Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
66327810
label
Correspondence – 03/01/1982-03/15/1982 (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66327810
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Correspondence – 03/01/1982-03/15/1982 (3)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael K. Deaver's Correspondence Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
66327810
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
528bab3064b7e653
ocrText
PENDING REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH E.O. 13233
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: Deaver, Michael K.: Files
Archivist: kdb
OA/Box: 7619
FOIA ID: F01-107, McCartin
File Folder: Correspondence - 03/01/1982 - 03/15/1982 (3)
Date: 3/19/07
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. & TYPE
A. memo
William Sittmann to Deaver re reply to Sen. Cooper, 1p
3/8/82
openal
05/13/2008
8M
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
Dear Senator Cooper:
It was most enjoyable visiting with you when you came
to the White House two weeks ago.
The ideas you have expressed are excellent. We definitely
need to insure that every time the President is before a
senior citizens group he sets forth his policy that basic
Social Security benefits will not be threatened. I believe
your sense of urgency in this matter is right on target.
I am quite intrigued by your proposed basic training plan
for bolstering our military preparedness. I have taken the
liberty of forwarding your suggestion to Secretary Weinberger's
Office SO that they can do further research into the feasibil-
ity of your plan.
Again, I am most grateful for your thoughts and your keen desire
to assist the President.
With best wishes to you and Mrs. Cooper.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
The Honorable John Sherman Cooper
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 8, 1982
oll
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL K. DEAVER
FROM:
WILLIAM F. SITTMANN
SUBJECT:
REPLY TO SENATOR COOPER
With regards to the attached letter from Senator Cooper,
I think a standard thank you for your thoughts letter is
appropriate after reading the letter a couple of times.
Senator Cooper's suggestion regarding basic training for
young men has a lot of merit. However, since the U. S.
Government is having a terrible time trying to have 18 year
olds register with Selective Service Boards, this type of
plan would probably reap havoc for the Administration.
His second suggestion regarding Social Security is very
valid. But, aren't we already trying to include in every
speech that the President gives before senior citizen
groups the idea that basic benefits will not be cut.
Attached is a suggested letter from you to Senator Cooper.
Honorable John Sherman Cooper
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D. C. 20044
Dear Senator Cooper:
It was most enjoyable visiting with you when you came to
the White House two weeks ago.
The ideas you have expressed are excellent. We definitely
need to insure that every time the President is before a
senior citizens group he sets forth his policy that basic
Social Security benefits will not be threatened. I believe
your sense of urgency in this matter is right on target.
I am quite intriqued by your proposed basic training plan
for bolstering our military preparedness. I have staffed
your suggestion to Secretary Weinberger's Office so that
they can do further research into the feasibility of your
plan.
Again, I am most grateful for your thoughts and your keen
desire to assist the President.
With
best wishes to you and Murs. Sincerely, Cooper
MKD
fee
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mike,
dictal
Just want to say
thanks fa your support
m the PSI position -
And also want you to
know how much I'm looking
more directly in the coming
fraund to working with you
months - Pulings we'll
even tommi leave ment in alape before
have time to get
you year A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
Dear Mary:
Here's some other facts.
Perhaps the slaughter of these poor Indians would
interest Archbishop Hickey.
What kind of a military threat were the Miskito Indians
to the Nicaraguans?
We've yet to see any demonstrations in this country on
this issue, nor have we heard any religious leaders
calling on anyone to defend these defenseless people.
Sorry to get so serious, but it is an area that you've
shown some interest in.
Cheers!
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
P.S. Can't you do something about McGovern piano playing?
Miss Mary McGory
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
MEMORANDUM
Tabe This
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
cover anemo
February 25, 1982
off 4 send
report to
MEMORANDUM FOR ED MEESE
DAVE STOCKMAN
JIM BAKER
m. me your
MIKE DEAVER
will attached
ED HARPER
KEN DUBERSTEIN
DAVE GERGEN
biller
LARRY SPEAKES
DICK DARMAN
CRAIG FULLER
Bill Clark wanted you to see the attached report.
John John M. Poindexter
Military Assistant to the
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Attachment
FROM FREEDOM HOUSE
NEWS
WILLKIE MEMORIAL BUILDING
20 West 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10018 730-7744
Freedom House is o non-partisan, national organization devoted to the strengthening of free societies
For additional information: Leonard R. Sussman (nights and week-ends call YU 8-5137)
EMBARGO TO 6:00 P.M. SUNDAY
100,000 Indians in Nicaragua Face "Systematic Violence" and Forced Evacuation
for Resisting Integration into the Sandinista Revolution; Human Rights Agencies
are Asked to Investigate Deaths, Firebombings and Expulsions.
New York, Feb. 22---The Nicaraguan government was reported today to have "condoned or
directed" a policy of "systematic violence" against 100,000 Indians, mostly Miskitos,
who have resisted integration into the Sandinista "revolutionary process."
The report, issued by Freedom House, provided a 30-month chronology that described:
forced mass evacuations of Indian communities, 20 villages emptied, five fire-
bombed, and many Indians placed in "protected" hamlets;
burial alive of 15 Indians whose names are given by eyewitnesses;
imprisonment or expulsion of clergy and Indian leaders; and
destruction of Indians' economic and political as well as religious institutions.
The "net effect" of Nicaraguan policy toward the Indians for three years has been
to deprive them of their "communal lifestyle, a democratically based selection of
leadership and a passive way of life centered on their churches."
Directly affected so far, said the report, are 20,000 Miskitos forcibly removed
rom their tribal lands and denied traditional fishing and lumbering rights, another
0,000 who have fled north as refugees in Honduras, more than 1,000 imprisoned, and at
ast 200 killed in the past four months. These are more than 40 percent of the Indian
pulation.
Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that monitors political and civil
:hts around the world, is appealing to human rights agencies of the United Nations
the Organization of American States to investigate the status of the Indians in
aragua, The organization is also asking the State Department to urge friendly
itries with interests in Central America to undertake similar investigations.
co, Venezuela and France were named. The Socialist
-2-
of Western Europe and the United States were also asked to undertake their own
investigations of the events.
"The net effect of (the Nicaraguan) policy suggests that the possibility of
genocide should be investigated," the report concluded.
The report was prepared by Bruce McColm who directs the Caribbean Basin Program
of Freedom House.
