24. Memorandum From the Deputy Director of the Office of Regional American Affairs (Jamison) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Holland)1
SUBJECT
- Defense Views on Latin American Military Assistance.
The principal purpose of our letter of November 15, to which the attached is a reply,2 was to determine Defense’s position on the military justification of adding to the Latin American military forces which have or are receiving U.S. grant aid, so that we might determine this Department’s position on the question of whether any such additions should be made or whether our view should be that the existing program should gradually be closed out through the provision of maintenance and spare parts. In the letter of April 1, 1955 we proposed that Defense consider grant aid to create and maintain combat engineering battalions.
The only views contained in this letter which imply an increase in the forces being aided under the program are those related to:
- (1)
-
Argentina.
The JCS consider it “militarily desirable to include Argentina in a more active role in plans for Western Hemisphere defense”, and, if we agree, recommend exploratory talks with Argentina, to be followed, presumably, by a survey to make detailed recommendations on the Argentine force objectives for hemisphere defense. Whatever the results of such a survey, however, they consider that any “initial program should be on an austere basis”. They do not offer an approximate dollar figure, but it is obvious that they do not contemplate much grant aid for Argentina, particularly since it is stated that Argentina should be encouraged to purchase end items.
- (2)
-
Brazil.
Brazilian forces now receiving grant aid to be augmented by “one airborne battalion combat team and one transport squadron”, the cost of the latter apparently to be borne entirely by Brazil. Although no figure is given, this would mean a relatively small increase in grant aid to Brazil.
- (3)
-
Cuba.
The JCS recommend implementation of a relatively small increase for Cuba in support of one infantry battalion, one fighter bomber squadron and one naval reconnaissance squadron previously [Page 226] recommended by them. Since the Cubans already possess much of the basic equipment required for such units, this involves a relatively small sum.
No basis is found for increases in support to Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala or Peru. The question of bringing Paraguay into the program and the closely related question of creating combat engineering battalions in certain Latin American countries are being referred to the JCS for study. With reference to Guatemala, the intimation in our April 1 letter that Section 401 of the Mutual Security Act might be used to provide grant aid in addition to that required for the infantry battalion already approved is rejected, for the reason that “additional grant military assistance to Guatemala is unwarranted from a military point of view”. Since Section 401 requires that the President find that assistance is important to the security of the United States and not necessarily that it is warranted from a military point of view, the Defense position is not entirely pertinent.
It seems to me that the recommendations in this letter boil down to:
- (a)
- That consideration be given to the initiation of conversations with Argentina aimed at bringing that government into closer alignment with the United States by working out with it a more active role in plans for hemisphere defense. Presumably whatever “Argentine force objectives” might be recommended would involve Argentina’s agreeing to commit certain units to hemisphere defense. The only sweetening we might offer, and then only “after consideration of world-wide MDAP commitments”, would be “austere” grant aid for modernization and standardization.
- (b)
- Relatively slight increases in grant aid programs for Brazil and Cuba.
- (c)
- Latin Americans to be encouraged to modernize their forces, including MDAP forces, by purchase of equipment in the United States, such purchase to be facilitated by “greater flexibility in the provision of military assistance on extended terms of repayment.” (Underscoring supplied).3
This certainly adds up to what Defense refers to as an “austere” basis for the Latin American grant aid program.
It is recommended that:
- (1)
- We concur in the proposed increases for Brazil and Cuba, on the basis that funds are available or will be obtained from Congress. The current request to Congress for grant aid funds should include an amount adequate to cover these items plus the usual maintenance costs.
- (2)
- We do not agree with the extension of long-term credit as a means of encouraging Latin American countries to purchase equipment in the United States, because extending such long-term credit [Page 227] reduces Latin American capacity to borrow for sound economic development projects and for other reasons with which you are familiar. The improvement of Latin American armed forces required for hemisphere defense should be accomplished by their purchases for cash, on credit terms of not more than three years, or by grant aid.
- (3)
- We keep prodding Defense to come up with a definitive view on the combat engineering battalion problem.
- (4)
- We are sending to Ambassador Nufer the text of that portion of the Defense letter relating to Argentina, with a request for his views as to whether it offers a satisfactory basis to initiate the exploratory talks referred to. His attached letter4 responding to a preliminary suggestion for conversations indicates that he feels that the amount of aid offered to Argentina should not be as small as that suggested in the Defense letter. We should await his views before deciding on the next step.