II Set (Digital National Security Archive)

    These two charts, one reporting on North Korea’s military strength and the other providing a comparison of selected North and South Korea forces, illustrates the new understanding of the North Korea threat that emerged from the recently revised intelligence estimates. The first chart, which sets intelligence community estimates from 1970, 1974 and 1977 against 1979 CIA/DIA estimates, reveals significant increases. For example, the estimate of North Korean ground force levels increased by 150,000 between 1977 and 1979. Similarly, the number of divisions and brigades grew from 29 to 37, tank/assault guns from 1,900 to 2,800, and armored personnel carriers from 790 to 950. The chart comparing North and South Korean forces paints a similar picture, on the basis of current and projected South Korean force levels. In terms of ground forces, divisions and brigades, tanks or artillery/rocket launchers, the North is looking to enjoy a continued edge. It is likely that estimates such as these drove the interest in increased North Korean military growth discussed in the previous document.

    Document 07

    1979-06-20

    Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, David E. McGiffert, Subject: Korean Troop Withdrawals – Action Memorandum, June 20, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA request

    This memorandum lays out the arguments Defense Secretary Brown needs to make at the Foreign Policy breakfast ( a regular meeting between Carter and his Cabinet secretaries to discuss national security issues), held just a week before the Carter-Park summit on June 20 to secure President Carter’s agreement to pursue a trade-off under which the U.S. would adjust its troop withdrawal plans and South Korea would expand its defense efforts, particularly on ground forces. Secretary Brown was to meet with South Korean Defense Minister Ro on June 28, an opportunity to prepare the ground for the deal. The key driver and rationale for this move was the updated intelligence estimates of North Korean military capabilities, which, as Brown’s talking points enumerate, establish the need to reassess troop withdrawal plans and to develop new spending and military aid plans to support a new force expansion plan by Seoul. Brown expected Defense Minister Ro to be sympathetic to these proposals, but to secure Park’s agreement to these ideas, as well as to Carter’s call for trilateral meetings of senior U.S., South Korea and North Korea officials, Brown should be allowed to “foreshadow – on a close hold basis – the prospect” (emphasis in the original) for significant adjustment in the troop withdrawal plans. A key goal for Brown at the breakfast was to stress for Carter the linkage among these three major policy issues. As it was, Park remained cautious, and had conditioned his agreement to announcing any trilateral talks at the summit on a number of requirements: to ensure there were no bilateral U.S.-North Korea talks and that Carter disclose to the Korean leader the direction of his thinking on the troop withdrawal decision.

    Document 08

    1979-06-30

    Memoranda of Conversation, President Jimmy Carter, South Korean President Park Chung Hee, et al, June 30, 1979, Secret

    Source: Korea I Set (Digital National Security Archive)

    This and the following memorandum capture the tension between Carter and Park during their summit meeting in Seoul. The record of their discussion reveals two leaders with very different agendas that made any real meeting of minds highly unlikely. Before moving into a private session (the subject of the second memorandum), the two leaders made lengthy opening statements. After expressing his gratitude for the U.S. security commitment to South Korea, Park moved quickly to make his impassioned case that the military situation on the peninsula made any withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea unwise, and buttressed this argument with extensive detail about the threat posed by North Korea. At the core of Park’s argument was his assessment of the grave threat a “most unpredictable” North Korea presented, especially in light of the new intelligence estimates of Pyongyang’s military might and North Korea’s history of armistice violations. In response, Carter made his case that the U.S. was continuing to stand behind its security commitments in the region. While acknowledging the new estimates of North Korean military power, Carter held that the planned troop withdrawals, which he characterized as on one-half of one percent of the total forces in Korea, did not present a real threat to the future security of South Korea, and hinted that part of the response to this should be increased South Korean military spending, especially given that the economic capacity of South Korea was much greater than that of North Korea.

    Document 09

    1979-06-30

    Memoranda of Conversation, President Jimmy Carter, South Korean President Park Chung Hee, et al, June 30, 1979, Secret

    Source: Korea I Set (Digital National Security Archive)

    The discussion became more pointed in the private session that followed. Evidence that Park had not made his case with Carter is seen in the summary the U.S. president gave to the note taker about the opening discussion, in which Carter said he had been “taken aback” by the “adamant demand” that U.S. force levels not be changed, and that he was now waiting for Park to answer his questions about improving South Korea’s military posture. In the ensuing discussion, Carter would not promise to freeze U.S. force levels in the country, but would work with Seoul to address the force disparity on the peninsula. To this end, Carter pressed Park on South Korea’s economic ability to increase its military forces at a faster rate than forecast in current plans, at one point wondering how, if 6 percent of South Korea’s GNP equaled 20 percent of North Korea’s how had the latter’s forces built up so much more quickly than South Korea’s? The last part of the discussion turned to another contentious issue between the two leaders – human rights in South Korea, which Carter stressed was hurting South Korea’s public image in the U.S. Noting with approval Park’s actions to release some students and political activists, Carter hoped that Park would rescind Emergency Measure 9 and release as many prisoners as possible. Park’s rebuttal argued that Carter could not apply the same human rights yardstick to all countries, especially to countries whose security is threatened as South Korea’s is. Pointing to the proximity of the DMZ to Seoul and the North Korean forces posed to attack, Park recalled an analogy he had made to visiting U.S. congressmen: if dozens of Soviet divisions were deployed in Baltimore, and if the Soviets dug tunnels and sent commando units into Washington, D.C., the U.S. would need to curtail its political freedoms.

    Document 10

    1979-10-20

    Cable, Mike Armacost to Deputy Secretary of Defense Claytor, Subject: Report to President of Secret Discussions in Korea, October 20, 1979 Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    This cable forwards Secretary of Defense Brown’s report on his discussions with President Park and Minister of Defense Ro while in Seoul for the U.S.-Korea Security Consultative meeting. The overall message is that the bilateral relationship seems to be getting back to a stronger and more stable basis. Brown’s discussion with Ro reassured the South Koreans about the continued U.S. security commitment, despite recent revelations about the U.S. “swing strategy” to move significant naval forces from the Pacific to Europe in the event of a Russian attack on NATO. [5] The meeting with Park was also positive with respect to security relations, but was marked by continued tension over Carter’s concern about human rights in South Korea, spurred by Park’s actions against his political opposition and the imposition of martial law in Pusan. Both Brown and Ambassador Gleysteen warned Park about the impact on Congressional views about these actions and advised him to take steps to ease the political crackdown and seek accommodation with his political critics. Park replied that while he was ready to accept “private and informal advice” from the U.S. on these matters, he could not do so if the Carter administration publicly criticized him and took steps such as the recent recall of Ambassador Gleysteen. Such measures, he warned, risked a popular backlash against the U.S. for “dictating” to South Korea on clearly domestic issues. However, Park admitted that recent steps against the political opposition may have been “too harsh,” and implied that if the U.S. gave him “enough running room” he would try to avoid extreme actions.

    Document 11

    1979-10-27

    Information Memorandum, drafted by Brig. Gen. T.C. Pinckney, Subject: Korea Situation and Future US Policy, October 27, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    The cautious optimism marking the previous cable was shattered a week later with the assassination of Park Chung Hee. This memorandum, prepared one day after the assassination, provides a window into U.S. efforts to determine exactly what happened on October 26, particularly who had actually shot Park – KCIA Director Kim Chae [Jae] Kyu or Presidential Security Force chief Cha Chi Chol. As the memorandum notes, the backdrop to the assassination was Park’s sharp criticism of his senior advisors over their failure to keep him informed on the current political situation and the need to improve communications between the Blue House and the public as key to easing political discontent. While the U.S. tries to get a read on the immediate political situation, equally pressing is determining U.S. policy for the future political development of South Korea. Against any hope that the situation may open a route to a more democratic system, the embassy warns: “Nothing in Korea’s long and turbulent history has prepared them to accept compromise as a political modus vivendi, and the continued severe North Korean threat also militates against a functioning western style democracy.” Still, the U.S, might “be able to affect the flow of Korean events at the margins” in the direction of a more open political system. For the moment, the best course of action seems to be to remain cautious, see who emerges as potential leaders, and provide clear but discrete influence. In the short run, though, the U.S. needs to “avoid even the appearance of manipulating a puppet.

    Document 12

    1979-10-29

    Cable, SSO Korea to SSO DIA, Subject: Assassination and the Aftermath, October 29, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    As this cable shows, General Lew Byong Hyon would be a key source of information regarding the assassination of Park and its aftermath. Lew was the senior Korean officer in the Combined Forces Command, and would serve as chairman of the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chun Doo Hwan. The cable reports on a long, private conversation between General John Wickham, the senior U.S. officer in Korea, and Lew over dinner at Wickham’s quarters on October 28 that provides a much fuller account of these events. As a handwritten note on the cable says, “This appears to be the most complete account yet, and in general believable. It includes some strange behavior, but some of that usually occurs in such circumstances.” This account finally places the blame on Kim Jae Kyu for the assassination, and provides Lew’s opinion regarding Kim’s allegedly precarious professional and emotional state. As Lew sees it, Kim had been promoted despite his obvious shortcomings, largely due to his personal relationship with Park, until as KCIA director he reached the limits of his incompetence. Under pressure within the KCIA for his weak leadership and facing criticism from other close advisers to Kim, Kim possibly became “deranged,” to use Lew’s word, and decided to eliminate his persecutors. Looking ahead, Lew feared that “loud-mouths” like Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam would make provocative statements creating opportunities for dissension and making South Korea look weak in North Korea’s eyes. Perhaps most reassuring for the U.S., based on Lew’s account, the South Korean military, “for reasons not exactly clear at this time,” had acted responsibly and in support of the constitution during the crisis and had played no role in the assassination.

    Document 13

    1979-12-13

    Cable, Seoul 18811, Amembassy Seoul to Secretary of State, Subject: Younger ROK Officers Grab Power Positions, December 13, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    Once again, U.S. optimism about the political situation in South Korea and in particular military support for the constitution would be shattered, as a cabal of “Young Turk” military officers carried out a coup on December 12. This cable provides Ambassador Gleysteen’s “groggy conclusions” about what he calls “a coup in all but name,” leaving behind only the “flabby façade of civilian constitutional government.” Washington Post correspondent Don Oberdorfer calls this the “bad news” cable and provides a good summary of Gleysteen’s initial assessment. [6] What stands out is Gleysteen’s sense that the U.S. has limited leverage to steer the course of events. Gleysteen and General Wickham would continue working to impress on the military and the civilian government U.S. concerns about the impact the coup might have on the political and security situation. Gleysteen admits that neither of them look forward to this prospect “because we all have been associated during the last six weeks with this type of missionary work and so much of it seems washed down the drain.”

    Document 14

    1979-12-15

    Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Subject: Developments in Korea, December 15, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    Days after the coup, the U.S. was still trying to sort out the situation in South Korea, as seen in this memorandum from Michael Armacost to Harold Brown. Warning against premature conclusions, Armacost lists what is known: Chun Doo Hwan is calling the shots for now and the Army controls the real tools of power through new Cabinet choices. Armacost suspects that Chun will find it was easier to pull the military into the struggle to establish a new government than it will be to control the consequences of this step, which include the disruption of the orderly constitutional process to establish a new government, an opening to “clan politics,” and a seeming indifference to U.S. reactions. Ambassador Gleysteen had met with Chun to underscore U.S. worries about the dangers of disunity in the military and its impact on North Korean reactions, the disruption of political liberalization and economic instability. Chun says he shares these concerns, and insists what occurred was neither a coup nor a revolution. Chun also claims he has no personal ambitions, supports political liberalization and expects unity to be restored in the military soon. Still, Chun realizes that supporters of the older senior military may seek vengeance, and that as the “fair-haired boy” of his class at the Korean Military Academy – Armacost characterizes him as the “Pete Dawkins of the ROK Army” [7] – he knows his rapid rise has created envy and resentment among his peers. Whether and how to support Chun in reestablishing unity and control in the military presents “extremely tricky choices” for the U.S., Armacost warns.

    Document 15

    1979-12-20

    Memorandum for the President from Cyrus Brown and Harold Brown, Subject: The Situation in the Republic of Korea, December 20, 1979, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Defense Secretary Brown brief President Carter on the situation in South Korea in this memorandum, which repeats many of the concerns discussed in the previous documents. The memorandum lays out three central goals for the U.S.: preventing a dangerous disintegration of Korean army unity; preserving the momentum toward “broadly-based democratic government under orderly civilian leadership;” and deterring any North Korean “adventurism.” Ambassador Gleysteen and General Wickham have pursued these goals in their meetings with the new Korean government and General Chun Du Hwan, providing stiff warnings about the repercussions for U.S.-South Korean relations if there are any set-backs in the process of political liberalization and constitutional processes. For the moment, the situation is stable, with the greatest possible risk centering on new unrest or action by groups within the military. On the plus side, General Chun pledged to Gleysteen that the military would stay out of politics, a pledge also made by the new Army Chief of Staff. Also promising are the moves to drop indictments and prosecutions against opposition political figures and moves to grant amnesties for those affected by the abolished Emergency Measure No. 9, under which the late President Park had cracked down on his political opposition.

    Document 16

    1980-10-18

    Memorandum of Conversation, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Blue House Secretary General Kim Kyong Won, et al, November 18, 1980 [with cover memorandum], Confidential

    Source: RG 59, Subject Files of Edmund S. Muskie, 1963 – 1981, Box 3, Folder: Memcons October-December 1980, NARA

    The U.S.-South Korean alliance managed to survive the crises of 1979, but 1980 brought new challenges, as noted in the introductory essay, marked by the rise of Chun to the presidency, the political protests against the new government, which reached their nadir in the Kwangju uprising, as well as the subsequent arrest, conviction and sentencing to death of prominent political dissident Kim Dae Jung for fomenting the uprising. The Carter White House had little leverage on this issue, as it would soon turn over power to the Reagan administration. Still, it continued to press the Chun government, as seen in this meeting between Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and South Korean Ambassador Kim Yong Shik to discuss the potentially serious damage to the bilateral relationship posed by the execution of Kim Dae Jung. The Korean ambassador could not offer much reassurance. The case would go to President Chun for a final decision soon, and given how complex and sensitive it was, Kim could not predict what Chun would do, especially given the strong pressure the Korean military was putting on Chun to execute Kim Dae Jung. Ambassador Kim also felt that the Western press, in its focus on the case, had failed to grasp a key point, which was that South Korea had survived an “extraordinarily difficult year” following the Park assassination, and had not become “another Iran.” While taking these points, Brzezinski continued to press Ambassador Kim, advising the Korean government not to let the Kim Dae Jung case degenerate into a “no-win” situation such as had faced President Zia in Pakistan, who found himself unable to resist overwhelming pressure to execute Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. (The handwritten comments on the cover memo may have been by Leon Billings, Secretary of State Edmund Muskie’s special assistant, who had moved with him from the Senate to the State Department.)

    Document 17

    1980-12-06

    Memorandum to the Acting Secretary from EA – Michael Armacost (Acting), Subject: Harold Brown’s Discussion with President Chun, December 6, 1980, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    The constraints on the outgoing Carter administration’s ability to influence the Kim Dae Jung decision are also underscored in this and the last document of this posting. In a memorandum to the acting secretary of state, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Michael Armacost (who moved over from the Pentagon) provides an update on the situation regarding Kim Dae Jung and options for a U.S. response should he be executed by the Chun regime. As Armacost reports, Ambassador Gleysteen recently had a good meeting with Chun, giving room for hope the Korean leader would commute Kim Dae Jung’s sentence. An upcoming meeting between Chun and Secretary of Defense Brown (see last document) offered the “most authoritative” (and likely last) chance for driving home the costs South Korea would incur if Kim were executed. This, however, raised two policy issues: what actions was the U.S. prepared to take if Kim was executed; and how specific should the U.S. be in warning Chun of these potential repercussions? For Armacost, the U.S. faced the dilemma that while it had significant leverage with Seoul, specific acts carried significant downsides as well. For example, troop withdrawals could damage U.S. interests, while it would be risky to bluff about sanctions a lame duck administration could not impose. In light of this, Armacost advised there was virtue in keeping U.S. threats somewhat vague, while stressing the potential for a “major unraveling” of South Korean relations with the U.S. and Japan if Kim were executed.