The report approximated the number of persons directly affected because the
Managua junta has barred journalists and other investigators from Zelayo Province, the
traditional land of the Miskitos. Last September the Sandinista junta declared a state
of siege and martial law in the northeast coastal zone, the report stated.
It declared that "circumstantial evidence clearly suggests that the central
government has embarked on a policy to eradicate the indigenous peoples of the coastal
area." The junta was said to seek a militarily secure zone along the coast and the
order of Honduras, as well as create a "showcase of socialism."
The Indian population has never posed a military threat to the Managua government
and resisted the central authority only when traditional cultural or economic rights
were violated, the report said. The Managua government's claim to have reacted to a
security threat from guerrillas based in Honduras was termed by Freedom House a "gross
over-reaction" even if the charge of some guerrilla activity is verifiable. One of the
largest military operations in Nicaraguan history cannot be justified by "eleven raids
of small bands of guerrillas," said the report.
Since last December, the government was said to be engaging in a massive resettle-
ment effort. Large sectors of the Indian population have been moved into the interior.
On several occasions, junta forces attacked unarmed Indian communities and imprisoned
hundreds of persons. Many other Miskitos abandoned at least 21 coastal communities to
escape government troops and have settled along the river banks of the interior.
In this process, ten Moravian missionaries were arrested, and two American priests
and two nuns were expelled from the Indian area this month. Many of the churches along
he Atlantic coast have been burned down.
-3-
Twenty villages with a population of about 20,000 Indians have been emptied.
he Indian communities of Esperanza, Ipritigni, San Geronimo, Pransa, Wirapanjni,
Bulsirpi and Carmen were firebombed and destroyed by the Sandinistas.
Immediately after the Somoza regime was overthrown in 1979, cadres were sent
to the isolated coastal area to integrate the Indians into the Sandinistas' grassroots
revolutionary organization. This objective clashed with the traditional authority of
the Indians' Council of Elders. Another source of friction was the Sandinista
literacy campaign which refused to allow education in the local languages, particularly
English, the dominant tongue on the Atlantic coast. The Indians also objected to the
presence of Cuban instructors used to indoctrinate Nicaraguans in Marxism-Leninism.
The Indians also found offensive the atheist tracts distributed by government and
Cuban teachers, the report stated.
(The full text of the 3,900-word report is provided.)
The Indigenous Peoples of Nicaragua's Eastern Coast
Their Treatment by the Junta of National Reconstruction
A Freedom House Report
February 1982
For the past two and a half years, the Nicaraguan government has adopted
a series of policies that seeks to integrate the indigenous peoples of the Atlantic
Coast into the "revolutionary process." The Indian population, consisting of
63,000 to 100,000 Miskitos, Sumus, and Ramas lived in what the Junta of
National Reconstruction thought a primitive lifestyle. It became government
policy to create on the Atlantic Coast a showcase of socialism, which could be
progressively adopted in the rest of the country. Historical traditions, the
peoples' deep religiosity and own grassroots democratic political system
quickly came up against Managua's policies. The ruling junta had several
times agreed to allow the indigenous peoples the same rights granted in prior
Nicaraguan treaties and signed agreements.
The Miskito Indians of the Caribbean lowlands of northeastern Nicaragua, the
dominant tribe considered in this paper, are part of the "Jicaques" Indians,
which also include the Sumus and the Ramas. The Miskitos were discovered by
Christopher Columbus on his fourth voyage, and have been in contact with
Europeans since the mid-17th century when England claimed the coastal area
and in 1678 crowned a "King of the Mosquitia."
The Miskitos live in a communal manner, dividing their labor between
agriculture, hunting and fishing. They elect their leaders through some 256
Councils of Elders governing the indigenous populations.
Nicaragua secured the Atlantic coastal land after the United States and
England renounced their claims to the territory in the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty
of 1850. In another treaty with Great Britain in 1860, Mosquitia would be
incorporated normally into Nicaragua, but would remain an autonomous
reservation. It was not until the Liberal Presidency of Jose Santos Zelaya
(1893 to 1909) that complete jurisdiction over the Miskito people was established.
Under a new convention between the Nicaraguan state and the residents of
Mosquitia, the Reserve was later converted into the Department of Zelayo. In
return, Mosquitia was guaranteed local government, use of its own taxes, and
exemptions from military service. From the mid-1930s, Nicaraguan legislative
decrees prohibited any alienation of Indian lands. In the 1950s, the government,
competing with Honduras for the loyalties of the Indians, embarked on public health
programs, agricultural projects and educational plans for the indigenous peoples.
The traditional rights enjoyed by the indigenous peoples have been:
the right to self government, the right to dispense tax monies through their
own political structure, the right to use their own language, the right to practice
openly their own religion, the right to ownership over their communal lands, as
well as total exemption from military service. Any encroachment on these
legally binding rights has almost always resulted in rioting and uprisings against
whatever government sits in Managua. After the rioting of 1893 led by
Chief Clarence over these issues, subsequent Nicaraguan administrations have
openly acknowledged these rights in exchange for a pledge of loyalty toward
the central government.
-2-
The perceived erosion of the Indians' cultural interrity by any Managua
Administration has usually resulted in the indigenous populations supporting
insurgents against the government. (Their own efforts have tended toward
passive resistance and the Indians have no tradition of guerrilla or other type
of warfare.) The "liskito Indians aided Niceraguan nationalist leader Augusto
Cesar Sandino in the 1930s against the American occupation of the Atlantic
Coast. The Indians also supported the guerrilla movements in the 1960s
against the Somoza family dynasty and, most recently, the revolution against
the Somoza dictatorship, even though little fighting took place on the coast.
Present Destruction of Indian Rights
From eyewitness reports, newspaper accounts, documents prepared by
the indigenous peoples' Councils of Elders, and interviews with religious
persons and others expelled from the coastal area, and officials of neighboring
countries, there is clear evidence that the Nicaraguan government has embarked
on a policy that includes:
the forced, mass evacuations of Indian communities from the Rio Coco
area and the northeastern coastal area;
military incursions onto Honduran territory to attack refugee camps;
burial alive of Indian peoples;
imprisonment of clergy and Indian leaders;
summary execution during the evacuation process of women and children;
and legal and military destruction of the indigenous peoples' religious,
economic and political institutions.
