810.20 Defense/3–2747
The Secretary of War (Patterson) to the Acting Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: I have read with great interest your letter of 19 March and the interim report on the financial implications of participation [Page 107] by Latin American countries in the Inter-American Military Cooperation Program. As I understand it, the major points of your study are, first, that passage of the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act is economically hazardous because you imply it would require the Latin American countries to expend greater sums than they can afford for the purchase of United States arms and equipment, and, second, that denial by the United States of such assistance to Latin American countries would thereby prevent large expenditures on their part for military purposes.
As to your first point, I have no thought of questioning the estimate of the economic capabilities of the various South American countries, which is contained in the report accompanying your letter. On the other hand, I am convinced that the conclusions drawn from the report are not necessarily germane to the problem. I am in complete agreement with the United States position on regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces throughout the world, Latin America and the United States included, a position which affirms the desirability of reducing the economic burdens borne by all peoples in their efforts to maintain armed forces by reducing the scale of armaments and armed forces. There can be no objection to such a principle. However, I am certain you will agree that implementing such a principle will be a long-term, difficult procedure and that the ceilings on armaments likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future would be above any actually implemented program of Western Hemisphere cooperation and standardization.
I am certainly no more desirous than you are of adding to the economic burdens of Latin American countries, but I simply cannot believe that enactment of the proposed legislation will have such a tendency. To me the problem of controlling the cost of military cooperation is entirely one of good judgment on the part of the United States in implementing the program and bears no relation whatever to whether we should obtain authority to engage therein. Even after passage of the Act, the State Department will continue to control the implementation of the program and may, in its discretion, reduce or altogether deny United States military assistance to any American Republic. Nevertheless, I submit that however much the State Department may subsequently reduce the amount and scope of United States assistance, we should be far better off to have authority to carry out that part of the program which appears practicable to the Secretary of State, than to have no legislative authority whatever.
Nor can I agree with the second point set forth in your letter that if the United States declines to provide military equipment to the Latin American Republics, these nations will forego the purchase of military equipment and thereby eliminate substantial expenses now [Page 108] included in their budgets. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that, subject to any future agreements which may limit or regulate armaments, the majority of the sovereign states of the Western Hemisphere will insist upon maintaining such military establishments as they, not we, feel they require and which they, not we, feel they can support financially.
Thus, the question we face in Latin America is not, “Shall they have arms?” The basic question which is the vital crux of the whole subject is, “Shall they have United States or foreign arms?”
In connection with this serious question, I feel obliged to re-emphasize the advantage to hemisphere security of standardizing the military establishments of the American Republics as to equipment, training and organization. Of these, the provision of United States equipment is the keystone since United States methods of training and organization must inevitably follow its adoption along with the far-reaching concomitant benefits of permanent United States military missions and the continued flow of Latin American officers through our service schools. Thus will our ideals and ways of life be nurtured in Latin America, to the eventual exclusion of totalitarianism and other foreign ideologies. Thus only can we maintain the security of our southern flank.
Your letter made no mention of Canada. I should point out that the provisions of the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act apply to Canada as well as to any other American state. In the absence of separate legislation to the same end, passage of this Act is essential to achieve the objective sought in the recent United States-Canadian agreement on standardization of arms, training and organization.17 With respect to Canada, these matters are considered to be vital to the security of the United States.
In the final analysis, I feel very strongly that this legislation is a preventive measure of the highest importance. It is designed to prevent the very type of crisis which has arisen in Turkey and Greece where we are now desperately attempting to lock the stable door while the horse is almost in process of being stolen. In Latin America, we must lock the stable door before the danger ever arises. Prevention is relatively cheap; crises are exorbitantly expensive in money, in time, and often in blood.
Last year, despite the eloquent supporting testimony of Secretary of State Byrnes, the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act died in the last-minute jam of legislation of the 79th Congress. In accordance [Page 109] with our discussion of 12 March 1947,18 I urge that the Secretary be approached without delay for a decision as to whether or not the Act will be reintroduced in the 80th Congress. Strongly as I favor the enactment of this legislation, I am even stronger in my conviction that an early decision is required.
Sincerely yours,
- For a Department press release on this agreement dated February 12, 1947, entitled “U.S.–Canadian Permanent Joint Board on Defense To Continue Collaboration for Security Purposes”, see Department of State Bulletin, February 23, 1947, p. 361; for documentation on this subject, see volume iii .↩
- See memorandum dated March 12, p. 104.↩