    To prepare the acting secretary for a meeting with Secretary Brown before the latter met with President Carter to discuss the message that Brown should convey to Chun, Armacost provides a detailed analysis of possible economic, political and military sanctions, as well as suggested talking points for Brown to drive home the potential costs of Kim’s execution. The list of actions Armacost believes Brown should signal to the South Korean leader include a “sharp, public condemnation” of the execution of Kim Dae Jung; recalling Ambassador Gleysteen for “extended consultations;” and steps to halt a range of economic and military financial aid to South Korea. In the final analysis, though, Armacost warns that the effectiveness of any such warnings will depend heavily on what the incoming Reagan administration is telling Chun in private. “To the extent we have been able to monitor these, they have been supportive.”

    Document 18

    1980-12-13

    Cable, From Seoul to the White House, Subject: Visit to Korea – Talk With Chun Doo Hwan, December 13, 1980, Secret

    Source: Department of Defense FOIA Request

    This cable reports on Secretary of Defense Brown’s meeting with President Chun on December 13, where Brown made a “strong pitch” for commuting Kim Dae Jung’s sentence. In line with Armacost’s memorandum, Brown laid out the severe consequences of an execution for future U.S.-South Korean security and economic relations. Chun was not swayed, telling Brown that “The decision of the court must be respected. If the court confirms the death sentence that sentence should be carried out.” Despite this seemingly hard stance, Chun also took pains to stress South Korea’s deep debt to the U.S. and the importance of the bilateral relationship. Brown found it hard to weigh the encouraging and discouraging remarks, feeling they may have three possible meanings: despite recent signs that Chun is rethinking the issue and looking for a way to commute Kim’s sentence without losing face, he has in fact decided to execute Kim; that Chun is looking to shift the onus to the courts by deciding Kim should be retried; or that Chun is “posturing” for his military audience, seeking to show he would not make concessions to the U.S. while playing for more time. Brown admits he does not know which of these is correct. All Brown is sure of is that a letter Carter sent Chun about the Kim case and Brown’s presentation left no doubt regarding the strength of the U.S. reaction if Kim were executed, and that the Carter administration has made every effort to put across its point. “We have taken our best shot; I hope it is enough.”

    NOTES

    [1] On the impeachment and arrest of Park Geun Hye, see “South Korea Removes President Park Geun-hye” by Choe Sang-Hun March 9, 2017; and “Former South Korean president arrested in corruption probe, 3 weeks after impeachment,” by Anna Fifield, March 30, 2017, The Washington Post. On the election of Moon Jae-in, see “South Koreans elect liberal Moon Jae-in president after months of turmoil,” by Anna Fifield, May 9, 2017, The Washington Post,and “On first day in office, South Korean president talks about going to North,” by Anna Fifield, May 10, 2017, The Washington Post. On Trump and his administration’s response to North Korea missile tests and possible new nuclear tests, see “Trump’s North Korea Standoff Rattles Allies and Adversaries,” by Robbie Gramer and Paul McLeary, April 20, 2017, Foreign Policy. The U.S. is pursuing ballistic missile defense systems as one possible way to respond to North Korea’s nuclear and missile ambitions in a way that is not dependent on diplomacy or sanctions; see “Missile Defense Test Succeeds, Pentagon Says, Amid Tensions with North Korea,“ Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger, May 30, 2017, The New York Times.

    [2] A good narrative history of the troubled course of U.S.-South Korean relations during the Carter years can be found in Don Oberdofer’s The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Basic Books, 1997, 2001), in particular Chapter 4: The Carter Chill, and Chapter 5: Assassination and Aftermath. Unless otherwise noted, this summary of the period draws upon Oberdorfer’s account.

    [3] In addition to Oberdorfer, Chapter 4, a good overview of the issues surrounding U.S. forces in South Korea can be found in William Stueck, “Ambivalent Occupation: U.S. Armed Forces in Korea, 1953 to the Present,” in Trilateralism and Beyond: Great Power Politics and the Korean Security Dilemma During and After the Cold War, edited by Robert A. Wampler, Kent State University Press, 2012. As this essay shows, other presidents besides Carter have wanted to reduce the number of U.S. troops in South Korea, but political and strategic considerations have conspired to thwart these desires.

    [4] On the Reagan administration and the Chun regime, see EBB 306

    [5] See “The Secret ‘Swing Strategy’,” TheWashington Post, October 8, 1979.

    [6] Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas, p. 119.

    [7] Pete Dawkins was a highly decorated U.S. Army officer and business man who was very well known by the late 1970s. He attended West Point, where he won the Heisman Trophy while playing for the Army football team (which he also captained), was president of his class, graduated with high honors and won a Rhodes scholarship, before embarking on a military career. Serving in Vietnam, then holding command positions in the U.S., he rose quickly through the ranks to retire in 1983 as a brigadier general. He also served as a White House Fellow in 1973-74. Following his retirement from military service, Dawkins began a successful business career involving senior positions at financial firms, including Lehman Brothers. In 1988 he made an unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat from New Jersey, running as a Republican; for further details on his career, see “Pete Dawkins,” Wikipedia article, .

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Japan Plutonium Overhang Origins and Dangers Debated by U.S. Officials

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Japan Plutonium Overhang Origins and Dangers Debated by U.S. Officials

    Japan Plutonium Overhang Origins and Dangers Debated by U.S. Officials

    Proliferation Risks of Japanese Plutonium Surpluses Troubled U.S. Officials

    Origins, Dangers of Japan’s Excess Supply Dates Back Decades, Forward to 2018

    Controversy Continues Today Over Whether Reprocessing by Japan Should Continue

    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 587

    Posted – June 8, 2017

    Edited by William Burr

    For more information contact
    William Burr: 202/994-7000 and nsarchiv

    image001 9

    Ambassador Gerard C. Smith, responsible for nonproliferation policy during the Carter administration, meeting with President Jimmy Carter, 24 October 1979. Concerned about U.S.-Japan diplomatic relations, Smith wanted Japan to have more leeway in reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel so that it could develop fast breeder reactors, although some worried that that would lead to mounting plutonium surpluses (Photo courtesy of Jimmy Carter Presidential Library)

    Washington, D.C., June 8, 2017 – Japan’s long-standing aspirations to develop a «plutonium economy» troubled U.S. officials going back decades as early as the Jimmy Carter administration, according to documents posted today by the nongovernmental National Security Archive at The George Washington University and the Nuclear Nonproliferation International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    The Japanese government appealed repeatedly in the late 1970s for authority to utilize American spent fuel for reactor experiments and for acceptance of the country’s right to resource self-sufficiency. Tokyo’s position sparked intense debate within the Carter administration, between those who wanted to avoid damaging ties with Japan and those – including the president – who placed a high priority on curbing the availability of sensitive nuclear technologies. Among the newly declassified documents in this e-book is a National Security Council memo expressing concern that the inevitable surplus from Japan’s desired processing plans would “more than swamp” global requirements and create a significant proliferation risk involving tons of excess plutonium by the year 2000. Indeed, as a result of reprocessing activities since then, Japan possesses 48 tons of plutonium and could be producing more, with no clearly defined use, when a new reprocessing facility goes on line in 2018, unless Washington and Tokyo renegotiate a nuclear agreement that expires that same year.

    Today’s posting is part of a growing body of records being compiled by the National Security Archive’s Nuclear Vault that flesh out largely unknown aspects of the history of Japan’s nuclear program, and more generally the inherent dangers of proliferation of nuclear materials.

    Japan’s Plutonium Overhang: Debates During the Carter Administration

    By William Burr

    Plutonium, a key element of nuclear weapons, has been an issue in U.S.-Japan relations for decades. During the administration of Jimmy Carter, the Japanese government pressed Washington for permission to process spent reactor fuel of U.S. origin so that the resulting plutonium could be used for experiments with fast breeder nuclear reactors. The government of Japan wanted to develop a “plutonium economy,” but U.S. government officials worried about the consequences of building plants to reprocess reactor fuel. According to a memo by National Security Council staffer Gerald Oplinger, published for the first time by the National Security Archive, the “projected plants would more than swamp the projected plutonium needs of all the breeder R&D programs in the world.” They “will produce a vast surplus of pure, weapons grade plutonium amounting to several hundred tons by the year 2000.” That stockpile “would constitute a danger in itself” and “it would eventually drive these nations, and those watching their example, into the recycle of plutonium in today’s generation of reactors for economic reasons,” which the Carter White House saw as a waste of resources.

    That the White House leaned against reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel frustrated the government of Japan, which saw (and still does) its energy future in using plutonium to fuel advanced reactors. By 1979, Gerard C. Smith, the president’s representative on nonproliferation policy, wanted Japan to be given leeway so it could reprocess without getting U.S. consent. Worried that Japan and other close allies perceived the United States as an “unreliable” nuclear supplier, Smith hoped to avoid “major damage” to the relationship with Tokyo. His initiative touched off debate within the Carter administration, evidence of which is published today by the National Security Archive.

    image002 3

    The first Japanese reprocessing plant at Tokai Mura, which went on-line in January 1981 several years after it was the subject of a U.S.-Japan controversy over nuclear reprocessing policy (Photo taken in 1999, courtesy of Greenpeace

    Today’s posting demonstrates how the Carter White House’s critical approach to plutonium reprocessing came under fire from within and outside the administration. Among the documents published are:

    The record of a conversation between Smith and Minister of State for Science and Technology Iwazo Kaneko, who gave a fervent defense of a plutonium economy: given Japan’s energy needs, it was “essential … to make maximum use of plutonium, particularly in fast breeder ” While Japan had to take nonproliferation concerns into account at the same time it had “the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

    A memorandum by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke supporting Smith’s position, arguing that a failure to change the U.S. approach to Japanese reprocessing “would suggest … that we are insensitive to their most basic security and economic requirement” and could “also open a fissure in our relationship with the most profound consequences for US interests.”

    Memoranda by top advisers to Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, Leon Billings and Berl Bernhard, who raised questions about Gerard Smith’s motives. Billings advised Muskie to take into account “the bias of State Department negotiators,” especially Smith’s background as a “life-long nuclear power advocate” who sees “current resistance [to nuclear power] in this country as something which should be overcome.”

    A critique of Smith’s proposal by Policy Planning Staff official Robert Gallucci, who argued that it was a mistake to assume that a move toward plutonium breeder reactors was inevitable.

    “There is still no accepted way to have breeders without having fuel loadings which would each contain enough plutonium to fabricate hundreds of nuclear weapons.”

    A report by the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo on a report by the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute, which concluded that Japan did not need the second reprocessing plant. According to White House commentary on the report, it was “something of a bombshell” by providing “confirmation we have yet seen of the basic premises underlying the President’s 1977 policies: that the need for large scale reprocessing and commercial use of plutonium remains distant and uncertain.”

    The risk of nuclear of proliferation was a significant element in Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign, which raised questions about the hazards of nuclear energy and attacked the Ford administration for ignoring the “deadly threat posed by plutonium in the hands of terrorists.” Not long after his inauguration, Carter signed Presidential Directive 8, which declared that “U.S. non-proliferation policy shall be directed at preventing the development and use of sensitive nuclear power technologies which involve direct access to plutonium, highly enriched uranium, or other weapons useable material in non-nuclear weapons states, and at minimizing the global accumulation of these materials.” Consistent with this, Carter called for an indefinite deferral of commercial reprocessing and the recycle of plutonium in the U.S. and restructuring U.S. breeder reactor programs to develop “alternative designs to the plutonium breeder.” He also directed U.S. nuclear R&D spending to focus on the “development of alternative nuclear fuel cycles which do not involve access to weapons useable materials.” [i]

    image003 4

    Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, who presided over the latest U.S. government internal debate over reprocessing policy during the summer of 1980. Photograph taken during State Department farewell event at the end of the Carter administration (U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Unit, RG 59-SE, box 8)

    To develop an international consensus on those ideas, Carter called for an International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) program, which partly aimed at promoting “alternative, non-sensitive, nuclear fuel cycles.” That goal and the critical approach toward reprocessing were complex diplomatically because, as noted, key allies such as Japan were committed to the goal of a “plutonium economy.” The 1974 Indian nuclear test had made Washington more sensitive to the proliferation risk of reprocessing, which dismayed the Japanese because Washington had formerly encouraged reprocessing. At Tokai Mura village, Tokyo was completing a facility that it would use for reprocessing U.S.-supplied reactor fuel. An earlier nuclear energy agreement with Japan provided the Carter White House with leverage over Japan’s reprocessing plans; nevertheless, Carter recognized that Washington could not “impose [its] will.” He avoided diplomatic tensions by approving a compromise permitting reprocessing at Tokai Mura village. The Japanese planned on going further by building a large plant for commercial reprocessing.

    The compromise on Tokai Mura notwithstanding, Carter’s nonproliferation policy continued to rankle Tokyo, especially with the passage of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (1978). Criticizing the NNPA, Ryukichi Imai, a leading figure in the Japanese nuclear industry [See Document 4], said that “The United States no longer can impose upon the world its version of truth, but, by attempting to do so, it can cause enormous disturbances.” The Act called for the renegotiation of earlier bilateral nuclear energy agreements, but what especially bothered Tokyo was that it prohibited reprocessing of U.S. supplied fuel without U.S. approval. That strengthened the so-called “MB [Material Balance]-10” procedure that Washington had been following for years with respect to Japanese shipments of spent fuel for reprocessing in France and the United Kingdom. It was this procedure that Gerard Smith wanted so that Japan would not have to ask for permission routinely.[ii]

    An important theme of early Carter administration diplomacy, one that was central to Smith’s thinking, was “trilateralism.” Smith was, with Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, one of the founding fathers of the Trilateral Commission, formed in the early 1970s in order to enhance U.S. relations with Japan and the European Community. Like his colleagues, Smith worried about the impact of the 1971 “Nixon shocks” on Japan and Western Europe and sought to strengthen post-World War II multilateralism to prevent the kind of political and economic rivalries that had destabilized international relations during the 1930s. Trilateralists also worried about divisions that could weaken the West in the face of Soviet and Third World challenges. For the Carter administration, these goals proved difficult in practice and relations with trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific allies were rocky.[iii] Nevertheless, the trilateral frame of mind made Smith sensitive to the concerns of Washington’s Japanese and Western European partners about nuclear energy issues, believing that failure to take a sympathetic approach could have an adverse diplomatic impact.

    The international fuel cycle conference that Carter sought led to a number of international meetings during 1978 and 1979, but it did not arrive at the alternatives to reprocessing plutonium that the White House had sought. Owing to divisions among the nuclear states and developing countries seeking broad scope in developing fuel cycles, the INFCE did not rank the various nuclear fuel cycles according to the proliferation risk that they posed; nor did it find any technical means to eliminate or reduce the proliferation risks involved in reprocessing. Nor did it produce an across-the-board acceptance of the U.S. view that thermal recycling (the use of plutonium as reactor fuel) was economically disadvantageous. Moreover, some countries, such as Japan and France wanted the U.S. to make decisions that had been deferred while the INFCE was conferred, such as on the reprocessing of U.S.-origin fuel.[iv]

    Catching up with the deferred decisions, among other issues, gave Smith an opportunity to suggest policy changes aimed at mitigating Japanese and Western European concerns. During the summer of 1980, with Carter’s approval, Smith held discussions with Japanese and West European nuclear energy officials, but the administration’s defeat in November meant that his agenda could not produce any results. Nevertheless, what Smith sought foreshadowed developments during the Reagan administration, which in 1987 reached an agreement, approved by Congress the next year, that gave Japan “comprehensive advanced consent” to reprocess. Tokyo could go forward with plans, still unrealized, to develop breeder reactors fueled with plutonium. CAC was an important concession and was controversial in the United States owing to concerns about political and environmental hazards of plutonium storage and transport. The internal Reagan administration record of the negotiations with Japan remains classified but is the subject of ongoing declassification requesting by the National Security Archive

    image004 2

    The controversial Japanese reprocessing facility at Rokkasho, scheduled to go on-line in 2018. If it goes into production, its will be producing reactor-grade plutonium that has no programmed use.

