Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
December 14, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 25, 1969
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80B01439R000500110024-1.pdf135.14 KB
Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80B01439R00050011001=1-..,. MEMORANDUM FOI.: Deputy Director for Intelligence; SUBJECT . Ambassador Korry's Criticism of OER's Work on Chile 1. The attached letter from Ambassador Korry is in response to my transmission to him of our detailed reports on Chile and to the visit of our senior T.-)tin American economist to Chile (copy attached). As usuti.l, Ambassador + y 4 sLorry's comments are Inaccurate and intemperate. I bring? to ..Y,.',,. atetion ones becauE y codes have gone to Assistant Secretary Charles Meyer and to Tom Hughes. Unless you so dir^r- ec -+ do ,not n e'n o` resp"` on"c~- o " in" mssa ar` Korry. 2. We do not believe the facts support his charge that our report, The Chilean Economy: Trends Under Frei and Prospects for 1969-70," is "biased" and "tendentious," and that we were unwilling to listen to other points of view during its preparation. 'The re t i , in augmented form, the OER cri Chile. The HIE was thoroughly debated by the USIB representatives before the Board of National Estimates and no specific differences emerged until State took a footnote to the estimate on the grounds that it gave too pessimistic an impression of the Chilean situation. You will recall that Ambassador Korry wrote a lengthy critique of the NIE, including a large number of specific criticisms of the economic part. We prepared a detailed rebuttal of Korry's points which was sent to the Director as an attachment to Hugh Cunningham's memorandum and which we passed informally to a few working level analysts in CIA, and in State and DIA. 3. In preparing the memorandum for formal publication we leaned over backward to make certain that all important positive aspects of the Chilean scene were properly covered and that the paper was as well balanced as possible. State reporting from Santiago has varied widely in tone, ranging from highly optimistic when Korry was evaluating the year's achievements to very pessimistic when he was trying to justify some part of the aid program. 25X1A9a 4. The allegation that was unwilling to discuss the Embassy's objections to our memorandum during his trip to GFf^$fk' ipv 4LON Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RD 00500110024-1 DDI*IL 69 Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80BO1439R000500110024-1 25X1A9a 3aantiago in early May is simply untrue. Vern visited several countries during his trip but had set aside three work days plus a weekend in Santiago in the hope of having productive discussions with Korry and his staff. Korry and Weintraub, the number one economist, were away. Vern did talk with John Sprott, Chief of the Embassy Economic Section, for about one and a half hours but Mr. Sprott apparently was unwilling to go very deeply into the issues. He had not read our memorandum prior to arrival, although he did read it before their discussion. Moreover, Vern gained the distinct impression that the Embassy staff did not particularly want to exchange views with us and was afraid of giving their honest opinions because of Korry's domination. 25X1A9a 5. Unfortunately, _ did tell Sprott that we had written an informal rebuttal of Korry's critique of the NIE, although he does not remember doing so. In any event, in the QER reports which I forwarded to him, the Ambassador received our fully analyzed response to his position. Hence, his comment that he has not received a copy of our rebuttal is technically correct but factually wrong. 25X1 A EDWARD L. ALLEN Director Economic Research Attachments: (2) 1. Amb. E. M. Korry's letter to E. L. Allen, dated 13 Jun 69 2. E. L. Allen's letter to Amb. Korry, dated 17 Apr 69 Approved For Release 2001 80B01439R000500110024-1