Circumstantial evidence heavily suggests that the central government has
embarked on a policy to eradicate the indigenous peoples of coastal areas. The
reason for this policy appears (as outlined below) to be the result of policy
failures in the past and the Nicaraguan government's desire to create a
militarily secure zone along the coast and the border of Honduras.
After numerous demonstrations by the coastal inhabitants against the
government's policies, systematic violence, either condoned or directed by the
central government, against the Indian communities and their elected representatives
became policy in February, 1981. Since last November, Nicaraguan officials
maintain that their military operation against the indians is the largest since
the Revolution. Lost of these operations have targeted the 100,000
Miskitos in northeastern Nicaragua.
From government official statements, this policy has directly affected some
20,000 Miskitos, probably more, who were forcibly removed from their tribal
lands; another 20,000 who have fled as refugees to Honduras (the official
figures are 3,000 and 3,000 in the surrounding area); more than 1,000
imprisoned; and at least 200 dead in the lastfour months. From the confirmed
reports of these actions, the Miskito population directly and systematically
affected by Managua's policy is over 40 percent of the population.
The net effect of Nicaraguan policy toward the indigenous peoples of the
Coast for the past three years is to deprive them of their socio-cultural identity
an identity based on a communal lifestyle, a democratically based selection of
leadership and a passive way-of life centered on their churches.
-3-
Violation of Agreements of the Junta
While the Managua government has charged exiled indigenous leaders
with counter-revolutionary plans to create an independent coast, the history
of Nicaragua belies this attitude. Relationships with the indigenous peoples
since the turn of the century have been cordial and without social unrest as
long as the Indians' long tradition of quasi-autonomy WRS respected. During
the past two and a half years, after severe policy disputes, leaders of the
indigenous peoples as represented by the isurasata have negotiated with the
Managua government. The government on several occasions agreed in
writing to respect the cultural integrity of the indigenous peoples and allow
them control over their communal lands, natural resources and educational
program.
However, as outlined below, a consistent battern has emerged of the
violation of these agreements by the central government and not by the indigenous
peoples. threats of genocide by high-ranking government officials have been
regularly reported as a way to pressure the indigenous peoples to accept
central-government policies that, for all practical purposes, would mean the
destruction of the Indians' lifestyle that has existed since Columbus.
From the available evidence, Freedom Ilouse cannot help but conclude that,
like the South African policy toward squatters, the Portuguese colonialist policy
of creating strategic enclaves, and the liquidation policies of the Soviet Union
against ethnic minorities, the Nicaraguan government has embarked on a defi-
Derately truel: policy to eradicate spiritually, culturally and physically the
peoples of the coastal region.
Recent efforts to move whole communities from their tribal lands to remote
and inaccessible areas of Nicaragua suggest too clearly that Managua has
abandoned any attempts at reconciliation with their fellow citizens and have
opted instead for a military, perhaps "final" solution to the Indian question.
Chronology Leading to the Present Policy of
Nicaragua toward the Indigenous Population
Summer, 1979- Immediately after the triumph of the Nicaraguan Revolution,
Sandinista cadres were sent to the Atlantic Coast to integrate the indigenous
peoples into the Sandinista Defense Committee (CSD), the grassroots
revolutionary organization. The indigenous peoples understood this policy
as an effort to destroy their own democratically-elected Indian organization
ALPROM-ISU (Alliance for the Development of the Miskitos and Sumu People).
The organization was the traditional authority among the coastal communities
with its Council of Elders elected from the 256 communities scattered along
the coast. Clashes between Sandinista officials and the traditional leader and
members of the Southern Indigenous Committee, which advocates autonomy
for the English-speaking port city of Bluefields, increased. Leaders of
ALPROMISU were arrested and accused of being separatists, racists and reactionary.
-4-
In August, the Managua government seized control of the economic
infrastructure of the Atlantic coast, including the indigenous peoples' own food
cooperatives, fishing fleets, and the transportation systems to the more remote
areas. With the increased food scarcity created by government policies,
ALPROMISU called for a general strike in Bluefields that led to violent
government repression of the demonstrators. After arresting the most active
Indian leaders, the Junta for National Reconstruction issued a decree to the
local people saying, "Join the CDS and get your food at the Sandinista
distribution centers with the signature of the CDS member in charge."
Fall, 1979-- Lumbering, a key source of revenue for the indigenous peoples,
was prohibited along the Atlantic Coast. In violation of Nicaraguan treaty
agreements and legal statutes, the government issued decrees alienating
natural resources found on Indian lands from the communal lands, and declaring
communal property was to be considered State property. This decree was
taken by the indigenous peoples to be a frontal assault on their tradition of
autonomy and their communitarian lifestyle.
In the second week of September, the Junta for National Reconstruction
ordered that all Sandinista mass organizations--from government-controlled
trade unions to the people's militia--be established in the Indian communities,
thereby changing dramatically the traditional communal political structure that
had existed from the time predating Columbus. The following week, Lyster
11
Athders, an ALPROMISU community leader from Saklin Rio Coco, was arrested
and taken to Puerto Cabezas where he was murdered in early October.
Another sore point with the indigenous communities was the refusal of
Fernando Cardenal, the director of the government's literacy program, to allow
education in the indigenous languages and, particularly, English, which is
the dominant language of the Atlantic coast region. The literacy program
conducted in Spanish was also found objectionable because of the heavy presence
of Cuban instructors and the degree to which classes were used to indoct inate
the local population into Marxism-Leninism. Particularly offensive to the
indigenous population was the atheist tracts distributed by the government
and Cuban teachers.
In the third week of October, Zelaya Norte, an area with one of the largest
Concentration of Indians, was occupied by government military forces and
brought under the central government's control.
Winter, 1979-80-- In December, leaders of the Misurasata, the indigenous people's
organization that now included the Ramas of the southern region, met with the
co-ordinator of the Junta, Daniel Ortega Saavedra, government theoretician
Sergio Ramirez; Manuel Calderon Chavez, William Ramirez, and officials of the
government economic and development agencies, IRENA, INRA, and IMPRESCA,
to establish points of agreement between the government and the indigenous
population, and to prepare a dialogue between the two groups. It was agreed
in writing that the remains of Lyster Athders would be returned to his community
for proper burial, the killers would be punished and the CDS would be removed
from all Indian communities.