    Since the 1988 agreement Japan’s nuclear plans have gone awry. The Fukushima disaster raised questions about nuclear energy as a power source while the Monju fast breeder reactor turned out to be a tremendously expensive boondoggle, which the Japanese government decided to decommission in late 2016 (during more than 20 years it operated only 250 days). The government remains interested in developing plutonium-fueled fast reactors but that is a remote prospect.

    Plans to use plutonium in a mixed oxide (MOX) reactor fuel have come to naught. At present, therefore, Japan has no clearly defined use for the 48 tons of separated plutonium that it owns, some 11 tons of which are on Japanese territory.[v] The surpluses, which emerged as anticipated, continue to worry arms control experts, including some, such as Robert Gallucci, who were involved in the 1980 debate.[vi] Terrorists would need only a few kilograms of plutonium for a weapon with mass destruction potential. In the meantime, the Rokkasho reprocessing facility is scheduled to go on-line in 2018.[vii] The industrial scale facility is slated to separate 8 tons of plutonium maximum annually, although Japan has no specific plans for using most of it. 2018 is the same year that the 1988 U.S.-Japan agreement is slated to expire, although whether the Trump administration has any interest in renegotiating it remains to be seen.[viii] Meanwhile, the South Korean government, which cannot reprocess, under existing agreements with Washington, asks why it cannot do what Japan has been doing.

    When NSC staffer Gerald Oplinger wrote that the plutonium surplus would constitute a “danger in itself,” he probably assumed an environmental hazard and possibly a proliferation risk and vulnerability to terrorism. He did not mention the latter risks, although the reference to surpluses of “weapons grade” material evoked such concerns. While Japanese reprocessing plants would be producing reactor-grade plutonium, it nevertheless has significant weapons potential.[ix] On the question of Japan’s nuclear intentions, the documents from this period that have been seen by the editor are silent; it is not clear whether U.S. officials wondered whether elements of the government of Japan had a weapons option in the back of their mind. Any such U.S. speculation, however, would have had to take into account strong Japanese anti-nuclear sentiment, rooted in terrible historical experience, Japan’s membership in good standing in the nonproliferation community, and that since the days of Prime Minister Sato, the “three Nos” have been official national policy: no possession, no manufacture, and no allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese territory.[x] According to a 1974 national intelligence estimate, Japan was keeping “open” the possibility of a weapons capability and had the resources to produce weapons in a few years, but the intelligence agencies were divided over the likelihood of such a development. The CIA, State Department intelligence, and Army intelligence saw such a course of action as highly unlikely without a collapse of U.S. security guarantees and the emergence of a significant threat to Japan’s security.[xi]

    Sources for this posting including State Department FOIA releases as well as recently declassified records at the National Archives, including the records of Gerard C. Smith and Secretary of State Edmund Muskie. Many documents on Japan from the Smith files are awaiting declassification review.

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document Document 01

    Louis Nozenzo, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State, to Joseph Nye et al., enclosing paper on “U.S. Policy on Foreign Reprocessing,” 24 January 1977, Confidential

    Source: State Department Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release

    Even before President Carter came to office, the outgoing Ford administration had been sending strong signals that the United States was no longer taking a business-as-usual approach to plutonium. The Carter White House was about to take an even tougher angle: a “go-slow attitude … toward a reprocessing/plutonium economy and a desire to have other industrialized economies follow a similar course.” For government policy experts, nuclear operations that produced plutonium as a byproduct were not inherently “safeguardable” and the danger was “withdrawal from or abrogation of safeguards agreements and political commitments and also terrorist action which no system of technical safeguards can prevent.” Thus, proposals to stockpile plutonium as fuel for experimental breeder reactors were inconsistent with nonproliferation and safety objectives. Questioning economic, environmental, and other arguments that had been used to justify reprocessing, Nozenzo, like others in the administration, supported an international evaluation program to determine its worth.

    Noting Japan’s intent to begin operations at the Tokai Mura reprocessing plant, Nozenzo recommended a joint U.S.-Japanese test program for the application of new ground rules, for example, by assuring U.S. custody of “strategic quantities” of plutonium. As for Japanese plans for a larger scale commercial reprocessing plant, Washington needs to “convince them to delay those plans pending the results of the U.S. evaluation program.”

    Document Document 02

    Patsy Mink, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, to Deputy Secretary of State, “PRC Meeting on PRM-15 Response,” 15 March 1977, Confidential

    Source: State Department FOIA release

    A Presidential Review Memorandum requested agency views on a number of proliferation matters. A report had been drawn up but the issues were still under consideration. With respect to processing, the State Department and other agencies agreed on the need for a “fuel cycle evaluation program to investigate ways of avoiding or minimizing the problems associated with the presence of separated plutonium.” With respect to reprocessing in the United States, the State Department believed “that our domestic program, more than any other element, will convey a signal to other countries concerning our intent to avoid or proceed with reprocessing, that there is no economic need for the US to proceed now.”

    Document Document 03

    Patsy Mink, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, to Deputy Secretary of State, “State Department Views on the Partial Response to PD-8,” 5 April 1977, with attached memorandum from Warren Christopher to President Carter, “Nuclear Reprocessing Discussions with Japan” attached, Secret

    Source: State Department mandatory declassification review (MDR) release

    Following up the responses to PRM-15 with a directive, PD-8

    President Carter instructed the agencies to “seek a pause among all nations in sensitive nuclear developments in order to initiate and actively participate in, an intensive international nuclear fuel cycle re-evaluation program (IFCEP) whose technical aspects shall concern the development and promotion of alternative, non-sensitive, nuclear fuel cycles. This program will include both nuclear supplier and recipient nations.” As part of the pause, the United States Government would “indefinitely defer the commercial reprocessing and recycle of plutonium in the U.S.”

    Recognizing that a number of close allies, including France, West Germany, and Japan, had a strong interest in reprocessing, State Department officials believed that Washington “must take account of these concerns while moving toward our objectives of finding alternatives to a plutonium economy and minimizing the global accumulation of weapons usable material.” On Japan, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher observed that “Right wing elements in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and conservative business groups in Japan are strident on” the Tokai Mura reprocessing plant and that Japanese public opinion saw U.S. opposition as a denial of energy self-sufficiency to “resource-poor Japan.” Therefore, Washington needed “to proceed in a manner which will not seem to present the Japanese with a fait accompli or foreclose possibilities for further discussion.”

    Document Document 04

    Memorandum of conversation, “Non-Proliferation and Reprocessing in Japan,” 14 April 1977, Confidential, with “Possible Basis of Japan-US Understanding of Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, 15 April 1977, attached

    Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 59, Department of State Records [RG 59]. Subject Files of Ambassador at Large and Representative of the United States to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Gerard C. Smith [Smith records], box 17, Tokai Mura Agreement 9/12/1977

    During this discussion, Ryukichi Imai, a senior official with Japan Atomic Power Company and an adviser to the Foreign Ministry (and later career ambassador and academic), laid out Japan’s basic nuclear energy objectives. Acknowledging that “in the present situation [plutonium] is not an economic fuel” and that the “near-term commercialization of plutonium technology is neither possible nor necessary,” nevertheless, he wanted the U.S. to recognize that “plutonium technology remains important.” Moreover, “its extraction, handling and burning should be the continued subject of Japanese research and development activities.” Such activity should be limited to the US, the Soviet Union, the European Community, and Japan.

    The Japanese perspective worried U.S. officials, not only for its “frankly discriminatory” approach, but also because of its inconsistency with U.S. policy, which was to “take every reasonable step to avoid setting a precedent for the reprocessing of spent fuel for recycle purposes.” To reconcile the differences, the discussants agreed to underscore U.S.-Japanese cooperation so as not to prejudice President Carter’s nonproliferation policy and [set] “unfavorable precedents.” Moreover, they agreed it was important to address Japan’s domestic political problems and energy needs and to “explore means … to make the Tokai facility an effective and constructive element in an international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation.”

    Document Document 05

    Memorandum from Ambassador-at-Large and Special Representative for Non-Proliferation Matters Gerard C. Smith, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Holbrooke, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology Joseph Nye to the Secretary of State, “Options Paper to the President on the Japanese Nuclear Reprocessing Facility,” 30 July 1977, Confidential

    Source: Smith records, box 17, Tokai Mura Agreement 9/12/1977

    With Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda seeing Japan’s nuclear energy goals as “life and death” matters, President Carter agreed to a compromise on starting up the Tokai Mura reprocessing plant without backtracking on his objective of avoiding hasty reprocessing and plutonium stockpiling. When negotiations began during the summer of 1977, State Department officials developed three options. One was the experimental operation of the plant as a “test-bed” for an IAEA safeguards program. The second was reprocessing with a limited amount of irradiated fuel, with Japanese agreement to begin a major experiment in “co-processing,” a blend of plutonium and uranium that could be used to operate light water reactors, but not to fuel a weapon. The third option required the modification of Tokai so that it could “perform only experimental work on coprocessing.” While the Japanese disliked that option because it meant a delayed a start-up for Tokai Mura, Carter had suggested it because it would avoid the further spread of reprocessing.

    The State Department recommended option 2 precisely because it would enable the Japanese to begin reprocessing while requiring them to experiment with an alternative. Carter approved that option and Smith, recently appointed as the administration’s nonproliferation ambassador-at large, went to Tokyo to negotiate the final agreement.

    Document Document 06

    U.S. Embassy Tokyo telegram 13359 to State Department, “Significance of the Japanese Offer to Delay Construction of the Plutonium Conversion Plant,” 31 August 1977, Confidential

    Source: RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, Access to Archival Databases (AD)

    During the negotiations over option 2, the Japanese sought a U.S. concession: they wanted to postpone a decision for two years on co-processing, depending on the success of research and development and the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. Constraining the Japanese decision was that spent fuel of U.S. origin would not be available for reprocessing after two years unless the Japanese accepted co-processing. In exchange for the U.S. concession, the Japanese offered to delay construction of a plant for converting plutonium nitrate into solid plutonium oxide, for which they had already paid a West German firm five million dollars of a 15 million total. If the Japanese built the plant as designed they would have been unable to produce mixed oxide. As Smith explained, that “could have been construed as meaning that the Japanese had no intention of going to the co-processing mode at the end of the two years of operation of the reprocessing plant.”

    According to Smith, the concession was significant because it demonstrated that the Japanese were willing to “sacrifice their prior investment …. to wait for R&D and INFCE results on co-processing.” It also showed that the Japanese were “willing to delay the achievement of their own internal capability to produce plutonium fuels of any kind for about two years.” The concession, Smith believed, would be “highly unpopular” with the company that was building the Tokai Mura plant.

    The Japanese also agreed to the “postponement of any major moves toward a follow-on 1500- ton reprocessing plant during [the] INFCE.” From the U.S. perspective, the results of the evaluation could persuade the Japanese to rethink the plans for a second plant.

    Document Document 07

    Letter, Ambassador Michael Mansfield to Gerard C. Smith, 14 November 1978, Confidential

    Source: Smith records, box 6, Ambassadorial Letters

    Responding to Smith’s request for an assessment of Japanese nonproliferation policy, Mansfield discussed the undercurrent of Japanese skepticism about Carter’s nuclear policy. While the Tokai Mura agreement had improved the atmosphere, the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act created new difficulties, such as the need for U.S. approval for spent fuel shipments to the UK and France for reprocessing. Tacitly referring to the so-called MB-10 procedure, Mansfield noted that under the law, the Japanese “will have to repeat the rather embarrassing process of seeking U.S. approval each time.” Plutonium was also worrisome: “Should the time come when the Japanese need the plutonium they own in Europe for their fast breeder program but are not permitted by the U.S. to receive it, we are going to become engaged in another major confrontation.”

    The Japanese shared Western European skepticism about U.S policy on such issues as reprocessing of plutonium and Japan was unlikely to “go so far toward meeting U.S. nonproliferation concerns that it will isolate itself from the European consensus position.” It was likely to go along with Western European opinion “so that it is not placed at a disadvantage in economic or strategic terms vis-a-vis energy developments.”

    Document Document 08

    U.S. Embassy Tokyo telegram 02669 to State Department, “Bilateral Nuclear Consultations with Japan,” 3 February 1979, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Access to Archival Databases (AAD)

    The bilateral discussions covered an understanding to extend the Tokai Mura agreement to April 1980 and discussion of a still-born plan to use a Pacific island (Palmyra, south of Hawaii) as a storage site for spent reactor fuel. While Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Thomas Pickering explained U.S. interest in an international nuclear regime that minimized use of plutonium as a reactor fuel, Japanese Atomic Energy Commissioner Kinya Niizeki restated Japan’s commitment to an “early PU economy while recognizing [that] nonproliferation problems entailed.” To underline U.S. concerns about plutonium, Pickering pulled out charts showing that as Japan reprocessed spent fuel it would generate more plutonium than it would need, even if there was a Pacific basin storage site available. Also taking part in the conversation was Atsuhiko Yatabe, Director-General for Scientific and Technological Affairs, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Document Document 09

    Memorandum of conversation, “Meeting Between Ambassador Gerard Smith and Japanese Minister of State for Science and Technology [Iwazo] Kaneko,” 29 August 1979, Confidential

    Source: Smith records, box 17, Japan June-December 1979

    Kaneko began with a fervent defense of a plutonium economy: given Japan’s energy needs it was “essential … to make maximum use of plutonium, particularly in fast breeder reactors.” While Japan had to take nonproliferation concerns into account but at the same time it had “the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” Both reprocessing and plutonium use were “compatible” with the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Minister also discussed the extension of the Tokai Mura agreement, recent changes in Japanese regulations allowing private industry to build a second reprocessing facility, and U.S. approvals of Japanese transfer of spent reactor fuel overseas under the o-called MB-10 arrangements. On the transfers, Kaneko hoped that Washington would show “greater understanding” of Japanese needs, suggesting reservations about the current case-by-case approach. On the second reprocessing facility, both Kaneko and Smith agreed that the regulatory change was not a “major move” toward building the plant.

    Smith did not directly address Kaneko’s point about plutonium, only allowing that the use of nuclear power for electricity production was wholly compatible with nuclear nonproliferation. On the MB-10s, Smith understood that the Japanese wanted to go beyond case-by case and adopt an approval process that was more “suitable to an industrial operation.”

    Document Document 10

    Memorandum to the Files by Gary R. Bray, ACDA/NP/NE [Bureau of Nonproliferation and Regional Arms Control, Nuclear Energy Division], “Japanese Plutonium Supply and Demand Update,” 11 October 1979, unclassified

    Source: Smith records, box 17, Japan June-Dec 1979

    In the cover memo to his paper on plutonium supply and demand, Bray wrote that “Japan will have more than enough plutonium to conduct its FBR [fast breeder reactor] and ATR [advanced thermal reactor] programs presently planned for the 1980’s and will in fact have an excess of plutonium by 1990.” According to Bray, he based that conclusion on the assumption that Japan’s programs for plutonium use will meet “their respective schedules, goals and objectives both in the area of supply and demand.” That included plans to deploy another liquid fast metal breeder reactor [LFMBR], whose operations would consume and produce plutonium. Bray acknowledged, however, that different scenarios could develop, for example, a plutonium shortage if reactors did not produce enough plutonium for the ATR and FBR, or the failure of those programs and resulting plutonium surpluses. He mentioned that his report did not take into account the introduction of a second reprocessing facility, which could produce large quantities of plutonium “with no stated end use.”

