John Peurifoy Letter To Guatemala

In 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sponsored a coup in Guatemala that resulted in ramifications visible to this day. With large conspiracy and blurred lines surrounding this coup, one can not entirely ascertain the key impellances of the coup. However, someone looking in on the situation can understand this: In the midst of the red scare, the United States sent anti-communist and hawkish ambassador to evaluate the socialist leader who posed a threat to a large U.S interest, the United Fruit Company (UFCo.). This letter, written by the hawkish Ambassador, John Peurifoy, is rumoured to have motivated President Eisenhower to authorize a CIA sponsored coup in Guatemala. This coup, stemming from selfish individual and corporational interests,

Throughout the telegram, Peurifoy perpetuates the underhanded idea that Jacobo Arbenz, the president of Guatemala, aligned himself with communists. Stunning inconsistencies manifest themselves throughout Peurifoy’s argument when one observes his warrant, or reasons and basis for arguing. The United States were focusing so closely on allegations of communism in Guatemala due to the fact that Arbenz had nationalized large holdings of land a large U.S company, the UFCo., possessed. Knowing they had undeclared the value of their land to receive reductions on taxes for many years, Arbenz compensated the United Fruit Company with the value that had been declared for their land. This did not sit well with many high up in government in the United States, especially with the director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, who at one point held a position on their

Though Peurifoy never clearly states that Arbenz defined himself as a communist, which he did not, Peurifoy does go one to say that “If Arbenz is not a communist, he will certainly do until one comes along.” Peurifoy substantiates this claim with the fact that Arbenz had acknowledged there were a few communists in the government, which is not unheard of for the 1950s. Peurifoy strives to validate this evidence by equating the situation in Guatemala to other unnamed observed situations through saying “many countries had thought they were dealing with honest men in the past but awakened too late to the fact that the Communists were in control.” Peurifoy can best link his meager evidence to his claim with a circumstantial connection to an vague, overarching idea of communist manipulation. Only uncovering feeble evidence, Peurifoy does nothing to warrant this evidence, yet his inconsistencies synthesize together into an argument capable of persuading a president.