-5-
The National bank and the government agencies INRA and PROCAMPO,
however, began forcing Indian communities to organize themselves in the
government-controlled rural workers organization (ATC). Failure to do so
entailed loss of bank loans, technical assistance and the shrinking of markets
for Indian-produced goods.
Summer and Fall, 1980--On August 5, 1980, Misurasata leader, Steadman
Fagoth Muller, signed an agreement with Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Moises
Hassan and William Ramirez of the Junta that called for:
1. 80 percent of the value of the resources found on communal
property would be left to the community.
2. Literacy programs would be conducted in the Miskito, Sumu and
Creole languages.
3. Community-owned natural resources could be marketed through
traditional institutions of the indigenous peoples.
4. A survey to establish the boundaries of Indian communal lands
would be conducted by the government.
5. The indigenous peoples would have appropriate representation
in government institutions to ensure greater harmony in
integrating the coastal areas into the Revolution.
6. Those guilty of murdering Miskito Indians would be brought
to trial.
Later in August, the government began to expropriate the Yulo Indian
clan property southwest of Puerto Cabezas, the Tuapi Indian clan land north
of Puerto Cabezas, and the properties of the Tadwapowne and Wulkiamp Indian
clans. The next month, the Government issued a decree creating a 9,000-
*quare-kilometer forest reserve in an area called Bosawas where many Indian
communities were located.
The government's threat of abolishing the literacy programs in indigenous
languages if Marxist-Leninist theory was not incorporated into the educational
curriculum, prompted indigenous teachers to refuse cooperation with the Cuban
and Sandinista organizers of the literacy campaign. The tension between the
coastal peoples and the Central government came to a head in October 1980 when
the people of Bluefields and other communities demonstrated for three days
against the central government's policies and the presence of Cuban military
personnel in the area.
A general strike closed down all stores, the local harbor facilities and the
airport in the area. Because of widespread press reporting of the protest, the
Junta issued decrees 511 and 512 prohibiting any reports to the outside world
of events that occurred in Bluefields. Sandinista officials William Ramirez and
Lumberto Campbel directed government forces to crack down on the protesters.
Over 70 local leaders were arrested and accused by the Sandinistas over the
state-run redio and television of being "counter-revolutionaries." On November 4,
the Misurasata organization withdrew from the Council of State in protest against
government policies toward the coast.
-6-
Winter and Spring 1980-81-- For three months, a government-sponsored
committee composed of anthropologists, social scientists and political
theoreticians studied the past troubles in the indigenous communities and
developed a program for their integration into the "revolutionary process."
The program called for transforming community property into state-owned
ventures, and having Sandinista officials designate as Indian leaders those
indigenous people more to the government's liking. Reports of imprisonment
and assassination during these months were frequent but unconfirmed.
In February 1981. viclent demonstrations by local communities in Rosita,
Puerto Cabezas and Wapan rocked the coast and had to be quelled by
government forces using tear gas. The same month, the government arrested
the leaders of the Misurasata and 33 of their aides and transferred them to
prisons in anagua. Deaths of four Indian leaders were reported in the
communities of Prinzapoica and Alamikamba.
While imprisoned in the Loma de Tiscapa prison, Steadman Fagoth Muller,
a Miskito leader, according to his own testimony, met several times with
Interior Minister Thomas Borge, who said he would exterminate every Indian
to implant Sandinismo on the Atlantic Coast. On March 18, 1981, the Indian
communities in Waspan, Minerales and Puerto Cabezas demonstrated against the
arrest of the indigenous leadership and demanded their release. The conditional
release of the Miskito leaders was secured with the Indians being forced to
accept the government's programs on the coast.
On May 20, 1981, the government forces isolated the Sandy Bay Norte
community, a Miskito community of 7,000 people, from the surrounding territory
and cut it off from its fishing areas. The local labor union was abolished and
the majority, several thousand Indians, fled to Honduras. During the summer
months, several eyewitnesses and other unconfirmed reports state that the
area's churches, particularly those of the Moravians who have the dominant
influence over the Miskito communities, were subject to raids and occupation
by Sandinista forces and government supporters. Many churches, usually the
center of the Indian communities, were destroyed and their clergy imprisoned.
On August 22, 1981, Steadman Fagoth and half the Council of Elders fled to
Honduras.
Fall and Winter 1981-82- Since early September of last year the Nicaraguan
government has declared a state of seige and martial law in the coastal zone.
On September 23, 1981, the Managua government sent to the World Council™
of Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, Switzerland,a pro-government organization of
indigenous peoples using the name of the Misurasata. This newly appointed
group, lacking the traditional authority of being democratically elected by the
256 Council of Elders, has also represented Nicaraguan Indians at the Regional
Council of Indigenous Peoples from Mexico and Panama.
On October 24, 1981, government forces killed 14-year-old Felix Peralta
in the Indian community of Saupuka and imprisoned 50 other Indians.
-7-
Beginning in November, large-scale government military operations
began in Miskito territory adjacent to Honduras. The government claims that
the Miskito leadership had joined hands with former Somoza National Guardsmen
and other 'counter-revolutionaries" and made 11 incursions into Nicaragua
between November 22 and January 2. The government also claimed that 26
people, mostly Sandinista soldiers, were killed in the incursions, and another
22 abducted and taken back to Honduras. The disputed territory is a 100-
mile stretch along the Rio Coco between Waspan and the village of Raiti, a remote
Indian outpost. In late November, the Nicaraguan army cut off the Indian
n
communities along this land from access to the where the communities fish
for a living.
From December through February this year, the government embarked on
a massive resettlement program, moving large sectors of the Indian population
into the Nicaraguan interior. On several occasions, government forces attacked
unarmed Indian communities and imprisoned hundreds of others. This policy
by the central government has ied the Miskito population to abandon their
communities along the ccast and move away from government troops into the
interior along the river banks. According to Nicaraguan government officials
who have spoken to reporters of the Washington Post, 10 Moravian missionaries
have been arrested, and 20 villages, with a population of about 20,000 people,
have been emptied. Another 3,, to 6,000 Miskitos have been officially designated
refugees, having fled into Handuras, but recent visitors to Honduras claim that
nearly 20,000 Indians have fled Nicaragua as a result of this military operation.
The Zelaya Province, traditionally the land of the Wiskitos, has been closed off
to news media. The government has banned reports originating from there.