    Document Document 11

    Memorandum by “CUD” [Presently unidentified], “Observations on Our Differences with the West Europeans Over Non-Proliferation,” 3 November 1979

    Source: Smith records, box 6, Post-INFCE Policy Jul-Dec 1979

    With its commitments to limiting reprocessing and plutonium supplies to only what was needed for R&D work on breeder reactors, the Carter administration generated strong opposition in Western Europe, especially France and West Germany, where thinking was far more optimistic about the potential of breeder reactors and the relative danger of plutonium. One of the worries that the British and French had was that Washington would use consent right to prevent the transfer of spent fuel from Japan to Western Europe “hinder the execution of their existing contracts to reprocess foreign fuel and to head off the planned expansion of their reprocessing facilities.” According to the author, London and Paris had a “commercial interest … in selling reprocessing services at a high premium to Japan and others, which will help meet the front-end construction costs of their reprocessing facilities.”

    According to the author, one of the differences between U.S. and European perceptions of plutonium was that the latter had “insist[ed] in in INFCE on the intellectually dishonest conclusion that the proliferation risks of separated plutonium and irradiated spent fuel are not significantly different.” While the West Europeans did not deny that plutonium posed a proliferation risk and supported U.S. efforts to limit the spread of sensitive technology, it was not clear how long they would continue to do so.

    Document Document 12A

    Department of State telegram 273943 to U.S. Embassy Bonn et al., “Post International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) Exploration,” 19 October 1979, Secret

    Source: Smith records, box 6, unlabeled file

    A discussion paper that Washington had circulated among INFCE participants (see 12A) raised the basis for a possible “consensus” position designed to speak to allies that were committed to the plutonium economy. While associating plutonium and enriched uranium with proliferation risks, the paper only called for limiting such uses, pursuit “where economically justified,” and institutional measures to “contain or reduce the risks.”

    Document Document 12B

    Department of State telegram 296435 to U.S. Embassy Tokyo, “US Japan Discussions on Post-INFCE Regime,” 15 November 1979, Confidential

    Source: RG 59, AAD

    Discussing the U.S. paper on the post-INFCE situation with Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, Atsuhiko Yatabe suggested the need for the “Western democracies” to develop an agreed position on fuel cycle and nuclear export policy that would be applied “to those outside the group”, implicitly, limiting the ability of developing nations/the Third World to pursue risky nuclear energy capabilities. Pickering was not so sure about the merits of “a blatantly discriminatory approach.” Differences in approach toward reprocessing and plutonium also surfaced during the Pickering-Yatabe discussions. The latter mentioned the U.S. observation that an International Plutonium Storage (IPS) regime might lead to the “premature separation of plutonium” and asked if that was a widely-held view. Pickering said that it was, including members of Congress who followed nonproliferation issues

    Document Document 12C

    Department of State telegram 298150 to U.S. Embassy Tokyo, “U.S.-Japan Consultations on Non-Proliferation: Non-INFCE Subjects,” 15 November 1979, Secret

    Source: RG 59, AAD

    The Pickering-Yatabe discussion turned to Tokai Mura and Pickering mentioned the U.S. hope that the “main plant would be converted to full scale coprocessing” as stipulated by the 1977 communique. Yatabe emphasized the “difficulty” of the conversion and added that “considerable time would be needed to scale up from the experimental work ….to coprocessing at the main plant.”

    Document Document 13

    Secretary of State Vance to President Carter, 18 February 1980, enclosing Gerard C. Smith report to the President, “Nonproliferation Strategy for 1980 and Beyond,” 16 February 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Records of Policy Planning Staff Director Anthony Lake, 1977-1981, box 6, T 4/1-15/80

    Concerned about “unnecessary irritants” in relations with major allies, Smith proposed rethinking U.S. policy on reprocessing. Whatever Washington perceived to be the risks of reprocessing and plutonium use, Smith argued that Japan and major Western European allies will continue work in those areas. Moreover, they look at the United States as an “unreliable supplier” and U.S. influence “over nuclear trade and programs is becoming increasingly limited.” Therefore, to improve the nonproliferation regime through agreement on such matters as full-scope safeguards and export controls, Smith argued that Washington needed to develop consensus positions on disputed issues. That would involve developing new criteria for evaluating countries on the basis of their proliferation risk; those involving the least risk and in the top rung were major allies, which were also nuclear exporters, and otherwise “indispensable to improving the nonproliferation regime.”

    For allies with “advanced nuclear programs” and strong interests in breeder reactor research, Smith raised the possibility replacing case-by-case approval with “batch or generic authorizations (for a period of years) for reprocessing and plutonium use for breeder [reactor] R&D, subject to interruption only when there is a material breach of agreement.” He advised against any effort to “obstruct reprocessing” in Japan because it would cause “major damage” in the relationship and “only indirectly contribute to nonproliferation.” As reprocessing had already begun at Tokai Mura, “Japan already has the ability to produce weapons grade material”; a second reprocessing facility would not set any precedent, although it would be necessary “to seek a mutually agreeable arrangement … as to timing, safeguards, and other institutional and technical measures.”

    To manage the resultant plutonium supply from reprocessing in Japan or other countries, Smith suggested such alternatives as depositing it at an International Plutonium Storage (IPS) facility, use in the production of mixed oxide (MOX), and definite conditions, e.g., “to be used in specified research.” The idea of an IPS system was then under discussion, although some worried that its existence could “legitimate premature separation of plutonium.” If such a system was created, Smith believed, it should be under IAEA control. Its existence, Smith suggested, would “reinforce the perception that plutonium is a particularly dangerous material and legitimize actions to assure that it is used only for specified peaceful purposes under safeguards.” Smith did not mention that the creation of an IPS would run athwart President Carter’s PD-8 which sought to discourage plutonium storage.

    Document Document 14

    State Department memorandum, “Extension of Takai [sic] Mura: Meeting with Minister Sumiya,” 17 March 1980, with State Department telegram attached, Confidential

    Source: Smith records, box 17, Japan (January-June 1980)

    With the extension of the Tokai-Mura agreement under discussion, State Department officials wanted to leave in place the language about “no major moves” toward the second reprocessing plant. Changing the language “might well be interpreted at home and abroad as U.S. acquiescence in commercial scale reprocessing in Japan without condition.” As part of the extension, U.S. officials wanted to set conditions, such as an agreement on using plutonium only for the fast breeder experimental program, but not to fuel light water reactors.

    Document Document 15

    Memorandum to the Secretary of State from Gerard C. Smith, “Re PRC Meeting, April 9,” 9 April 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Smith records, box 6, Post-INFCE Policy March-April 1980

    Smith wrote to Vance just before a meeting of the Policy Review Committee (PRC), and judging by the underlining and the stamp (“CV”), Vance read Smith’s paper. Dismissing the argument that his approach was discriminatory, Smith gave specific examples of how U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy had discriminated from the outset and how the Carter administration continued to make distinctions between countries, e.g., by trying to prevent reprocessing in Argentina and Brazil but condoning it in Japan. “If no discrimination is to be the criterion, we have but two alternatives — no exports or treat all nations alike — Iraq and Libya like Japan and Germany.”

    Document Document 16

    Memorandum for Zbigniew Brzezinski from Jerry Oplinger, NSC Staff, “Minutes of the PRC on April 9, 1980,” 10 April 1980, enclosing minutes of meeting on “Non-Proliferation Matters,” Secret

    Source: Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, RAC Document NLC-28-32-8-2-6

    At the meeting of the Policy Review Committee, Smith gave a full briefing of the policy and procedural changes that he sought, including the relaxation of “our MB-10 policy to permit generic approval of reprocessing and plutonium use in advanced countries.” While Vance believed that Smith’s paper should go forward for presidential consideration, not everyone agreed. Brzezinski’s deputy David Aaron observed that “what the US would give up is clear: it is not clear what we would require in return,” especially what requirements would be set to regulate the “flow” of plutonium. He wanted other options explored and more clarity on the “quids” to the United States. White House adviser Stuart Eisenstadt and Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality Gus Speth also raised critical questions. The latter observed that the “paper presented on point pf view; the President needs to hear the contrary case.” In light of the comments, Vance proposed that an options paper be prepared for discussion in two weeks’ time. By then, he would be out of office, having resigned in protest of President Carter’s decision to approve the Iran hostage rescue mission.

    Document Document 17

    “PRC PRESIDENTIAL DECISION PAPER Nonproliferation Planning Assumptions,” 12 May 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Subject File of Edmund S. Muskie, 1963-1981, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    The paper that Vance asked for exhaustively spelled out two major options, including sub-options, and their pros and cons. Option 1 was the status quo: the case-by-case procedure. Option 2 would provide “advance understandings, consistent with the NNPA, covering certain limited categories of requests” for reprocessing. Sub-option 2-A was a more restrictive approach because it would permit reprocessing of spent fuel and plutonium use for breeder and advanced reactor RD&D programs only where Washington had made “substantial commitments” prior to the new U.S. policy of 1977. A “clear line” would be drawn against retransfers for reprocessing for countries with no breeder or other advanced reactor RD&D programs.

    Sub-option 2-B was a less restrictive than 2-A: it was “an evolutionary approach” to provide agreement to reprocessing programs “substantially committed to in the next ten years in countries where there is no demonstrable proliferation risk” and had a “large electrical grid and an advanced nuclear program” (meaning only Western Europe and Japan). Moreover, Washington would “indicate willingness to consider generic agreements with countries with good nonproliferation credentials and no spent fuel storage alternatives.”

    On the Government of Japan’s desire for U.S. approval of reprocessing, the paper made the point that Tokyo faced “significant financial penalties” if it could not transfer U.S. spent fuel to Western Europe for reprocessing. So far, Japan was obliged to pay 27 percent of the construction costs of new European reprocessing plants and had already paid five percent of the costs. Those costs made it “politically difficult” for the United States “to force Japan to forego a future domestic reprocessing alternative to the exorbitant rates, uncertainties, delays and foreign dependence involved in contracts for reprocessing in Europe.”

    Document Document 18

    State Department Paper, “Issues in the Current Review of US Post-INFCE Non-Proliferation Policy,” 21 May 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Lake Records, box 6, TL 5/16 – 5/31/80

    For the sake of policymakers who did not want to wade through the presidential decision paper, a short version of the options paper was circulated. It highlighted Option 2-B as the preference because it offered the “best chance of preserving reasonable technical and economic criteria for legitimate use of plutonium while still meeting the demands of negotiability with the Europeans and Japanese.”

    Document Document 19

    Leon Billings to the Secretary, “Non-Proliferation,” 23 May 1980

    Source: Source : RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    Leon Billings (the legislative author of the Clean Air Act) had been one of Senator Muskie’s top aides and served as his chief of staff at the State Department. Arguing that it was premature to make a decision on Smith’s proposals, he recommended against another PRC meeting and proposed that the Secretary convene “an interagency group chaired by this department to develop for you an analysis of the pros and cons of changing the President’s non-proliferation policy.”

    Document Document 20

    Gerard C. Smith to the Secretary, “Non-Proliferation Planning Assumptions,” 23 May 1980, Secret

    Source: Smith records, box 6, Post-INFCE Policy May-July 1980

    Smith sent his new boss a distilled version of his policy proposals.

    Document Document 21

    Policy Planning Staff, “The Reprocessing and Plutonium Use Planning Assumptions,” 27 May 1980, with cover note from Paul Kreisberg to Anthony Lake, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Lake Records, box 6, TL 5/16 – 5/31/80

    To get a “contrary view” of Smith’s recent paper, Billings asked Raymond Seitz, an official with the Executive Secretariat, to ask the Policy Planning Staff to work up a critique. Drafted by “Bob” [Policy Planning Staff member Robert Gallucci], the paper took the view that it was a mistake to assume that a move toward plutonium breeder reactors was inevitable. Not only was it dangerous, it was far from an accepted technology. “There is still no accepted way to have breeders without having fuel loadings which would each contain enough plutonium to fabricate hundreds of nuclear weapons; and there is also still no good reason why we or our allies need embrace that technology at this time.” Moreover, abandoning President Carter’s 1977 policy, “will certainly raise doubts everywhere about the US commitment to non-proliferation objectives, at least as we defined them in 1977. While the new policy is supposed to increase our influence, it may in fact only decrease our credibility.”

    Document Document 22

    Jerry Oplinger to Leon Billings and Berl Bernhard, “PRC Options Paper re Non-Proliferation,” 29 May 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    NSC Staffer Gerald Oplinger was critical of Smith’s initiative and the resulting options paper which found inscrutable because of its “obfuscation, poor drafting, [and] the skewing of its analysis to support a set of policy pre-judgments.” In an assessment sent to top aides of the new Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, Oplinger wrote that “we need not move from where we are now; nobody is hurting and the existing Presidential guidelines will provide plenty of plutonium for reasonable R&D programs.” If it was necessary to change policy, Option 2 (a) “is a very generous concession and the outer limit of what we can do while retaining a meaningful policy.”

    Oplinger did not believe that a shift in policy was essential for the sake of good relations with key allies: “There is little evidence that the governments concerned (as opposed to their nuclear bureaucracies) regard the nuclear issue as critically important or urgent.” Moreover, he believed that if that if Washington took a more accommodating approach to reprocessing and plutonium a far worse situation would emerge. If any of three projected reprocessing plants in Japan and Western Europe went on-line, they:

    would more than swamp the projected plutonium needs of all the breeder R&D programs in the world. Three of them will produce a vast surplus of pure, weapons grade plutonium amounting to several hundred tons by the year 2000. Not only would that stockpile of separated plutonium constitute a danger in itself, it would drive these nations, and those watching their example, into the recycle of plutonium in today’s generation of reactors for economic reasons.

    Oplinger’s statement about “weapons grade” notwithstanding, Tokai Mura would be producing reactor-grade plutonium that could be weaponized. Regarding U.S. leverage to influence Japanese and West European decisions on reprocessing, Oplinger believed that Washington had more than Smith and others acknowledged. “More than half of the spent fuel which could be reprocessed in the new French and British plants, and virtually all of the fuel for the Japanese plant, is under US control.” If the United States applied its consent rights rigorously it would “make the completion of these plants a much more dubious commercial venture, and sharply reduce incentives to complete them.”

    Document Document 23

    Memorandum, “Non-proliferation Policy,” n.d. [circa 3 June 1980], Secret

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Tarapur

    In a meeting with top State Department officials on 3 June 1980, Smith made his case for discussions with the Europeans of a new approach toward reprocessing, away from case-by-case and toward generic approval. With Berl Bernhard, one of Muskie’s senior advisers, cautioning against creating perceptions that President Carter’s nonproliferation policy was being weakened Policy Planning Director Anthony Lake suggested that it was “less dangerous, in terms of perception, to ask for the President’s informal approval for the approaches to be made, than seeking the President’s formal blessing.” In any event, it was not necessary to make any decisions: before Washington even considered taking the “generic” approach, it would have to know “what quids we would get from the Europeans.”

    Document Document 24

    Gus Speth to Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, “Implementation of the President’s Non-Proliferation Policy,” 4 June 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    James Gustave (Gus) Speth, a founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, chaired the (now moribund) Council on Environmental Quality; he advised Secretary Muskie to abide by President Carter’s 1977 policy. He saw “little reason either to change our basic policy or to seek marginal changes in relations with our major allies at the price of our non-proliferation principles.” Supporting “clear U.S. opposition to separation or use of plutonium and weapons usable materials,” Speth believed that Washington should refuse to “grant MB-10’s for reprocessing or for plutonium use commitments made after our 1977 policy announcement, based on the frank and explicit recognition that safeguards, as presently constituted, do not work for plutonium and highly enriched uranium.” Not only should it be U.S. policy “to discourage the expansion of foreign reprocessing capacity,” Washington should consider “active” opposition to the proposed International Plutonium Storage plan as presently conceived.

