23. Letter From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Davis) to the Secretary of State 1
Dear Mr. Secretary: This letter is in reply to letters of 15 November 19542 and 1 April 1955 from your Department relating to the size and scope of the program of grant military assistance planned for Latin American countries during the next fiscal year.
In connection with the letter of 15 November 1954, the comments and recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are approved and reflected in the discussion below.
Argentina
- a.
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that it is militarily desirable to include Argentina in a more active role in plans for Western Hemisphere defense. Argentina occupies a strategic position with respect to the Straits of Magellan, particularly in the event of any closure of the Panama Canal. It also occupies a position of leadership among the South American countries and possesses a sizeable military establishment of its own. A military alignment with Argentina could contribute to hemispheric solidarity and could further the U.S. objectives of insuring the integrity of Latin America and the availability of raw materials therefrom, with a minimum employment of U.S. forces.
- b.
- If, after consideration of world-wide MDAP commitments, the initiation of an aid program with Argentina is considered appropriate, the initial program should be on an austere basis. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that an aid program should in large part be based on the modernization and standardization of the Argentine military establishment. Equipment should be programmed on a long-term [Page 222] selective basis and Argentina should be encouraged to purchase end items under reimbursable aid.
- c.
- Should the State Department consider exploratory talks to be feasible and politically expedient at this time, it is recommended that a U.S. military survey be conducted in order to make detailed recommendations on the Argentine force objectives for hemisphere defense.
Brazil
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that the Brazilian forces to be supported under the MDA Program be augmented at this time by the addition of one airborne battalion combat team and one transport squadron. These forces will be entered in hemisphere defense force objectives. Support of the transport squadron will be conditioned upon Brazil’s purchase of the aircraft, the rehabilitation thereof and the purchase of the initial increment of one year’s spare parts. The remaining forces recommended for Brazil by the Joint Brazil-U.S. Military Commission will be considered in the next revision of hemisphere defense force objectives.
Colombia
Based upon the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense approved additional grant aid for Colombia, on 20 October 1954, in order to permit the Colombian infantry battalion to retain its U.S. furnished equipment. The battalion has been entered in hemisphere defense force objectives for Colombia. Annex “A” of the Bilateral Military Plan between the Government of Colombia and the U.S. was amended on 5 November 1954, to include the infantry battalion. (Copy of amendment is attached.)3 However, it is understood by Colombia that the United States is under no obligation to provide any support for the battalion beyond the equipment and matériel transferred with the Colombian unit from Korea to Colombia. At this time there is no Western Hemisphere defense requirement for additional forces from Colombia.
Cuba
In a letter dated 27 December 1954 from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), addressed to the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Mutual Security Affairs, the Department of State was advised of the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved by this office, with respect to Cuba.4 From a military point of view, the [Page 223] Joint Chiefs of Staff reaffirm their position with respect to Cuba. Accordingly, the Department of Defense recommends that the Department of State approach the Government of Cuba to arrange for initiation of negotiations on amendment of the Bilateral Military Plan.
Ecuador
No additional forces under MDAP grant aid are contemplated at this time. To date, Ecuador has evidenced little capacity or future potential for manning and maintaining the MDAP units in being. There is increasing evidence that Ecuador is orienting itself toward the United States, and this trend should be encouraged by continued support of the MDAP units already there, and by continued quotas in U.S. Service Schools. It is considered desirable that Ecuador be furnished U.S. equipment on the same credit terms as offered Peru.
Peru
No additional units under MDAP are contemplated for Peru. MDAP forces in being should continue to be supported and quotas in U.S. Service Schools maintained. Peru is gradually modernizing her forces and furthering U.S. objectives of standardization by the purchase of end items in the United States.
Guatemala
In a letter dated 12 January 1955, the Department of State was advised of the views expressed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by this office,5 that; a) political considerations will dictate the initiation of a Military Assistance Program for Guatemala as in the case of Honduras and Nicaragua; b) the specific tasks which Guatemala could perform in furtherance of a Western Hemisphere defense role would be comparable to those assigned Nicaragua and Honduras, and hence of negligible value; and c) the Department of State may wish to consider initiating a request that the President find that country eligible for grant military assistance under the provisions of Section 105(b)(4) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954. It is understood that this matter is under consideration by your Department. Your Department’s letter of 1 April 1955 concerning Guatemala states that “… any grant assistance in addition to that agreed upon for an infantry battalion in the hemisphere defense program should be established by a Presidential finding, in accordance with Section 401 of the Mutual Security Act, that the provision of such assistance is important to the security of the United [Page 224] States . . . .”6 The Department of Defense strongly opposed the use of Section 401 on the basis that additional grant military assistance to Guatemala is unwarranted from a military point of view.
Paraguay
Pursuant to a Department of State letter of 18 February 19557 on the subject of military assistance to Paraguay, the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been sought with regard to the desirability of developing a hemisphere defense task for Paraguay under the provisions of a bilateral military assistance agreement. A reply on this matter is expected to be forthcoming in the near future.
With respect to developing combat engineering battalions in certain Latin American countries, as outlined in the final paragraph of the 1 April 1955 letter from your Department, the views of this Department on additional assistance to Colombia and Guatemala are expressed above. However, the general question of supporting this type of unit in Latin American countries is being referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for comment.
As a general comment, the MDAP Grant Aid Program for Latin America should be continued on an austere basis. Latin American countries should continue to be encouraged to modernize their forces, including MDAP forces, by the purchase of equipment in the United States. To this end, suitable credit terms to the extent permitted by law should be offered in order to compete effectively with terms offered by other nations. The Department of Defense is currently considering modifications to existing legislation which would provide greater flexibility in the provision of military assistance on extended terms of repayment.
Vice Admiral U.S.N.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 720.5–MSP/4–2055. Secret.↩
- See footnote 2, Document 21.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 737.5–MSP/12–2754)↩
- See vol. vii, Document 14.↩
- Ellipses within quotation marks are in the source text.↩
- Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 734.5–MSP/1–2155)↩