During the past two months, government forces have sealed off the area to
create a security zone. John Dinges, writing in the Washington Post, February 5,
said the government acknowledges holding more than 40 Indian prisoners.
Indians were also being taken to settlements near the isolated mining town of
Siuna. Both the Post reporter and our Nicaraguan sources confirm that in
January more than 80 army trucks transported Indians in the Miskito area,
and that the high school at Puerto Cabeza has been turned into a prison.
Details of the Destruction of Communities
From eyewitnesses, the following details are emerging about the moves of
the Nicaraguan government against the indigenous peoples:
The Indian communities of Esperanza, Ipritigni, San Geronimo, Pransa,
Wirapanjni, Bulsirpi and Carmen were firebombed and destroyed by the
Sandinistas.
The Indian communities of Siksayary, Andres Tara, Santa Isabel, Krasa,
Santa Esquipulas, Sang Sang, Kitasqui, Krin Erin, Pilpilia, Namasca, Wiwinak,
Santa Fe, Wirapajni, Wiswis, Laguantara, Kisalaya, Bilwaskarma, Uhry, Tanisca,
Kaurotigni and Klisnac have been abandoned by their inhabitants. They have
taken refuge either in Honduras or in the wilderness of the interior of Nicaragua.
Many of the churches along the Atlantic Coast have been burned down by
the central government, Reverend Higino Morazon of St. Carlos Rio Coco was
imprisoned on December 30. Anselmo Nixon, a Catholic priest from. around Sandy
Bay, is reported jailed. Five American Catholics, two priests and three nuns,
were expelled from the Indian area in early February.
-8-
Indigenous peoples are reportedly being prohibited from entering the
port city of Bluefields. Theft of Indian livestock and property by local
militia and government forces is widely reported throughout the coastal
area. On December 26, 1981, 30 persons were jailed in Bluefields and a
young churchworker was killed for refusing to join the local militia. Other
youths from the city are reported being taken and jailed in the highlands.
On December 23, the community of San Carlos Rio Coco was bombarded by
government forces. Sixty Miskito males were killed and another 100 wounded.
On December 27, the communities cf San Carlos kio Coco, Carrizal, Santa
Isabel, Asang, and Krasa were told they would be resettled. Some 150
government forces and 75 Cuban allegedly occupied San Carlos
Rio Coco and forced inhabitants to construct new encampments where the
Indians were forced to stay under close observation of government troops.
In the community of San Carlos on December 30, the following were imprisoned:
Blandes Barru, Manuel Saballos, Juan Saballos, Higinio Morazan, Linton Nau
and his wife, Leiman Febrid; Raily Beldy, Julian Manzanares, Jose Barru.
Others are believed to have been buried alive.
Other communities were similarly attacked and occupied. Bilwaskarma
was taken by government forces and its hospital converted into a prison.
Indian inhabitants were also transferred to Puerto Cabezas. Among them was
Barbara Dias, the daughter of Mcravian pastor Moravo Silvio Diaz. 32 Indians
from the community of Assang were captured and imprisoned in the neighboring
town. Dozens from Leymus, Krasa, Waspuc and Sanda Bay were also rounded
up and transferred to prisons. Approximately 200 people from these communities
have been jailed. Currently, several hundred government forces occupy the
Indian communities of Raity, Ainwas and Walakitan.
On December 25, as part of this military operation, the village of Leymus
was occupied by government forces. The following people were buried alive:
Jose Lino Mercado of Asang Rio Coco; Asel Mercado, and a man named Panthing
of Krasa; Efraim Poveda of Slisnak Waspuc; Juan Poveda of Klisnak Waspuc;
Luis Fajardo, Justo Martinez, Norma Castro, Rogelio Castro, Simeon Castro,
Carlos Perez, Victor Perez, Rocio Gomez, Celso Flores and Ramiro Damacio,
all of Raiti. The action by the government forces was witnessed by six
inhabitants of Leymus who fled to Honduras, where they are hospitalized.
Along the Rio Princaporca, Indian communities have moved further inland
to avoid contact with government forces. Communities in this area are engaged
in total passive resistance to the central government. Kamla, a community
near the strategic area of Puerto Cabezas, was forced off its land for military
security reasons. It is also reported that a concentration camp called Francia
Sirpi, a short walk from La Tranwuera, currently houses 3,000 Miskito Indians.
Descriptions of this encampment indicate that this is a kind of strategic-hamlet
habitation. The Indians were forced to build their huts in a location surrounded
and watched by Sandinista guards at all times. Twelve communities around
Sandy Bay have vacated the area because of attacks by government forces.
Conclusions.
The government's claim to be reacting to a security threat from outside the
country would be a gross over-reaction even if the charge of some guerrilla
activity is verifiable. Eleven raids by small bands of guerrillas cannot justify
one of the largest military operations in Nicaraguan history. This operation,
-9-
systematic and centrally ordered, has from the available evidence directly
and negatively affected over half the indigenous population of the coastal
region. From eyewitnesses, more than 200 Indians, perhaps a few thousand,
have been killed in this operation. Another twenty thousand have been
forcibly removed from their traditional lands. Another 6-to 20,000 have
fled for their lives to neighboring Honduras. The number of Indians
jailed may be in the thousands. The net effect of this policy suggests that
the possibility of genocide should be investigated.
Past autonomy arrangements and respect for Indian lands and customs
by governments in Managua starting in the late 19th century indicate that the
indigenous population itself has never posed a military threat to the central
government if their rights were respected. From the brief history of the
conflict between the revolutionary government and the indigenous population,
it becomes apparent that efforts by Managua to accelerate the process of
integrating the indigenous populations into the "revolutionary process"
were wrongheaded and socially undesirable. Government policies of replacing
traditional communal authority with another, downgrading the status of
indigenous languages in an area where Spanish is not dominant, and the
confiscation of Indian lands led to the initial anti-government demonstrations
in the coastal communities. Repressive actions against Indian leaders, false
accusations by the Managua government about the causes of these problems,
and the forceful putting down of peaceful demonstrations only exacerbated
the situation. Failure of the Junta of: National Reconstruction to uphold two
different agreements which they signed (and which could have calmed the
situation) further contributed to the present tragedy.