    Document Document 25

    Talking Points, with Policy Planning Staff paper and memoranda from Holbrooke, Smith, and Pickering attached, 4 June 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Lake Records, box 7, TL Papers on Specific Mgs – Appoint. 1980

    To prepare for another meeting with Secretary Muskie on the Smith initiative, Anthony Lake had a compilation of background material, including the critical Policy Planning Staff paper discussed earlier (see document 21) but also memoranda from Smith, Pickering, and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke argued that a failure to change the U.S. approach to Japanese reprocessing “would suggest … that we are insensitive to their most basic security and economic requirement” and could “also open a fissure in our relationship with the most profound consequences for US interests.” The talking points laid out the position that Lake supported: a PRC meeting or a formal presidential decision were unnecessary because it “would restrict us and commit President in negotiations” and also “risks public perception of US concession” on nonproliferation policy. Instead, the President would be asked to approve “exploratory discussions” processing from Option 2.

    Document Document 26

    Leon Billings to the Secretary, “The Attached,” 5 June 1980

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    In memoranda forwarded by Billings, senior adviser Berl Bernhard argued against a PRC meeting, delay in giving Smith instructions, and bringing Senator John Glenn (D-OH) into the “negotiating team.” A major influence in Congressional nonproliferation policy, Glenn believed “that any modification of our current position is inconsistent with the President’s 1977 statement and would see to it that nothing is done until there has been a complete review of our non-proliferation position nationally.” Bernhard believed that Smith was less than candid in discussing his objectives: “Either he is camouflaging policy with rhetoric or he is, with design, understating his intent to lead to a more generic approval of U.S. origin plutonium.”

    Document Document 27

    Memorandum for the Files by Leon Billings, 6 June 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    Discussing a meeting with Smith earlier that day, Billings observed that “Neither Ambassador Smith nor his colleagues have been forthcoming” on the question of breeder reactor development. According to Billings, “It was only in the eleventh hour, prior to the Secretary’s potential discussion of this issue with the President, that Ambassador Smith raised the question of modifying US policy to permit the use of plutonium for demonstration programs.” He believed that this represented a policy change that needed to be discussed publicly, not one that “is derived as a result of negotiations.”

    Document Document 28

    Leon Billings to the Secretary, “Non-Proliferation,” 10 June 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Non-Proliferation

    Worried that his boss would “duck” the nuclear issue, Billings told him that he was willing to “back off,” but urged against sending a memorandum to the President that “is biased toward [Smith’s] position.” He advised Muskie to take into account “the bias of State Department negotiators,” especially Smith’s background as a “life-long nuclear power advocate” who sees “current resistance [to nuclear power] in this country as something which should be overcome.”

    Document Document 29

    Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Secretary of State, “Post-INFCE Explorations by Jerry Smith,” 18 June 1980, with attached memorandum by Warren Christopher to the President, “Post-INFCE Explorations,” n.d., Secret

    Source: State Department FOIA release

    The memorandum that the State Department sent to President Carter did what Leon Billings suggested by indicating both the pros and cons of a decision to authorize exploratory discussions with Japanese and Western European officials on post-INFCE matters. An interesting reason for not going ahead was the perception that the United States would be aiding “European and Japanese nuclear programs (in particular breeder, advanced reactor and reprocessing programs) that might otherwise fail.” President Carter authorized Smith to hold talks, but as Brzezinski mentioned in the cover memorandum, he wrote that “I may not wish to go forward” with the proposals.

    Document Document 30

    Memorandum of conversation, “Post-INFCE Explorations,” 30 July 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Smith Records, box 5, Memcons 1980

    Smith’s explorations included a meeting with Atsuhiko Yatabe, the top Ministry of Foreign Affairs official on nuclear energy policy. Smith told him that he wanted to update the nonproliferation regime in part by including an agreement that would give Japan “greater predictability regarding the exercise of US consent rights over reprocessing of US origin material” and “restore greater confidence in supply relationships.” Understandings were also necessary on full-scope safeguards, delay of thermal recycle, a “better approach to dealing with problem countries,” and more effective control of plutonium.

    Yatabe wanted more time to respond to Smith’s thinking, but he emphasized the important of the second reprocessing plant in Japanese thinking: it “simply had to be pursued.” But he could not make any guarantees about plutonium disposal: he “was not sure if Japan could provide the US with a plutonium supply/demand balance which would satisfy US requirements”, that is, that the plant would only produce enough plutonium for “breeders and advanced reactor needs.” Further, if Japan had to store “excess plutonium” it was not clear whether an IPS would be available in time. ACDA’s Charles Van Doren was not sure either, but suggested that the direction of thinking was towards a “modest” IPS system.

    Document Document 31

    Memorandum on “Japanese Reprocessing,” 2 August 1980, with fax cover sheet from Henry Owen to Gerard C. Smith attached, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Smith records, box 17, Japan (January-June 1980)

    Yatabe’s certainty about the second reprocessing plant was called into question by recent information, conveyed through a “Nodis” telegram from the embassy in Tokyo, on a draft report by the quasi-governmental Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute, which concluded that Japan did not need the second plant. Moreover, the Tokai Mura reprocessing plant “can supply all of Japan’s foreseeable plutonium needs for R&D on breeders and advanced reactors.” According to the memorandum from Henry Owen, the report was “something of a bombshell” because it provided “impressive confirmation we have yet seen of the basic premises underlying the President’s 1977 policies: that the need for large scale reprocessing and commercial use of plutonium remains distant and uncertain, that commitments to those technologies are uneconomic, and that this is true even for countries as energy-dependent as Japan.”

    Document Document 32

    U.S. Embassy Japan Telegram 14873 to State Department, “GAO Review: Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978,” 23 August 1980, Secret

    Source: AAD 1978

    As a contribution to a GAO study of the Nuclear Nonproliferation of 1978, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo provided a detailed report on U.S. government, including the Embassy’s, interactions with the Japanese government on nonproliferation policy and current Japanese thinking on U.S. policy. As noted in previous documents, the Japanese were highly critical of the NNPA but, as the Embassy observed, they would take the criticism only so far, Given Japan’s dependence on the United States for enrichment services and nuclear reactor components, it would not “wish to risk a cut-off of such supplies by too strident opposition to U.S. policies.”

    Perhaps reflecting the internal debate in Japan over the second reprocessing plant, the embassy noted that plans “appear to be in a state of flux.” If, however, Japan decided to go forward, “it will be done only with the assurance that the U.S. will change its policy, will support the conclusions of INFCE in regard to reprocessing, and will not stand in Japan’s way.”

    Document Document 33

    Gerard C. Smith to Atsuhiko Yatabe, with enclosed memoranda, 16 September 1980, Confidential

    Source: State Department FOIA release

    Following up on the conversation with Yatabe in late July, Smith sent him papers in which he developed further his thinking about an improved nonproliferation regime involving “greater harmonization” of policies between the major industrial states. Improvements in the nonproliferation system would enable Washington to move away “from granting case-by-case approvals for reprocessing and plutonium use under specific implementing’ conditions.” But advanced approval would be tied to specific Japanese projects, e.g., breeder and advanced reactor research and development. If Japanese reprocessing produced “excess plutonium,” the Japanese would store it in an “an agreed IPS or equally effective regime.”

    Document Document 34

    State Department telegram 302395 to U. S. Embassy Japan, “Japanese Reprocessing Plans,” 12 November 1980, Secret

    Source: RG 59, Smith records, box 17, Japan (January-June 1980)

    This State Department message included some information from the text of the reference telegram, Tokyo 14582 (which may have been the source on the JAERI report cited in Document 31). According to that message, which is presently unavailable, some elements of the government, including the Ministry of Industry and Technology, supported the second reprocessing plant. The State Department wanted to learn more about Japanese thinking, but realizing that it was a “delicate” topic cautioned against bringing the matter up directly with officials. Instead, the Department asked for any additional information that the Embassy had, especially on why MITI and JAERI held such different views.

    Document Document 35

    Department of State Briefing Paper, “US-Japanese Negotiations on the Tokai-Mura Reprocessing Facility,” 21 November 1980, Secret

    Source: Digital National Security Archive

    Under the 1977 Tokai Mura agreement, the Japanese government could reprocess 99 metric tons (tonnes) of spent fuel, a limit that it would reach in the first months of 1981. Seeking relief from the limit, Tokyo sought a permanent agreement on Tokai Mura or at least an extension and modification of the original understanding. Moreover, optimistically believing that the fast breeder reactor would be a going concern by the end of the century, the Japanese government wanted to move ahead on the second reprocessing plant so that it could fuel experimental breeder reactor. The State Department believed that safeguards requirements for reprocessing in Japan or anywhere else needed to be resolved, but that an interim agreement could be reached. If reprocessing at Tokai Mura came to a halt because a “formula for relief” had not been devised, there could be “serious negative implications for US-Japanese relations.”

    Document Document 36

    State Department telegram 010144 to U.S. Embassy Japan, “Tokai-Mura Negotiations Text of Notes,” 15 January 1981, Secret

    Source: Digital National Security Archive

    A week before the end of Carter’s presidency, the White House reached an interim agreement with Japan, which authorized Tokai Mura to reprocess fifty more tonnes of spent fuel to keep the plant operating. Both governments agreed on the importance of effective IAEA safeguards at Tokai Mura and Japan would continue to “support improvements in safeguards effectiveness through the testing of advanced … instrumentation and techniques” and consult regularly with the State Department on developments. Moreover, Japan would not make any “major moves” toward establishing a new reprocessing plant before 1 June 1981 and the Japanese Nuclear Fuel Services Company would limit itself to consultations and surveying possible sites for the development of a plant. “If an issue arises as to what constitutes a ‘major move,’” Tokyo and Washington would “promptly consult” to reach a mutual understanding.

    Notes

    [i]. For developments during the Carter administration, see J. Samuel Walker, “Nuclear Power and Nonproliferation: The Controversy over Nuclear Exports, 1974–1980,” Diplomatic History 25 (2001): 215-249.

    [ii]. Ibid, 241-242. For background on the U.S.-Japan agreements, see Eugene Skolnikoff, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Kenneth Oye, “International Responses to Japanese Plutonium Programs, Working paper of the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1995, and Masakatsu Ota, “Filling the Gap – Writing Nuclear History of Japan from Different Angles” Presentation for Panel on Nuclear Latency, Asia-Pacific Nuclear History Institute, 10 November 2016, Seoul, South Korea.

    [iii]. See Dino Knudsen, The Trilateral Commission and Global Governance: Informal Elite Diplomacy, 1972-1980 (London: Routledge, 2016).

    [iv] . Eliot Marshall, “INFCE: Little Progress in Controlling Nuclear Proliferation,” Science 207 (28 March 1980): 1466-1467; Philip Grummet, “From NPT to INFCE: Developments in Thinking about Nuclear Non-Proliferation,” International Affairs 57 (1981): 553-564.

    [v]. For a thorough exploration, see Masafumi Tokubo, “Closing Japan’s Monju Fast Breeder Reactor: The Possible Implications,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 73 (May-June 2017): 182-187.

    [vi]. See Robert Gallucci’s presentation on the “Risks of Civil Plutonium,” at a symposum, “Remembering Paul Leventhal: Nuclear Lessons for a New Administration,” LBJ Washington Center, 13 A ril 2017, , For an earlier look at the problem, see Frans Berkout, Tatsujiro Suzuki, and William Walker, “The Approaching Plutonium Surplus: A Japanese/European Problem,” International Affairs 66 (1990): 523-543. For a recent study by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, see Masafumi Takubo and Frank von Hippel, Ending Reprocessing in Japan: An Alternative Approach to Managing Japan’s Spent Nuclear Fuel and Separated Plutonium, Research Report No. 12, November 2013.

    [vii] . Some of the plutonium would be used for a fuel fabrication plant that would be used to produce uranium-plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) for fueling light water reactors. For a critical assessment of MOX by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, see Frank von Hippel and Gordon MacKerron, Alternatives to MOX: Direct-Disposal Options for Stockpiles of Separated Plutonium, Research Report No. 13 (2015).

    [viii]. For recent efforts to bring the issue to the attention of policymakers, see Tokubo, “Closing Japan’s Monju Fast Breeder Reactor,” cited above and James Acton, “Time for a Nuclear Intervention with Japan,” Wall Street Journal, 15 May 2017. See also Masakatsu Ota, “End to Breeder Reactor, Plutonium Pile-up are Twin Problems for Japan’s Reprocessing Policy,” Japan Times, 21 September 2016.

    [ix]. See articles by Gregg Jones at Proliferation Matters, J. Carson Mark, “Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium,” Science and Global Security 4 (1993): 111-128, and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material Storage and Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, January 1997, 38-39.

    [x]. Sato may have considered a nuclear weapons option for Japan as a bargaining tool to make diplomatic gains on the reversion of Okinawa. See Tristan Volpe, “Atomic Leverage: Compellence with Nuclear Latency,” Security Studies 26 (2017): 517-44.

    [xi] . See Special National Intelligence Estimate 4-1-74, Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 23 August 1974.

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    image001 19

    Notes of Chiquita Senior Counsel Robert Thomas describe complicated accounting scheme used to conceal payments to the paramilitary AUC.

    Chiquita Papers Are Key Evidence in International Criminal Court Filing

    Groups Ask ICC to Investigate Banana Company Execs for Facilitating Crimes Against Humanity

    National Security Archive Submits 48,000 Pages to Prosecutors at The Hague on Chiquita’s Illegal Payments

    Posted May 18, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 593
    Edited by Michael Evans
    Research assistance by Emily Taylor and Julian Moreno
    This is the fourth and final article in a series published by the National Security Archive in collaboration with mevansTwitter: @colombiadocs

    Washington, D.C., May 18, 2017 – The National Security Archive’s Chiquita Papers collection represents key evidence behind a “communication” calling on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate officials from Chiquita Brands International for facilitating crimes against humanity committed by armed groups the company paid in Colombia.

    The petition to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor was brought by the International Human Rights Clinic of Harvard Law School, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, a Colombian human rights organization, and was made public today at a press conference in Bogotá, Colombia.

    The Archive provided more than 48,000 pages of internal Chiquita records to the ICC as part of the communication, including financial records, legal memoranda, handwritten notes, and the secret, sworn testimony of company officials that help to identify individuals at Chiquita who steered millions of dollars in “sensitive payments” to Colombian insurgent groups, government security forces, and right-wing paramilitary militias.

    The ICC action comes at an important moment, just as Colombia begins to implement a historic peace agreement ending more than 50 years of conflict with rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In February, the Colombian prosecutor general ruled that the “voluntary financing” of paramilitary and insurgent groups by corporations like Chiquita should be investigated as crimes against humanity by a special tribunal established by the accord.

    The communication asks the ICC “to monitor local Colombian proceedings to ensure they meet ICC standards, particularly with regards to private sector support for the paramilitaries and business’ accountability,” according to today’s press release.

    Ten years ago, Chiquita admitted to paying $1.7 million to the United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group responsible for a wave of human rights abuses, including massacres of civilians and targeted killings of politicians, unionists and banana workers. But the guilty plea arranged with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for funding a foreign terrorist organization only applied to the corporate entity; not a single Chiquita official has ever been held accountable for funding the terrorist group. Civil litigation against some Chiquita officials is pending in U.S. court, but there is little hope that Colombia would be able to gain jurisdiction over non-Colombians involved in financing the AUC.

    The Chiquita Papers are key to identifying 14 “Chiquita Suspects” named in a sealed section of the ICC submission “who were involved in overseeing, authorizing, and/or making repeated payments to blocs of the AUC.” In a declaration submitted along with the communication, National Security Archive senior analyst Michael Evans explained how the Chiquita Papers facilitate the identification of company officials behind the payments, including those whose names were omitted from the Factual Proffer agreed to by DOJ and Chiquita as part of the 2007 guilty plea.

    A similar process of cross-referencing reveals names of key Chiquita actors that were scrubbed from a 2009 report to shareholders by a committee appointed by Chiquita’s Board of Directors. The declaration also identifies seven Chiquita executives who gave sworn testimony about the company’s payments to Colombian armed groups in a separate investigation conducted in 1999-2000 by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Other records from the Chiquita Papers underlie and strengthen the main allegations in the communication, including:

    • that the “Chiquita Suspects” knew the AUC had committed, and was planning, crimes against humanity;
    • that they intentionally paid the AUC;
    • and that they tried to conceal the payments, suggesting knowledge that the payments were illegal or improper.

