Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

404. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Tunisia¹

Washington, April 14, 1959—7:23 p.m.

926. Tunis 1298 and 1334.² You may respond to Ladgham’s inquiry reported in reftel along following lines:

1. As requested by Ladgham US is prepared work with GOT for purpose exploring suitable terms for assisting GOT in acquiring military equipment. In doing so, however, it will be necessary determine at outset the general order of magnitude and time phasing of such requirements since ability of US to agree to a specific arrangement regarding the terms and conditions of military loan transactions is directly related and in large measure dependent upon the likely availability of funds for this purpose from the limited resources appropriated to meet worldwide requirements of military assistance programs. It will not be possible to obtain agreement within US Government concerning extent of financial assistance which can be offered nor the manner and time period of repayment of loan transactions without first being in a position to advise the interested agencies of the magnitude and timing of the financial requirements involved.

2. In view foregoing, determination exact nature credit terms USG can offer impossible in absence following information:

a. The equipment which GOT wishes acquire from US under a deferred payment arrangement, in terms of major types or categories and in amounts desired.

b. An indication of desired delivery dates in terms of the specific items of equipment involved.

c. An indication from the GOT of the amount it is in a position to have available annually over what period of time for the purpose of defraying cost of the desired purchases.

3. In addition soliciting above information you should suggest in spirit of friendliness that in long-range interest of GOT and thus in mutual interest of US and GOT, it would seem highly advisable keep request as limited in size as it deems consistent with meeting its highest priority requirements. Experience has demonstrated that large military establishments can create significant drain on limited economic resources and given GOT aspirations for economic development obviously undesirable to take action inconsistent with that long-range objective.

4. FYI. Until some order of magnitude and time phasing of the financial requirement and US ability to meet it are determined considered extremely dangerous from standpoint of long-term relations with GOT to agree in principle that credit assistance of an unknown amount will be possible. If it develops that amounts required to meet GOT desires are in minor order of magnitude (e.g., FY 59 program $1.3 million) it should be possible accede to terms more liberal than three years previously offered. However, agreement to credit terms now only to find later that GOT has in mind much larger and more ambitious program with which US unable comply would be highly undesirable. You should be aware that there is no funding provision in FY 59 for possible GOT requirement and extreme shortage in FY 60 will make it difficult to adjust worldwide to cover even small amounts. It is recognized that at this point in time it may prove difficult for GOT to reach judgments with respect to items 2. a. and 2. b. above and assistance in the form of a small US survey team along lines described Tunis 1334 would seem highly desirable. We nevertheless agree with your concern paragraph one item (A) Embtel 1334 and believe you should convey in manner you deem most appropriate sense of limitations on any US effort which may subsequently be forthcoming, along lines of immediately preceding sentences.³

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 772.56/3–3159. Secret. Drafted by Athol H. Ellis, Office of the Special Assistant for Mutual Security Coordination; cleared by Nes, L. Dean Brown, Weiss, Bell, and OSD/ISA; and approved and signed for Herter by Porter. Repeated to London and Paris.
2. Telegram 1298, March 31, reported Ladgham had clarified several points regarding Tunisia’s desire to obtain arms and equipment for an army of 20,000 men and to acquire these arms on credit paid in dinars over 10 years. (Ibid.) Telegram 1334, April 10, noted Ladgham’s remarks did not mean Tunisia accepted a U.S. survey team; Ambassador Jones felt there could be no survey team unless the United States gave Tunisia favorable credit terms. It also reported that Tunisia was obtaining arms from Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany. (Ibid., 772.56/4–1059)
3. Telegram 1364 from Tunis, April 20, reported Ambassador Jones conveyed this information to Ladgham on April 17 and gave him an informal memorandum outlining the principal points. (Ibid., 772.56/4–2059) On April 21, Ladgham gave Jones a memorandum requesting that three U.S. technicians fluent in French come to Tunis to examine the kinds of matériel the Tunisian Army required and the methods Tunisia could use to pay for it. These conversations would receive no publicity. He also gave Jones two lists of arms and vehicles needed. (Telegram 1372 from Tunis, April 22; ibid., 772.56/4–2959) Copies of the memorandum and lists were enclosed with despatch 774 from Tunis, April 23. (Ibid., 772.56/4–2359)