It would appear that the Nicaraguan government realizing the failure of
its past policies has, as of late November 1981, directed a ruthless campaign
against the indigenous peoples of the Atlantic coastal regions.
We urge responsible human rights organizations to begin an immediate
examination of the status of the indigenous peoples of Nicaragua, and the
perceived threats to their lives and communal existence. We hope that the
government of Nicaragua will cooperate in this inquiry.
We are addressing this appeal to the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, the Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States,
the appropriate human rights committee of UNES CO, and the International
Red Cross. We are also asking the Secretary of State, through the Assistant
Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, to use this government's
good offices with friendly states with demonstrated interests in Central America--
Mexico, Venezuela, France and others--to request from the government of
Niceragua an explanation of the perceived pattern ofassault on the indigenous
peoples of that country. We are also urging the Socialist International to
investigate these matters. Finally, we urge the news media of the United
States and Western Europe to undertake their own investigation of these events,
coverage of which thus far has been sparse and spasmodic.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MARCH 9, 1982
TO:
KATHY OSBORNE
FROM:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
SUBJECT:
Presentation of The Papers of
Dwight David Eisenhower
Can you please discuss with the President and
see if this is something he'd be interested in.
If so, please let Greg Newell know.
BCC: 2 Newell
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FEBRUARY 25, 1982
descurs
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
TO:
MICHAEL DEAVER
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
GREGORY J. NEWELL, DIRECTOR
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULING
REQUEST:
Brief meeting with delegation from John Hopkins
University including Dr. Milton Eisenhower
PURPOSE:
Presentation of The Papershof Dwight David Eisenhower
BACKGROUND:
The Presidential papers of Dwight Eisenhower are being
edited and published by the John Hopkins University.
Nine volumes of The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower
are now in print and eventually will be more than
twenty.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
None
DATE:
OPEN
LOCATION:
Oval Office
DURATION: 10 minutes
PARTICIPANTS:
Dr. Milton Eisenhower, President Emeritus of John
Hopkins; Dr. Steven Muller, current President of
John Hopkins; Jack G. Goellner, Director of John
Hopkins University Press; Professor Louis Galambos,
Editor of the Eisenhower papers.
OUTLINE OF
EVENTS:
The group enters the Oval Office where the President
is presented with The Papers.
REMARKS
REQUIRED:
None at meeting. Group has requested that the President
present them with a letter of support for their editorial
undertaking.
MEDIA
COVERAGE:
White House Photographer.
RECOMMENDED BY:
OPPOSED BY:
Ed Rollins
Red Cavaney (suggests possible Presidential visit to
John Hopkins campus)
PROJECT
OFFICER:
Ed Rollins or Elizabeth Dole
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
TO:
TONY DOLAN
FROM:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
SUBJECT:
State of the Union
It's after the fact, but thanks for your
supportive note before the State of the Union
speech. I thought it went extremely well.
Thanks for your help.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON Thenk a
Dear Mike,
The final draft is in it's
been a very orderly if tiring
process. This didn't turn into
the last minute horror story of
other administrations -- you and
you alone deserve the credit for that.
The back and forth on this thing
was very complicated -- the presdient
may have questions about why something
is in or out. I'll be instantly
available and have a bag packed
if necessary.
thanks again, Mike, for making
this thing work. And for the
encouraging words the other day.
It's goin work.
Tony
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
To:
Patricia Bye
From:
Robert Moss my
2791
Re:
Autograph from Michael Deaver
The attached photograph was taken at the American Advertising
Federation briefing on February 25, 1982.
Mr. Deaver was kind enough to stop by and meet with the group.
Could you please have him sign the pictures and return them to me SO
that I may send them out. I have attached cards with inscriptions
and names that you will find helpful.
Thank you for your assistance on this.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
TO:
JOHN MC CLAUGHRY
FROM:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
SUBJECT:
Publication of President's Addresses
President Reagan would be happy to write a forward
for your proposed project to publish some of his
important speeches since 1964.
However, since they are his words, I'm sure he'd
look more favorably on your suggestion if a portion
of any profit from the project could go to Citizens
For the Republic, or some other worthwhile program
which supports his philosophy.
Let me know how you care to proceed.
CC: James A. Baker
Edwin Meese
Fred Fielding
Lyn Nofziger
10960
Peter D. Hannaford
960 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
213/477-8231
sevel of memo
1982
to March 8,
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
Deputy Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20050
Dear Mike,
John McClaughry has told me about his interest in publishing
a collection of President Reagan's most important speeches over
the years. I understand Marty Anderson has forwarded John's
plan to you. I believe there is a real place for such a book
and that John would be a good person to organize it. It would
be a useful historical document, but would have the more immed-
iate value of demonstrating the development and strength of the
President's philosophy.
John, as you know, supplied drafts for a number of radio scripts
between the 1976 and 1980 campaigns and is attuned to the
President's cadence and style. In selecting the speeches he
would be sensitive to the importance of including materials
that would have relevancy today.
I assume the speeches are in the public domain. If so, someone
will no doubt publish a collection of them one day. It seems
best to have a staunch Reaganaut do it rather than leave it to
chance. As John may have told you, he would submit the material
to the White House for approval before publishing it.
If I can be of any assistance on a volunteer basis on the pro-
ject, please let me know.
Sincerely,
June Peter D. Hannaford
CC: Ed Meese
John McClaughry
PDH/ell
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
Dear Royce:
Sorry to take so long to respond.
The best dates for me during the 4/9 to 4/19 period would
be 4/12 to 4/14. As for hotels, they're all expensive, but
I assume that makes little difference to a big land baron
like you.
The Hay Adams is directly across from the White House and
very historic. The Mayflower and the Capitol Hilton are
within walking distance and downtown. The Four Seasons is
in Georgetown and convenient to that scene. All are in the
$120.00 a day for a double range.
Let me know as soon as possible when you're coming SO I can
arrange some tours.
One additional thought. If you could postpone so that you
could be there on the 19th, Queen Beatrix arrives at the
White House and that would be something Scottie would always
remember.
Call my Assistant, Shirley Moore, at 202-456-6475, and she'll
take care of the rest.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Royce Conner
Northern California Properties
1180 N. Main Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
DEAR MIKE
2/10/82
IT WAS A PLEASURE TO HEAR
FROM you - THOUGH / HAVE TO
ADMIT iT MADE ME A BIT NERVOUS
To GET A CALL FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE OPERATOR.