    The communication highlights a 1994 report from Chiquita’s Colombia-based security staff that demonstrates knowledge of paramilitary crimes long before the payments at issue were made. Markings on the fax cover page suggest that this information was shared with individuals at Chiquita headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    “There exist paramilitary groups that keep the guerrilla groups in check; it’s the case that, a few weeks ago, a faction of the oldest group suffered 30 losses in an encounter with these groups. We’ve heard from a witness about how they tied up the guerrillas they’d killed and how they’d pull them until they were able to place them in the Jeeps they had ready for the getaway, in addition to some farmers that affirm that, in parts of their property, some corpses were burned and later buried.”

    image002 9

    Additional documents published last week as part of a joint investigation between the National Security Archive and VerdadAbierta.com provide further evidence that the security personnel for Banadex, Chiquita’s wholly-owned Colombian subsidiary, had intimate, sometimes firsthand, knowledge of guerrilla and paramilitary atrocities in Colombia. A report from 1995 described the arrival of paramilitaries “ready to do away with everything that smells communist.” A faction paid by Chiquita was said to have “initiated joint patrols” with the newly-arrived paramilitaries.

    image003 15

    Another document featured in the ICC filing is a memorandum prepared by Chiquita Senior Counsel Robert Thomas in September 2000 showing both knowledge of paramilitary crimes and, according to the communication, “clear evidence of knowledge at the highest levels of the company and among the Chiquita Suspects of Chiquita’s payments going to the AUC.”

    In one section of the memo, Thomas writes that the AUC, here referred to as “Autodefensas,” was a “widely-known, illegal, vigilante organization.” Later, his memo describes how payments to an ostensibly-legal Convivir militia were “forwarded . . . to Autodefensas in Magdalena.”

    image004 13

    * * *

    image005 4

    Another version of the Thomas memo with different redactions clearly indicates knowledge that paramilitaries had created a front company, Inversiones Manglar, S.A., to “collect payments” from the Banadex security manager, Juan Manuel Alvarado.

    image006 4

    The communication stresses that Thomas’s memo “was written based on research done by one of the Chiquita Suspects in Colombia, was discussed directly with at least one other Chiquita Suspect, and then was presented at the Audit Committee meeting in September 2000 in Chiquita’s Cincinnati headquarters.”

    Another document highlighted in the communication shows that Chiquita officials learned about paramilitary atrocities through contemporaneous news reports, pointing to a June 2000 fax from the company’s European Sourcing Department in Costa Rica enclosing an article stating that the AUC was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths in that year alone. “THE ATTACHED SAYS IT ALL!” according to the fax cover sheet.

    While the communication focuses on payments made between 2002 and 2004, the period of time covered by ICC jurisdiction, the report also looks at key turning points in the company’s approach to the “sensitive payments,” zooming in on 1997 as a period when the company transitioned away from paying guerrilla groups and instead began to fund the paramilitary AUC.

    The handwritten notes of Wilfred “Bud” White, Vice President of Internal Audit at Chiquita, underscore the stark choice facing the company at that time: “Cost of Doing Business in Colombia – maybe the question is not why are we doing this[,] but rather[,] we are in Colombia[,] and do we want to ship bananas from Colombia.” White emphasized the “Need to keep this very confidential,” adding, “People can get killed.”

    image010 4

    White later told the SEC that Chiquita “gave money to the Convivir”—which later funneled the funds to the AUC—“with the idea that Convivir . . . tried to search out where the guerrillas were” and would then “inform the military so that the military could then go after the guerrillas.”

    The Chiquita Papers also provide evidence of the company’s efforts to conceal the payments through what the ICC filing calls an “elaborate payment and accounting scheme.”

    A draft memorandum from January 1994 included in the communication, and included in a previous posting, describes the system used to funnel cash to “various guerrilla groups in both Divisions” and identifies some of the security staff and intermediaries who handled and approved the payments.

    image011 3

    Annotations made on a security payments schedule show that the company used color codes for the names of guerrilla groups like the FARC, the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the People’s Liberation Army (EPL), evidence that the groups bringing the ICC action say shows “a history of intentional and planned payments to armed groups.”

    The complexity of the payment schemes developed by Chiquita to manage payments to paramilitary groups is clear in a handwritten memo from March 6, 2000, apparently written by Chiquita senior counsel Robert Thomas, author of the September 2000 “Thomas memo” described above. The earlier memo describes again how false companies were created by paramilitary groups to collect payments from Chiquita and other companies and to disguise “the real purpose of providing security.”

    image016 1

    Perhaps most important for the period of ICC jurisdiction, covering payments made from 2002-2004, is a telephone contact memorandum (telcon) apparently written by John Ordman, head of the European Sourcing Division and the subject of an earlier posting by the National Security Archive.

    His March 28, 2002, memo is “evidence of the direct involvement of some Chiquita Suspects” in setting up an accounting system to enable the company to continue to make payments to the AUC, covering both the period after the group was put on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and the years covered by ICC jurisdiction.

    image017 1

    An alternate version of this same document hides some of the names included above, but reveals one additional name (“Tsacalis”) and other key details, such as the fact that the payments were to be made from a General Manager’s Expense fund (“Gastos de Gerente”).

    image018 1

    In 2013, Chiquita brought a rarely-seen “reverse” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the SEC in an effort to block the agency from releasing transcripts of these depositions (and thousands of additional documents) to the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research group based in Washington, D.C. Two years later, a federal appeals court panel rejected Chiquita’s claim, clearing the way for the release of more than 9,000 pages of the company’s most sensitive internal records.

    “We request that the ICC expands its current inquiry in Colombia to specifically include Chiquita’s executives and officials,” said Dimitris Christopoulos, President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in a statement released today. “The weight of the evidence should lead the Office of the Prosecutor to act if Colombian authorities are not able to.”

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1993-03-11

    To: A. Bakoczy
    From: J. Alvarado, Banadex and Compa��a Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Cuenta de Seguridad Ciudadana Movimiento General [Citizen Security Account General Movement], includes cover sheet

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 02

    1994-01-05

    “Reportable Payments in Colombia and Manager’s Expense Payments” [Draft; includes original annotations]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 03

    1994-12-05

    [Security Report and Fax Cover Sheet]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 04

    1995-04-24

    [Confidential Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 05

    1997-05-07

    [Notes of Wilfred “Bud” White]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 06

    1999-02-08

    [SEC Testimony of Wilfred “Bud” White], excerpt, pp. 141-144.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 07

    2000-03-06

    [Handwritten memo from Robert Thomas]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 08

    2000-06-19

    [“ATTACHED SAYS IT ALL!” Fax]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 09

    2000-09-00

    Colombia Security – Version 1

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 10

    2000-09-00

    Colombia Security -Version 2

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 11

    2002-03-28

    [Telephone contact memorandum] – Version 1

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 12

    2002-03-28

    [Telephone contact memorandum] – Version 2

    Source: Freedom of Information Act request to U.S. Department of Justice

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT : Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    image001 11

    Fax cover sheet enclosing a confidential security report from Juan Manuel Alvarado, Chiquita’s security chief in Colombia.

    Chiquita Papers Document over $800,000 in Payments to Colombian Guerrillas

    Internal Security Reports Detail Negotiations with Subversive Groups

    Company Sought Quid Pro Quos with Insurgents; Funded Group That Went on “Joint Patrols” with Paramilitaries

    Posted May 11, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 592
    This is the third in a series of articles published jointly by the National Security Archive and mevansTwitter: @colombiadocs

    The FARC, the ELN, and to a lesser extent, the EPL, along with their dissident offshootsand political allies all profited from Chiquita’s security payments. Newly declassified documents on this little-known episode in the violent history of Colombia’s banana-growing zone shine a spotlight on the sometimes- blurry line between paying extortion, making contributions, and the deliberately financing of violent actors. The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, a tribunal established as part of peace accord with the FARC, will have the final word.

    Ten years have passed since Chiquita Brands was sentenced in the United States for financing an international terrorist group. In 2007, the company confessed to paying the paramilitary United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and also admitted that between 1989 and 1997 it funded the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country’s two largest rebel groups.

    But unlike payments to the AUC, Chiquita’s financial ties to guerrilla groups were not a concern of U.S. courts. The FARC and the ELN had not yet been declared foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. when those payments were made; and while both groups were so designated in October 1997, the court found no evidence that the company had paid either of them beyond that date.

    In Colombia, the Justice and Peace tribunals have documented how money that banana companies gave to private security cooperatives known as Convivir ended up in the coffers of the right-wing AUC. But until now there has been little evidence of how cash from the fruit multinational made its way into the hands of leftist Colombian guerrilla groups.

    These kinds of records are all the more important now, following a December 2016 ruling by the Colombian Attorney General that the voluntary financing of paramilitary groups by banana companies is a crime against humanity, and that payments to guerrillas from the FARC, the People’s Liberation Army (EPL), the ELN and the Socialist Renovation Current (CRS) are to be treated in the same manner. The ruling means that the crimes are still actionable in Colombian courts despite the passage of time and that the Colombian justice system must fully investigate the violations to punish those responsible.

    As these processes get underway, a new batch of declassified documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Security Archive provides a detailed accounting of the payments that Chiquita Brands and three other banana companies made to Colombian insurgent groups between 1989 and 1997. The records for the first time reveal the minimum amounts of money Chiquita paid to the various Colombian guerrilla groups, and provide a unique, first-hand account of the harrowing and complicated security situation in Urabá from the practical and calculated perspective of one of the world’s biggest fruit companies.

    How much money went to the Guerrillas?

    Based on the documentation provided to U.S. authorities by Chiquita and subsequently obtained through FOIA requests, it is possible to document payments from Chiquita to Colombian guerrilla groups of an estimated $856,815 in a little more than five years, from October 1991 through 1996. These totals do not include any money transferred to guerrillas before October 1991 or after 1996. Payments are said to have begun in the late-1980s and continued through part of 1997.

    image038

    Source documents for above information: 19920904; 19930311; 19950516; 19950616; and 19950000.

    The U.S. dollar amounts shown above reflect a range of possible exchange rates for those years, which are not specified in the underlying documentation. The upper end of this range brings us closer to the estimated grand total of $856,815 for all guerrilla payments, most of which was found expressed in true dollar amounts in the auditing records.

    That figure covers all payments from 1992-1996 and draws on information found in two key records laying out payment totals for different periods of time.

    • One is an internal auditing worksheet reporting an exact total of $618,578 paid from 1993-1996.
    • For 1992, the clearest evidence comes from an internal security report with payments totaling some 129,979,000 Colombian Pesos for that year (estimated to be around $260,000 at an approximate 1992 exchange rate of 500:1).
    • We have also taken care to subtract $21,763 from that total, the amount paid to Convivir groups in 1996. These are the first known payments to the controversial self-defense organizations that collected money from Chiquita on behalf of anti-guerrilla paramilitary groups. Information about these early Convivir payments is drawn from an annotated general ledger found among the Chiquita Papers.

    There are some additional caveats. The collection does not include detailed information about payments made in 1993. As a result, while we know the total amount of all guerrilla-related payments made that year, we do not have information about the specific amounts paid to each group. Rather than estimate those amounts, we have simply left them out of the per group totals. These caveats mean that the totals shown above, and the numbers for at least some, if not all, of the groups are likely too low, in some cases by significant amounts. The auditing worksheet from 1997 records more than $134,000 in guerrilla payments (listed here under “Security-Other”) for 1993—money that is not accounted for in the per group totals above.

    image004 6

    Banadex, Chiquita’s main subsidiary in Colombia, played a fundamental role in this scenario. At the beginning of the 1990s the banana sector was a vital part of the Colombian national economy. The coffee crisis of the previous decade and the expansion of the international market turned bananas into the country’s primary agricultural export.

    At the time, this vital region was home to two primary guerrilla organizations, each with strong ties to banana industry trade unions: the FARC and the EPL. When the latter demobilized in 1991, two groups emerged: a dissident EPL faction under Francisco Caraballo that refused to lay down its weapons and a new political movement that went by the same initials, Esperanza, Paz y Libertad (Hope, Peace and Liberty). In the face of attacks by the FARC and the Caraballo group against the “Esperanzados,” who were viewed as traitors by the remaining guerrilla factions, some of the demobilized decided to rearm themselves and create the Comandos Populares (Popular Commands), a group that later merged with paramilitary AUC.

    Although the ELN did not maintain a strong presence in the zone, the country’s second-largest rebel group also showed up in the accounts of the banana companies, along with a group of dissidents from the CRS whose members signed a peace accord with the government on April 9, 1994. The end of the 1980s also saw the sporadic emergence of the first paramilitary groups in the region.

    Between 1989 and 1997, when the guerrilla payments were made, there were 54 massacres in the banana zone municipalities of Apartadó, Carepa and Turbo, according to information from the Observatory of Conflict and Memory of the National Center of Historical Memory in Colombia. The guerrillas assassinated 181 individuals in 21 of these massacres. Fifteen of these were the work of the FARC.

    Chiquita’s internal documents show the company funded all of these armed groups, dissidents and political movements, but in amounts that varied depending on the terms negotiated with each organization. In accounting records the company used color code names to record the destination of the payments without mentioning the names of the recipient guerrilla groups. In underlying documentation, company officials often used fictitious, misleading or euphemistic descriptions for the payments to subversive organizations, such as “chopped wood,” “gasoline,” or “boys in the hills.”

    To conceal the payments, Chiquita invented an accounting system that we described in the second article in this series.

    The guerrilla payments were consigned to the so-called “Citizen Security Account” and were made primarily through Banadex and the Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Chiquita’s two main Colombian subsidiaries, but some payments also were made by way of the multinational’s Colombian partners, like Banazuñiga y Banacosta. There are also outlays registered under the name “Henríquez,” a possible reference to the Henríquez Gallo family, which was heavily invested in the banana plantations in Urabá. In 2014, two members of the Henríquez clan, Jaime and his brother Guillermo, were identified as paramilitary financiers by former AUC chiefs Raúl Hasbún and Freddy Rendón Herrera.

    In January 2000, as part of secret testimony before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Robert F. Kistinger, a top Chiquita executive in Cincinnati, insisted that the company was being extorted by guerrillas. Nevertheless, drafts of confidential internal memoranda show that company officials did not want to characterize the payments as extortion, instead suggesting the term “citizen security payments,” as seen in the following record.

    image009 3

    Neither did the company denounce the extortion attempts or inform the Colombian government that it was being threatened by guerrillas. VerdadAbieta.com has learned that the Attorney General’s office recorded only one complaint made by Chiquita to Colombian authorities, and only in reference to paramilitary groups.

    image010 3

    According to Mario Agudelo, a former EPL guerrilla who went on to lead the Esperanza political movement and who knows well the history of Urabá, “in the case of the ‘paras’ and the FARC there was permanent financing.” This was distinct, in his view, from the sporadic payments that were made to other armed groups in the zone. “To what extent was this the result of armed pressure? I’m in no position to say in which case yes and in which case no, but what is tangible is that they provided support and this was the result of a long-term agreement.”

    The basic situation was well-understood by actors in the zone at that time. Carlos Alfonso Velásquez, a former Colombian Army colonel assigned to the 17th Brigade in Urabá in the mid-1990s, remembers hearing similar things from his commanding officer, Gen. Víctor Álvarez: “I was told one day, ‘those bananeros, those ranchers, they come here to ask for support, that the guerrillas are threatening them, that they are being extorted by them, but I know that they give them money under the table.”

