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,

has had ramifications present in Guatemala’s weak institutions and fledgling democracy to this day. I will reveal the mistruths and fallacies put forth in this letter, and show how a few specific interests successfully manipulated a president into okaying a coup through using a divisive weapon. Rhetoric.

Toulmin

Observing the letter through the lens of Toulmin's model using his data, claim, and warrant, John Peurifoy dramatically fails to present a convincing and cohesive argument in his telegram.

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

board.
Sending a prolific anti-communist ambassador to Guatemala, Peurifoy, the CIA implemented measures to ensure they could accumulate at least a semblance of evidence of Arbenz being communist.

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.

.

Rank

Peurifoy’s letter distinctly exemplifies Rank’s model of persuasion. He employs tools of rhetoric in several instances to insinuate doubt or subsume critical counterpoints to his argument. In addition to his enfeebling of solid, detrimental, facts, Peurifoy unequivocally attracts attention to his points by attempting to place them after Arbenz’s for consistent rebuttals. At one point in his telegram to Allen Dulles, Peurifoy recounts his response to Arbenz’s accusations of UFCo.’s manipulations by saying the UFCo. is “a relatively small corporation by American standards” and “no corporation by American standard dominated any press in the United States.” Using terms like relatively delineates no clear distinction of the size of the UFCo, as Peurifoy fails to explain what he is comparing the UFCo. to. Furthermore, Peurifoy focuses emphasizes the fact that the Guatemalan government includes a few communists, and mentions nothing of the fact that in the 1950s people even believed communists held places inside the U.S government. He fails to mention that communists in the Guatemalan government does not define the leader as communist. Peurifoy commits his largest inconsistency concerning argument with his deliberate omission of any of the UFCo.’s manipulative and illegal actions that had been occurring for years. He calls Arbenz’s appeal to him a “long dissertation,” and lists only facts that benefit the UFCo., such as the fact they paid 150,000 in taxes. He omits the fact that those should have amounted to much more than 150,000. Again, Peurifoy uses rhetorical tools of confusion and diversion to turn Eisenhower in favor of authorizing a coup.

Fallacies

Throughout the letter, Peurifoy goes to employ several fallacies that help perpetuate the coup, and further UFCo.’s grip on the country. Peurifoy commences his arguments with the fallacy of the snow job, as he presents several statistics such as Guatemala’s budget, the founding dates of the UFCo., and how much the company contributes. He does this in order to avoid saying how much the UFCo. needed to pay in actuality, which was a lot more as they were not declaring their resources. Peurifoy then attempts to make a point in his letter by discussing the Arbenz’s associations with other well-known communists; instead, he only perpetuates the fallacy of guilt by association, and provides no evidence that Arbenz defines himself as a communist. Peurifoy further exemplifies his bias against Guatemala by placing quotations around Arbenz’s claim of the communists being local (not associated with the USSR). This plays into the fallacy of composition, as Peurifoy associates the whole Guatemalan government as communist due to a few members identifying as communist. Mentioning the term “communist” over nine times in his letter Peurifoy tries to sway Alan Dulles with an appeal to pathos using the the Dog Whistle Politics fallacy. Knowing that they lived in divisive times, Peurifoy mention of communism nine times in his letter only augmented the feeling of doubt and resentment that was starting to grow in the United States. While Peurifoy recants the interview he gave Arbenz, a bias stands out as every fact Arbenz presents is twisted into a sentence that ends with resounding doubt or an off target rebut. This holds especially true when Peurifoy plays into the fallacy of Reductio ad Hitlerum by saying “I told him that 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 attempts to compare the situation to other countries that had become communist, without giving any solid evidence other than who Arbenz considers friends. This can also be seen as a the fallacy false analogy, as Peurifoy vaguely compares the situation in Guatemala to a supposed situation of a country he does not mention. Peurifoy’s employment of fallacies in this letter show how fallacies can be so dangerous, as many consider his letters as the impetus for the CIA sponsored coup in Guatemala. Playing on many fallacies, especially those surrounding guilt by association, Peurifoy artfully deceived a president, and prompted a coup on behalf of the interests of a greedy U.S MNC.