GIAD TC KNOW ALL IS WELL
WITH you AND EAROL AND THE
KIDS - EVEN THO IT is A
STRUGGLE TC GET BY ON 60k
A YEAR. N14, How TIMES CHANGE.
ARE 404 PLANNIN G TO MOVE BACK
TC CALIF. SOON? Seems / READ
THAT IN THE PALM SPRINGS PAPER
/ TALKED TC SCOTTIE, AND HE'D
BE DELIGHTED TC SEE WASH, DC,
AND 50 WOULD 1. HE'S OUT OF
SCHOOL 4/9 TO 4/19, HOWEVER, WE
COULD COME ANYTIME FOR A
FEW DAYS. LET ME KNOW WHEN
AND THE NAME of A WELL-LOCATED
HOTEL OR MOTEL AND I'LL HAVE
A TRAVEL AGENT HERE MAKE
THE APRANEEMENTS.
FINIS SAID HI AND BEST REGARDS,
AND HE'S DOING GREAT - HE'S IN
THE FEB.8 ISSUE of FORTUNE
MAG. - -THE OKIES ARE TAKING
OVER - BETTER SAVE YOUR
CONFEDERATE MONEY -
LET ME KNOW If YOURE COMING
TO CALIF. SOON - I'LL MEET you
SOMEWHERE FOR DINNER
REST REGARDS -
Roya
Just a note
from
Northern California Properties
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
TO:
JOHN MC CLAUGHRY
FROM:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
SUBJECT:
Publication of President's Addresses
President Reagan would be happy to write a forward
for your proposed project to publish some of his
important speeches since 1964.
However, since they are his words, I'm sure he'd
look more favorably on your suggestion if a portion
of any profit from the project could go to Citizens
For the Republic, or some other worthwhile program
which supports his philosophy.
Let me know how you care to proceed.
3-12-MICD 3-12-82 MKD
CC: James A. Baker
Edwin Meese
Fred Fielding
Lyn Nofziger
proceeds goingo C7TR?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR MARTIN ANDERSON
FROM:
JOHN McCLAUGHRY
SENIOR POLICY ADVISER
Immediately upon my departure from the White House
staff, I plan to compile and arrange for publication a collection
of the President's most important addresses over the years. I would
begin with his great television speech for Goldwater in 1964, and
include such masterpieces as his California inaugural, his address
on home ownership in 1968 (the first to which I had the honor of
contributing); his 1974 YAF address; the 1975 Chicago Executive
Club speech; and his more recent addresses through the historic
1982 State of the Union Message. Needless to say, I would select
addresses which illustrate the essentials of the President's philo-
sophy.
I intend to precede each address with a brief comment
putting the event in contemporary perspective, but mainly the
objective is to let the President's words speak for themselves.
I would appreciate it if you could secure for me, from
the President, an agreement in principle to sign a brief foreward
to this volume. With this agreement, it will be relatively easy for
me to secure a publisher.
Upon completion of the introduction, selection of the
addresses, and the comments with each speech, I would submit the
manuscript to the White House for final review and approval, along
with a draft of a brief foreward for the President's signature.
I have discussed this with Pete Hannaford, and have his
support and encouragement.
I would appreciate it if you could get me an affirmative
response as soon as possible, so that I may get this project in
print for widespread use this summer.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1982
Dear Robert:
Thanks for sending along The Journal Record
clipping by Jan Blake. I appreciate your
thoughtfulness and your kind words about my
piano playing.
I assume by now you have seen and heard the
President's position to not pursue deregulation
during this session.
Enclosed, please find our "official" comments.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Robert A. Hefner III
6441 N.W. Grand Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
February 6 ,1982
GHK
ROBERT A. HEFNER III
Dear Mihe
at the Phillips lovely dinner
It was good to see you again
was super, ! and with and
Party and as before your playing
made fr great ?
ford George's varies added it
Policy: there is a large and growing group
On my favoute pubject natural gas
who oppose any change to the NGPA.
inde pendent pricting Molucers (mostly Republicans
We believe its working well enough, with
Cas drilling al an all time high and
supplies the now in sufficient
sumplus to meet the durand even
would he political discunter. How could
that to take up the inve at this time
of this cold winter. We also believe
6441 the N.W. Grand oil Boulevard and Gas industry or your
Oklahoma City, OK 73116, U.S.A. 405/848-9800 Telex
796107 TWX 91083133152
adminis tration support legislation
Companies (me of the few currently
asking for more money for oil
profitable industries) while steel,
"Their autos and building unemployment is litterally on
is at post WWTT highs?
Legislation Fo decembinal old
gas prices would only come with
significant palitical COST to the
Administration and surely will
be accomptied with a" wind fall
regulation, price controlls fr another,
mofits tax (thus trading one type of
more taxes) while galvanising the
Democrats around an effective
issue that will he politically
divisive fr the Republicans!
minutes to read the enclosed information
I hope you kan Tabe a few
I The hope subject. we can Cordialle speak further oth
THE JOURNAL RECORD
Saturday - January 30, 1982
Hefner "Disappointed"
with Decontrol Claims
By Jan Blake
are unbearably high. when the President
Journal Record Staff Reporter
is asking us to pull together. our country
Robert A. Hefner III of Oklahoma
does not need and can not justify a sharp
City. chairman of the Independent Gas
increase in prices for old flowing gas.
Producers Committee, has expressed
In the rebuttal issued by Hefner. he
"disappointment" with "mistaken and
acknowledges a "growing split within
misleading criticism" of his position and
the industry and within the mem-
the position of the committee in opposing
bership." of the committee.
decontrol of old flowing gas and a wind-
"That split is not,`` he said. "as the
fall profits tax on natural gas.
statement (issued by Unsell) suggests.
Hefner is president and managing part-
between producers of deep gas and the
ner of the GHK Companies of Oklahoma
rest of the industry.
City.