    Negotiating with the ELN

    One of the earliest available reports on the guerrilla payments was prepared by Colombia security chief Juan Manuel Alvarado and faxed to his boss, the longtime head of corporate security in Cincinnati, Alejandro “Al” Bakoczy, on March 11, 1993. Alvarado’s report covers payments made through so-called “Citizen Security Accounts” from December 1991 through December 1992. Alvarado said his team was more comfortable making deals with the ELN and the FARC, since these larger, more established groups had a “widely-respected hierarchical structure that is adhered to before any decisions are made.”

    image011 2

    In the first years of the 1990s it was the ELN that received the lion’s share of Chiquita’s guerrilla payments, in part because “from the beginning it had complete knowledge of the conformationof Banadex” and could thereby justify charging higher fees than other groups. The ELN also maintained a strong presence in the banana-producing zone of Magdalena, where another Chiquita subsidiary known as Samarex was located.

    image012 2

    The total amounts to be paid to the groups were set forth each year along with a schedule laying out when each payment was due. The sums were not imposed by the guerrillas so much as they were the result of a negotiating process. As John Ordman, a regional manager who served as a bridge between Chiquita’s Colombia operations and top executives in the U.S., explained in his testimony to the SEC, “you don’t just pay what you’re told or you’ll end up paying a filthy fortune. I mean, you’ve got to negotiate, you’ve got to say I can’t pay, I’m not going to pay, you’ve got to kind of be dragged to the wedding kicking and shouting or it really gets out of hand. But you have to kind of know when to eventually show up or it also gets out of hand.”

    For example, in 1993 the company negotiated the ELN’s initial request for 20 million Colombian Pesos down to 12 million. But this was still too much for the person who approved the payments, who wrote in the margins of one record, “To me 12 [million] is too much for these guys. . . What kind of deal is that?”

    image013 2

    The payments allowed the company to continue its operations. And even while none of the records associated with the ELN openly suggest that the money was offered in exchange for any service, the document below shows that in some instances Banadex officials were interested in establishing a quid pro quo with the group. “As with R [a reference to the FARC, known by the color code Rojo or Red] they shouldn’t block anything we do with sindicato [labor union].”

    image014 2

    At the beginning of the 1990s, an intense political debate within the ELN resulted in the creation of the dissident CRS faction that laid down its weapons in April 1994. For the company, the creation of this organization from the body of the ELN was a significant concern since they believed that the splinter group also knew the true extent of Chiquita’s holdings in Colombia.

    “Brown [Café, a reference to the CRS], as a relatively new dissident group, is eager for money and uses any mean necessary to get it,” according to the “Citizen Security Accounts” report prepared by Alvarado for Bakoczy. In one incident, the CRS kidnapped an individual connected to Chiquita as a way of signaling it was an independent organization to be dealt with separately and not under the previously-negotiated accord with the ELN.

    Nevertheless, the communiqués from the security staff show that CRS was never seen as a serious threat and received only a small fraction of well over one million dollars in payments to Colombian guerrilla groups.

    Accords with the FARC

    According to the Chiquita accounting records, between 1991 and 1992 the FARC did not have much contact with the company and in particular did not make demands for money. A report from the security staff said that frequent confrontations with the Colombian Army kept the guerrillas too busy to arrange meetings during those years.

    Chiquita, nevertheless, did not doubt the extent of the FARC’s power and influence in Urabá. “It is so influential that through a single order it has the ability to paralyze operations in the production areas, generating problems for commercial and social order,” according to a report from Compañía Frutera de Sevilla dated September 4, 1992. The staff of the Chiquita subsidiary in Santa Marta said the FARC resorted to extreme violence in cases where people did not comply with their demands.

    The FARC shared the company’s concern about the proliferation of new subversive groups in search of money—a situation that had led to a “destabilization of the zone,” according to the company’s reports, and confrontations among the competing factions.

    image015 2

    This survey of the general security situation in and around company facilities in the port city of Turbo also refers to an agreement between the Institute for Social Insurance (Instituto de Seguros Sociales), the Banazuñiga group and the labor unions. One of the union representatives, who the company said was clearly “allied with the FARC,” had refused to sign the accord and convinced others to do the same. For Chiquita, it thus became a priority to gain a better understanding of the “real situation” with the FARC.

    image016

    By 1993 the balance had shifted, and soon the FARC became the leading recipient of Chiquita’s cash payments to guerrilla groups. In a request for disbursement on May 11, it is evident that the FARC had identified three of the farm groups that worked with Chiquita Brands and knew the names of staff members. But although the FARC was now demanding more money from the company, the company still did not consider the payments to be significant. In the document below, security staff characterize the new arrangement with the FARC as “advantageous.”

    image017

    The records show that there were not any serious setbacks in the company’s relationship with the FARC, and that even the intermediaries said that it was “easy” to negotiate with the oldest rebel group. When a problem arose, such as a stolen vehicle in Magdalena, they would simply set up a meeting and resolve the problem. As was the case with the ELN, records from May 1993 show Banadex management seeking “an understanding” with the FARC (“R”) that they not “block anything we do with the sindicato.”

    image018

    In 1995, with the arrival in the zone of the increasingly powerful United Self-defense Forces of Córdoba and Urabá (ACCU), under the command of Carlos and Vicente Castaño, company officials seemed concerned about a deterioration in relations with the FARC. “Despite the fact that we fulfilour obligations in terms of salary, taxes, trade, etc., the name C.I BDX has been mentioned in a supposed relationship with paramilitary groups,” according to a security report from September 18, 1995.

    image019

    Over many weeks, and through various channels, VerdadAbierta.com tried to communicate with members of the FARC Secretariat, including Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri, alias “Timoleón Jímenez,” top leader of the insurgent organization, and Luciano Marín Arango, also known as “Iván Márquez,” chief negotiator in peace talks with the national government. It was Márquez who led the group’s operations in Urabá during the era when Chiquita was making payments to the FARC. But despite a number of attempts to get their valuable perspectives on the matter, there was no reply, raising doubts about the group’s willingness to come clean and tell the truth before the tribunals of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and Colombian society.

    The Fractured EPL and the Arrival of Paramilitaries

    On March 1, 1991, in camps around the country, a little more than 2,000 guerrillas from the EPL abandoned the armed struggle and embarked on the construction of the Esperanza, Paz y Libertad (Hope, Peace and Liberty) political movement. Around 150 guerrillas did not demobilize and reorganized under the leadership of Francisco Caraballo, who began to launch attacks against his former comrades with assistance from the FARC.

    In their pragmatic reports, Chiquita’s security staff in Colombia registered deep concern about the proliferation of new armed groups and the infighting among them, and decided that it would be necessary to come to separate agreements with each group. In the “Citizen Security” report dated September 1992, for example, the company said the Caraballo group was committing crimes to collect money. Among other things, they hijacked and raided the company’s trucks along access roads from Medellin to the coast, so Banadex chose to use the name of third parties to transport their merchandise.

    image020

    “I acknowledge that we imposed a series of fees, and the precise deployment that we had in Urabá allowed us to broaden the base theprovided the tributes, and we collected what was necessary for our subsistence and the development of the organization,” Francisco Caraballo told VerdadAbierta.com. “These tribute payments, in the majority of cases, were a kind of agreement. It is a very special situation, some collaborated, and I should say it clearly, so as not to create problems, so they collaborated, you could say, voluntarily.” Caraballo added that, “as revolutionaries, we were not trying to become a wealthy organization, but something much less.”

    Former EPL insurgent Jaime Fajardo Landaeta, one of the leaders who pushed for peace accords with the national government, said that following the demobilization the majority of the resources that the ex-guerrillas received came from the government: “We had a very complicated problem: the people left who were left in control of the organization’s resources at the time of the demobilization were from the secretariat, which was in the hands of Francisco Caraballo and two others, ‘Danilo’ and ‘Eduardo’, who did not negotiate the demobilization.”

    The group also got support from the Asociación de Bananeros de Colombia (Augura) to launch its political movement, payments that were permitted under Colombian law. In the case of Chiquita Brands, according to its own reports, during the first half of 1992 members of the Esperanza group tried to collect funds from as many Banadex farms as possible, after which the company agreed to channel payments through Augura.

    From the moment of the demobilization, dissidents under Caraballo working with the FARC launched an extermination campaign against members of Esperanza, Paz y Libertad, who they viewed as traitors. As a result, a group from Esperanza decided to rearm to defend themselves, creating the Comandos Populares (mentioned above).

    “The dissidents of the EPL formed the group because they did not think that the peace process had provided them with any space, so they left and they took up arms; the others, the Comandos, they believed the leaders of Esperanza, Paz y Libertad were not helping with security issues, that the leadership had their own vehicles and their own security schemes, so they were not interested in the security of the others,” explained Mario Agudelo.

    Chiquita viewed the Comandos as “the armed wing” of the Esperanza political movement and increasingly came to see the militia as something more akin to a right-wing paramilitary group. As early as 1992 the Colombia security team said the group was widely considered to be “on the side of the government” and that the Army “on occasions allowed them to move freely around the zone.”

    image022

    The security staff said the Comandos Populares relied on the same tactics they used “when they were part of the guerrilla group,” including “threats, intimidation, blackmail, etc.,” adding that banana growers had filed complaints against them through Augura. In the case of Chiquita, the group had only asked for little things like “drugs, boots and ammunition.”

    From June 1992 through May 1995, Chiquita transferred at least 36,000,000 Colombian Pesos to Esperanza and the Comandos Populares, primarily through Augura. By that point, Colombia’s security team reported the existence of a “nexus” between the Comandos and a group of paramilitaries that had recently arrived in the region and who were “ready to do away with everything that smells communist.” The Comandos were said to have “initiated joint patrols” with the newly-arrived paramilitaries, according to the report from Chiquita’s subsidiary in Colombia.

    image023

    Whatever concerns the company may have had about the tactics employed by Esperanza and its allies in the Comandos Populares, by 1996 the general impression held by senior Chiquita officials in Cincinnati was that the groups had been helpful. In a September 1996 meeting with internal auditors, Al Bakoczy, the corporate security chief in Cincinnati, said that Esperanza (here as “EPL”) had “helped us out a lot with the labor issue.”

    image024

    Why did the guerrilla payments stop?

    The arrival of paramilitaries to the zone in 1995 was a watershed moment for Chiquita. Two years later, the guerrilla payments had ceased completely, and the company had begun to redirect the money toward paramilitaries and their allies in the Convivir self-defense groups. The key moment, by most accounts, was a meeting between Carlos Castaño, leader of the ACCU paramilitary group; Charles Keiser, general manager of Banadex; and Reinaldo Escobar de la Hoz, a lawyer for Chiquita’s Colombian subsidiary.

    Irving Bernal Giraldo, who was a member of Augura and one of the founders of the Convivir Papagayo, which secretly directed money to paramilitary groups, remembered this episode in a June 30, 2015 hearing before the Colombian prosecutor’s office: “You all are giving money to the guerrillas and I am not going to allow that,” Castaño told them. Bernal, who had just been released from a kidnapping, denied the paramilitary chief’s accusation and floated the possibility that Augura could finance Private Security Cooperatives such as the Convivir.

    “Then we both calmed down a bit, and he looked at Mr. Keiser and said to him, ‘But you are giving money to the guerrillas,’ to which Keiser nodded.” Bernal said Castaño and Keiser talked in private after which the paramilitary chief said, “Now the matter is clear.”

    The story behind this meeting is, for the most part, hidden history. In 2007, Chiquita Brands admitted that it paid $1.7 million to paramilitary groups and paid a $25 million fine to the U.S. government. In Colombia, the company has not indemnified a single victim, and the judicial process has been stuck, immobile, for ten years.

    Will the alleged financiers of the conflict in Urabá remain unpunished in the face of all of this new evidence? Wait until next week and the fourth and final installment of the series of articles by VerdadAbierta.com and the National Security Archive.

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1992-09-04

    Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Informe general sobre seguridad en la Division Turbo
    [General Report on Security in the Turbo Division]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 02

    1993-03-11

    To: A. Bakoczy
    From: J. Alvarado, Banadex and Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, Department of Industrial Protection
    Cuenta de Seguridad Ciudadana Movimiento General [Citizen Security Account General Movement], includes cover sheet

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 03

    1993-04-05

    Negociación con Respecto a Azul [Negotiation with Respect to Blue]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 04

    1993-05-11

    To: [Redacted]
    From: Protección Industrial [Industrial Protection]
    Programa de Reducción de Celadores [Reduction in Security Guards Program]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 05

    1993-05-11

    To: [Redacted]
    From: Protección Industrial [Industrial Protection]
    Solicitud Desembolso [Disbursement Request]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 06

    1995-04-24

    Confidencial [Confidential Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 07

    1995-00-00

    C.F.S. (SAMAREX) Santa Marta
    Gastos Seguridad Causados 1.995
    [Security Expenses Realized in 1996]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Document 08

    1995-05-16

    Division Turbo
    Security Account

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 09

    1995-06-16

    Banadex, Department of Industrial Protection
    Informe General

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 10

    1995-09-18

    Banadex / Samarex
    Informe de Seguridad [Security Report]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 11

    1996-09-13

    Bakoczy Explanation of How Extortion Payments Work

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 12

    1997-00-00 ca.

    General Manager’s Expenses, Colombia, 1993-1996

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

    Document 13

    1997-02-28

    CBI Internal Audit Department
    1996 General Manager’s Expenses

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Department of Justice

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    image001 5

    The toppled head of Joseph Stalin sits on Rákóczi út in Budapest on October 23, 1956. (Photo: Róbert Hofbauer, Fortepan, from Wikimedia Commons)

    Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US (In)action during the Revolution

    Eisenhower’s Caution Broadly Justified, Declassified Defense Department Study Finds

    But Swifter, More Imaginative Response Might Have Brought Different Results

    U.S. Officials Weighed but Rejected Many Options Including Tactical Nukes

    Posted May 10, 2017
    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 591
    Edited by Dr. Ronald D. Landa
    Introduced by Malcolm Byrne
    For more information: nsarchiv, 202.994.7000

    Washington D.C., May 10, 2017 – The United States’ cautious response to the unexpectedly powerful popular uprising in Hungary in 1956 grew out of the Eisenhower administration’s policy of “keeping the pot boiling” in Eastern Europe without having it “boil over” into a possible nuclear conflict, according to an unpublished Defense Department historical study posted for the first time by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

    Eisenhower and his top aides, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles – often seen as one of the most aggressive Cold Warriors – opted for the long view of encouraging a gradual erosion of Soviet domination of the socialist camp.

    The study, by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, is a follow-on to another recently posted here entitled, “Almost Successful Recipe: The United States and East European Unrest prior to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.” Readers are encouraged to examine both documents together since they contain complementary information.

    Defending Eisenhower’s reticence to take stiffer action, including covertly assisting the Hungarian rebels or threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on supply routes into Hungary, the study notes his concerns about inadvertently touching off a nuclear war with the USSR. At the same time, the author points out that Eisenhower “let the matter slide” by early in the crisis rejecting a recommendation that he convene a special meeting of the National Security Council to consider possible responses, which “undercut the urgency for action.”

    This study differs markedly from a number of Hungarian, American, and other historical accounts that take a harsher view of U.S. policy, accusing it of cynicism, hypocrisy, and plain obliviousness about the nature of the crisis. For one thing, it suggests that the U.N. decision to send an emergency force to the Middle East during the Suez crisis, more than the administration’s rhetoric about loosening Moscow’s ties with the East European satellites or hopes of liberation fostered by Radio Free Europe, was chiefly responsible for any expectations of Western military assistance that Hungarians had.

    Today’s posting is the third and final in a series Landa completed for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense during 2011 and early 2012. The National Security Archive thanks him for donating these materials.

    READ THE DOCUMENT

    Document 1

    2012-02-00

    The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A Fresh Look at the U.S. Response (Draft, February 2012)

    Draft study by Dr. Ronald D. Landa, prepared for the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

  • RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Chiquita Papers : Uncertainty Fueled Staff Concerns about Payments to Guerrillas and Paramilitaries

    RESEARCH DOCUMENT /// Chiquita Papers : Uncertainty Fueled Staff Concerns about Payments to Guerrillas and Paramilitaries

    image026 1

    Chiquita Papers : Uncertainty Fueled Staff Concerns about Payments to Guerrillas and Paramilitaries

    Colombia Payments a “Leap of Faith”

    “We are funding their activities, or we are protecting ourselves. It’s questionable.”

    CFO asks: “How can I audit that? I cannot ask them to sign a receipt.”

    Posted May 2, 2017
    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 589
    Edited by Michael Evans
    For further information, contact: mevansTwitter: @colombiadocs

    Washington, D.C., May 2, 2017 – Chiquita’s Colombia-based staff questioned the company’s payments to illegal armed groups, and asked whether Chiquita had gone beyond extortion and was directly funding the activities of leftist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary groups, even while top company executives became “comfortable” with the idea.

    This is the second in a series of stories jointly published by the National Security Archive and VerdadAbierta.com documenting how the world’s most famous banana company financed terrorist groups in Colombia.

    The New Chiquita Papers are the result of a seven-year legal battle waged by the National Security Archive against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and later Chiquita itself, for access to tens of thousands of records produced by the company during an investigation of illicit payments made in Colombia.

    The Archive has used these records to identify individual Chiquita executives who approved and oversaw years of payments to groups responsible for countless human rights violations in Colombia, but whose roles in the affair have been unknown or unclear until now.

    In this installment, we examine the roles of financial officers, security staff and hired intermediaries on the ground in Colombia who managed an unorthodox payments process one official described as a “leap of faith.”

    The following article was also published today in Spanish at VerdadAbierta.com.

    * * *

    Payments to Armed Groups Generated Internal Conflicts at Chiquita Brands

    The banana company invented an accounting system to hide payments to guerrilla groups in Colombia that they admitted were “impossible to audit.” Even while senior Chiquita officials became “comfortable” with the way the payments were made, officials based in Colombia had their reservations.

    By Tatiana Navarrete and Juan Diego Restrepo E.
    Edited by Michael Evans – This is the second in a series of articles published jointly by the National Security Archive and VerdadAbierta.com

    “[These] were payments that, you know, are questionable, payments to the guerrillas that at the end are payments that, you know, are questionable,” said Jorge Forton, chief financial officer for Banadex, Chiquita’s wholly-owned subsidiary in Colombia, in his April 27, 1999 statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). “We are funding their activities, or we are protecting ourselves. It’s questionable.”[1]

    The deposition of this Peruvian accountant, who worked for Chiquita from 1990-1998, turns out to be key evidence on a little-known chapter in the history of Colombia’s banana-growing zone: payments made by the multinational fruit company to anti-government guerrilla groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), and the funding of political organizations like the Current for Socialist Renovation (CRS), Hope, Peace and Liberty, and the Popular Commands.

    Forton began in 1990 at Chiquita headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, looking for opportunities to expand the company’s worldwide operations. In the middle of 1994, he was sent to Colombia to assess how the local economy was affecting the prices of banana production. Over the next few months, Forton returned to the country several times and proposed alternatives for reorganizing Colombian operations. At the end of the year, Forton accepted a new position as chief financial officer for Banadex in Medellín.

    Since his arrival in Colombia in early 1995, the accountant knew that Chiquita made “sensitive payments” to illegal armed groups to ensure, as he was told, that its workers were not killed or kidnapped and that its plantations were not burned to the ground. “My role was to see how we could standardize and have a good control of those payments,” he said to the SEC.

    At that time, there were two Chiquita offices in Colombia: Banadex, in Medellín, and Samarex, in Santa Marta; each with independent accounting systems and separate sets of books to record payments not only to guerrillas but to the Colombian Armed Forces, which also benefitted from the company’s secret security fund. Forton’s job was to unify the accounts so Cincinnati could better track the payments. The company asked him to prepare a report on all the “sensitive payments” realized since 1992, something that, according to Forton, was almost impossible given the “poor accounting records” that had existed up to that point.

    image001 2

    SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton, April 27, 1999, pp. 45-46.

    So Forton implemented a new procedure to better account for the payments. He introduced two basic rules: there would be no more cash payments, and none would be authorized without an invoice.

    Forton said he was “not comfortable” with the guerilla payments: “How do I feel those payments are really going to those groups? I mean, how can I audit that? I cannot ask them to sign a receipt.”

    The fact that Colombian guerrilla groups could not be counted on to provide receipts elevated the role of the Security Department and the intermediaries they relied on as go-betweens with the insurgent factions, military units, and paramilitary groups at the receiving end of those payments. These are the names and signatures that appear on the forms used to request payments to the various armed groups.

    The fewer people who knew about the “sensitive payments,” the better, so the payments only needed the authorization of the general manager, Charles Keiser, and the signature of Forton. Keiser was followed as general manager by Álvaro Acevedo, who later oversaw several years of payments to the paramilitary United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and today works for a fruit producer in Ecuador. VerdadAbierta.com tried to contact Acevedo, but did not receive a response.

    Forton instituted the “1016” form to register all of the payments and to camouflage them among the fruit multinational many other expenses. To do so, he created two new accounts: “Logistics,” for payments to government agencies; and “Operations” for payments to guerrilla groups.

    This rigorous accounting system coldly recorded the harsh reality of life in the violently-contested region of Urabá during the 1990s. Forton was aware of the impact that the payments had on public order and thought it indispensable to know whether the money found its way to the intended recipients. At the very least, the ultimate destination of the payments mattered more to Forton than to his superiors in Cincinnati, who had not witnessed Colombia’s war in person.

    In a vivid account to the SEC, Forton said the surge in paramilitary groups (or “anti-guerrilla groups,” as he called them)—who were also financed by the company—had intensified conflict in the region. He recalled a day when some 20 bus riders were killed, and a subsequent call from company staff in Urabá asking what to do. “I have a wife that carried the body of her husband into the office to ask for money to bury him,” he remembered.

    image002 1

    SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton, April 27, 1999, p. 57.

    “There were situations where, I mean, things that I hope not to live again. But after being exposed to those horrible stories, I understood better if the money was reaching the end or not,” he explained.

    Forton left Colombia in 1996 and was effectively fired from the company in 1998 for his role in authorizing bribes to Colombian port authorities in Turbo, Antioquia. Forton is now a high-ranking official at Dun & Bradstreet, according to his LinkedIn account. VerdadAbierta.com did not receive a response from a message sent to Forton through the social media network.

    Where did the money actually go?

    The names of the individuals from the Security Department who handled the “sensitive payments” to armed groups in Colombia during that time, Juan Manuel Alvarado and John Stabler, are found in a draft Chiquita legal memorandum dated January 5, 1994.

    One of the chief intermediaries used as a bridge between the company and the insurgent groups was René Alejandro Osorio J., an attorney from Antioquia who in 1992 signed a services contract with the Compañía Frutera de Sevilla, another of Chiquita’s Colombian subsidiaries.

    image003 1

    His role as a “Security Consultant” for Chiquita is revealed in an earlier draft of the same memo, dated January 4, 1994, which identifies Osorio as the company’s “contact with the various guerrilla groups in both Divisions.” The professional middleman was responsible for making “guerrilla extortion payments” for Chiquita. In many internal company records, he is referred to by the initials “R.O.”

    image004 4

    Another document obtained by the National Security Archive is a copy of a contract signed by Osorio indicating that he was paid five million Colombian Pesos (about five thousand U.S. dollars) every three months. Osorio assumed all risks involved with the assigned work, but Chiquita would provide legal assistance if it ever became necessary. VerdadAbierta.com contacted him in Medellin, where he apparently resides, to hear his version, but made clear that he "was not going to refer to that subject".

    image005 1

    The sort of informality that existed between Chiquita Brands and the intermediaries made it even more difficult to determine if the money was actually reaching the guerrillas and generated suspicions among some of the managers in Medellín.

    Even when the payments were made in cash, before the arrival of Forton as CFO, it was never really known whether they arrived in their totality to the guerrillas. John Ordman, based in Costa Rica, was a key link between Chiquita’s Colombian operations and top executives at the company’s headquarters in Cincinnati (as explained in the first article in this series). Ordman called these payments "a leap of faith."

    “Now does it get distributed to the people that it should be? Does it get distributed – you know, there’s a commission for this guy [name redacted]. Does he take half of it and put it in his pocket? How do you tell? There’s no way of determining that.”

    SEC Testimony of John Ordman, November 23, 1999, pp. 124-125.

    In spite of this, Ordman said he felt “comfortable that this was being handled in a responsible way.” The view of Robert F. Kistinger, head of Chiquita’s Banana Group, was much the same. He told the SEC he saw the guerrilla payments as an “ongoing cost” of company operations, like the purchase of fertilizers or agrichemicals.

    Forton told the SEC that he took the concerns about his inability to track the payments to a top executive in Cincinnati, asking, “How can I audit this?” And the response was: “If nobody is killed, it’s because the money is reaching the end. That’s the only way to say that the money is there.”

    image008 1

    SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton, April 27, 1999, p. 58.

    The person who provided that response may well have been Robert Kistinger, since SEC investigators asked him about this same episode during his interview, but denied ever having such a conversation with Forton.

    SEC Testimony of Robert Kistinger, January 6, 2000, pp. 66-67.

    Forton was not the only person who worried that the money could not be tracked. His replacement in Colombia, John Paul Olivo, who arrived in 1996, voiced similar concerns in his SEC testimony. Olivo’s name has been known to Colombian investigators since 2009 when the Attorney General opened an investigation against him and two other officials, Charles Keiser and Dorn Wenninger, for conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony—a process that has gone nowhere in eight years.

    In his December 1999 testimony to the SEC, Olivo said he did not feel comfortable with the way the company made the payments, since it was impossible to know whether Alvarado, Osorio and the others were actually delivering the money to the armed groups. “The only person that requests funds and payments for guerrillas is the head of security,” he said. “No one ever knows who – or negotiates with this groups, except for himself. And that’s been my . . . concern since day one.”

    image011 1

    SEC Testimony of John Paul Olivo, December 15, 1999, p. 64.

    More than extortion?

    In his declaration, Kistinger said the company made the payments because they were being extorted and wanted to protect the lives of their workers amid constant threats. For this reason, Chiquita also paid Colombian military and police forces, above all when they needed special security services.

    While the internal discussions of Chiquita employees mostly revolved around the technical aspects of the payments, Forton’s deposition is testament to the thin line between paying extortion and willingly funding the operations of a violent group.

    SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton, April 27, 1999, pp. 90-91.

    Other documents obtained by the National Security Archive indicate that Chiquita’s outlays to guerrillas were perhaps not as innocent as the company portrayed them in negotiations with Colombian and U.S. authorities. As the following draft legal memorandum demonstrates, at least some Chiquita officials believed the payments were illegal under Colombian law, while others wanted to eliminate evidence of such knowledge from the record.

    The same memo also suggests that not all of the payments were the result of extortion. If indeed the multinational made the payments to protect itself from guerrilla threats, it is equally clear that some of Chiquita’s farms were supplied with “security personnel” from “Guerrilla Groups.”

    Why did Chiquita Brands make payments to virtually every guerrilla group in Urabá? How much did the FARC, ELN, EPL and the other groups receive each year, according to company records? Were there any contracts or agreements with insurgent groups?

    The complex relationship between Chiquita Brands and Colombian guerrillas will be the subject of the next report in this series, to be published next Tuesday by the National Security Archive and VerdadAbierta.com.

    • The depositions of the seven Chiquita employees interviewed by the SEC were obtained by the National Security Archive after seven years of litigation. Although the names of those officials remained hidden, it was possible to identify them by comparing the transcripts to other official sources.

    READ THE DOCUMENTS

    Document 01

    1992-12-14

    [Bill for Services Rendered]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Bill for services rendered to Compañia Frutera de Sevilla on letterhead of "Rene Alejandro Osorio J."

    Document 02

    1992-12-18

    ["Contract for Provision of Professional Services"] [Includes original attachment]

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Copy of a contract between a Chiquita subsidiary and Rene Osorio, identified by the initials "R.O." The attached forms indicate that the three million Peso payment was to a "security advisor" who "works as liaison with activist groups."

    Document 03

    1994-01-04

    "Reportable Payments in Colombia and Manager’s Expense Payments" [Draft; includes original annotations

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Draft Chiquita legal memorandum on payments to guerrilla groups in Colombia identifies intermediary employed by Security Department to handle payments to guerrilla groups.

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Document 04

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>1994-01-05

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>"Reportable Payments in Colombia and Manager’s Expense Payments" [Draft; includes original annotations

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Draft Chiquita legal memorandum on payments to guerrilla groups in Colombia identifies members of the Security Department, John Stabler and Juan Manuel Alvarado.

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>Document 05

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>1999-04-27

    <

    p class=”MsoNormal”>[SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton], April 27, 1999, pp. 45-48.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Forton describes the challenge of auditing payments to guerrillas since the groups do not provide any kind of receipt.

    Document 06

    1999-04-27

    [SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton], April 27, 1999, pp. 57-60.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Forton recounts a call with company staff who told him about a massacre of some 20 bus travelers in Urabá.

    Document 07

    1999-04-27

    [SEC Testimony of Jorge Forton], April 27, 1999, pp. 89-92.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Forton says it was “questionable” whether payments to guerrillas were for self-protection or for “funding their activities.”

    Document 08

    1999-10-23

    [SEC Testimony of John Ordman], November 23, 1999, pp. 121-128.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Ordman says there is “no way of determining” whether money channeled through the Security Department and third-party intermediaries ever reached the intended recipients.

    Document 09

    1999-12-15

    [SEC Testimony of John Paul Olivo], December 15, 1999, pp. 61-64.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Olivo says his “concern since day one” was that he could never be sure that money intended for guerrillas and other groups was not being stolen by a third-party intermediary.

    Document 10

    2000-01-06

    [SEC Testimony of Robert Kistinger], January 6, 2000, pp. 65-68.

    Source: Freedom of Information Act Request to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    Kistinger does not recall telling “Jorge” the way to know whether company funds had reached illegal armed groups was “if there are no killings.”

    NOTE

    [1] While the name of the SEC witness identified here as Jorge Forton was redacted from the transcript, there is abundant evidence indicating that Forton is the Chiquita witness interviewed by the SEC on April 27, 1999.

    · A 1998 series in the Cincinnati Enquirer identified Forton as one of the officials central to the bribery case that triggered the SEC probe.

    · The witness describes the role he played overseeing Chiquita’s financial operations in Colombia from 1994-1998, while an account for “Jorge Forton” on the popular social media network LinkedIn indicates that he held various positions at Chiquita from 1990-1998, including “Country Controller.”

    · Throughout the testimony, the witness describes how he sent financial reports to his superiors about so-called “sensitive payments” that were made in Colombia, mainly to government officials and to guerrilla insurgent groups.

    · The witness describes a conversation he had about these payments with a superior at the company: “… I questioned the nature of the payment. And he said: [Redacted], don’t get involved in this. I’m handling this and I know this is correct.” And basically, that was an invitation to get out. I mean, I wasn’t—I shouldn’t worry about questioning those payments, because, as I said, if no killings are, meaning that the payments were correct, reached the end user.”

    · Another witness who has been separately identified as Robert Kistinger, is asked by the SEC about this same conversation during his later testimony: “[Redacted] also said that … that you had responded to him, “Jorge, if there are no killings, you know the money is getting to the guerrillas.”

    · Another witness separately identified as Orlando Dangond mentions “Jorge” as being present at a key meeting where the bribe was discussed: “[Redacted] and myself may have explained to Jorge what had been going on, and then I believe [Redacted] explained to him about the payment.”

    · While questioning a witness separately identified as John Ordman the SEC investigator mentions “Jorge Forton” during a discussion of how certain sensitive payments were recorded and reported to corporate headquarters: “… [T]his document related to Jorge Forton and this document contains disclosures…”

    · Information at beginning of interview reveals that the witness is from Arequipa (assumed to be Peru). The LinkedIn account for Jorge Forton (mentioned above) says that he is a graduate of Catholic University of Santa María, a university in Arequipa, Peru.