"The split is increasingly between
His response followed a statement
those of us principally engaged in the
issued by Lloyd N. Unsell, executive vice
natural gas business who have a stake in
president of the Independent Petroleum
the health of natural gas markets and
Association of America, to the press
those. including the major energy com-
Thursday in Washington, D.C.
panies whose most important stake is in
Unsell takes the position in favor of
large reserves of old. associated gas.
immediate natural gas decontrol. In the
"If old gas is deregulated now.' said
conclusion of his statement, Unsell said:
Hefner. ''we will be adding to the forces
"Robert Hefner's rhetoric is directed at
feeding the high interest rates and infla-
preventing a perceived undermining of
tion which hurt natural gas producers."
his present and future economic invest-
Consumer prices would rise as a result
ment in deep drilling The problem is.
of deregulation of old gas. he said.
the stake of the public and of the nation is
"Our markets will shrink in competi-
not in Mr. Hefner's deep gas cause. but
tion with other fuels." he pointed out.
rather in the economic viability of
"Incentive prices. which in the next few
thousands of gas producers who need cco-
years will apply to all new gas. will dis-
nomic incentives to explore all of the
appear.
favorable sedimentary basins in America.
"And. as surely as the sun rises, gas
not just one or two..."
producers will be saddled with a so-called
Over the past several months. Hefner
windfall profits tax. A windfall tax will
has been lobbying across America against
deplete our resources for new explora-
the immediate decontrol of natural gas.
tion. and preserve in the tax code a regula-
"At a time when the economy of our
tory structure which. under NGPA. is
country is in trouble," said Hefner.
scheduled to end.
"when the steel, auto and housing indus-
The debate, between the two sides,
tries are on their knees, when more people
according to Hefner, is not a debate of
are out of work than at any other time
shallow gas vs. deep gas.
since World War II, when interest rates
"Fifteen thousand gas producing com-
panies,' he said, "are not 'locked into a
regulatory system that defies explana-
tion.' In fact. shallow gas drilling during
1981 reached the highest level ever re-
corded in the history of the industry.
"The 10 Kansas producers. who wrote
Sen. Robert Dole this month opposing
further legislation at this time, are shal-
low gas producers. So are many of the
over 50 independent producers from
Louisiana and elsewhere who two weeks
ago wrote the President urging continued
opposition to a windfall tax and strongly
recommending against natural gas leg-
islation at this time.
"And so am I." said Hefner. "as an
explorationist whose production is di-
vided almost 50/50 between shallow and
deep."
GHK
The GHK Companies
6441 W Grand Bouiev and klahoma City, tass OK 73116 405/848-9800 Telex 796107 TWX 9108313152
December 29, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR
FROM:
SUBJECT:
National Gas Policy
For the following reasons it is important that the
Administration avoid a major battle over natural gas deregu-
lation in 1982:
Total decontrol conflicts directly the highest
domestic priority -- stabilizing and strengthening
the economy. Even phased decontrol of all natural
gas has a negative impact on each of the crucial
economic indicators (employment, productivity,
economic output, inflation and interest rates)
over the next three years.
Opponents of the Reagan economic program would be
delighted with the chance to shift public attention
from urgently needed spending cuts to natural gas
decontrol.
Inevitable linkage of total decontrol to a windfall
profits or severance tax on gas would seriously hinder
efforts to maintain Congressional budget discipline.
Natural gas producers are already divided on the
question of whether to decontrol old, flowing gas.
Faced with the threat of a significant new tax, many --
if not most -- producers will opt for current law.
An emotional battle over old gas decontrol is likely
to harm Republican mid-term election chances not only
in the Northeast and Midwest, but also in the Far West
and South.
It is highly unlikely that the Administration could remain
silent on natural gas decontrol throughout 1982 since producer
trade associations are determined to press for Congressional action
with or without Administration support. However, the timing,
content and presentation of the Administration's recommendations
can be carefully tailored to minimize potential harm to the
President's highest priority goals. For example:
- 2 -
Any Administration announcement on natural gas policy
should be deferred until well after the Congressional
budget process is underway. Members of Congress should
be made to understand that a natural gas tax is not a
viable alternative to necessary budget cuts.
In place of a White House announcement, the Secretary
of Energy should present the Administration's position
on the decontrol issue during Congressional testimony
in late March or April. The President's personal pres-
tige, and the limited time and resources of the White
House, should not be committed to this issue.
No specific bill should be submitted. In place of
detailed legislative language, the Administration should
follow an approach like that used for the Clean Air Act
(articulation of general principles as a framework for
Congressional consideration).
The Secretary of Energy's testimony should be framed to
communicate clearly the following central points:
To reaffirm the Administration's commitment to end
excessive federal intervention in the energy industry
as quickly as possible.
To take credit for actions already initiated to reduce
federal involvement in the natural gas industry such
as easing of FERC rules governing high risk/high cost
gas prices and reforming regulations affecting end use
of natural gas.
To underscore the President's adamant opposition to
any windfall profits or severance tax on natural gas.
To declare the Administration's support for immediate
deregulation of natural gas discovered after January 1, 1982,
and for repeal of existing authority to reimpose price
controls on new natural gas after 1985.
To acknowledge -- despite the desirability of a completely
free market -- the economic costs of old gas decontrol,
and to defer a specific legislative recommendation on
pre-1977 gas until after the economic recovery is under-
way.
To urge Congress to remove remaining demand constraints
on natural gas including incremental pricing and the
Fuel Use Act.
- 3 -
In the context of such a statement, the Secretary could
candidly discuss the Energy Department's findings concerning
the potential benefits and costs of total decontrol. While
remaining firmly committed to the principle of full deregulation,
the Secretary could emphasize the need to devote paramount
priority to the economic recovery.
If such an approach were adopted, there would be predictable
complaints from Washington-based industry trade association repre-
sentatives. It is almost equally certain that natural gas decontrol
would fade as a potentially serious obstacle to other more important
Administration economic and political objectives.
Most natural gas producers understand that total decontrol
legislation cannot be enacted in 1982 except in return for a
stiff windfall profits or severance tax on gas. Many are worried
not only about the impact of new windfall tax but, more importantly,
about the potential loss of existing investment incentives (intangible
drilling costs and the depletion allowance) as the price for old
gas decontrol. For this reason, a growing number of producers
are already mobilizing to advocate the retention of existing law.
Virtually all producers perceive a strong stake in the success of
the President's economic program and all but the least responsible
would understand the need to temper their immediate demands to help
make sure it is given a chance to work. Immediate deregulation of
newly discovered gas only, would disarm decontrol critics since the
initial cost is minimal and the cost over time directly linked to
demonstrable consumer gains in the form of enhanced energy supplies.