811.34553B/7–2444: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Portugal (Norweb)
2091. Your 2279, July 24, 5 p.m.6 The Department is unaware of any change in its view that use and control of Santa Maria should be kept separate from staff talks and therefore does not understand your reference to “recent insistence”. Furthermore no inconsistency is perceived between this attitude and the language of paragraph 4 of the CCS paper referred to. If “Salazar has made it clear that he expects [Page 62] use and control of Santa Maria to form a part of staff talks” it would seem the more important for us to make it clear to him that both we and the British have recognized definitely that questions relating to Santa Maria should be negotiated directly between the United States and Portugal (your 1581, May 24, 4 p.m., and London’s 2058, March 14, 6 p.m.7 which was repeated to you). In other words since this matter already has been cleared with the British we have no wish to reopen it with the British in staff talks or otherwise.
Salazar may have in mind postponing a final decision as long as possible while he observes unfolding international events. He may also have in mind injecting Santa Maria into staff conversations for the purpose of recording the importance of Portugal’s contribution to the prosecution of the war in the Pacific. If the latter is one of his preoccupations (and for your private information we are led by Bianchi to believe it may be) it would not appear necessary to point up Portuguese contribution in this way and we feel that the staff conversations should be conducted with an exclusive view to the operation contemplated, without minimizing in any way our recognition of the importance of Santa Maria. The language of paragraph 4 of the CCS paper furnishes ample acknowledgment and recognition and should be expected, the Department considers, to influence Salazar to “grant without further delay” the satisfaction we should like to have respecting use and control. This paragraph 4 presumably has been conveyed to Salazar, but if it has not been it should be communicated now. It may have been omitted from the joint presentation on July 7 (your 2109, July 7, 7 p.m.) for the reason that it had been understood with the British Embassy here that we did not wish the British to discuss Santa Maria. The Department did not intend that paragraph 4 was to be withheld from Salazar and this should now be communicated (if it has not been) by you independently. Beyond taking this action and maintaining our position, the Department considers that it might be a mistake to belabor the point of use and control unduly at this stage when we are about to proceed with despatch of equipment and personnel and with construction (Department’s 2068, July 24, 11 a.m.8).
The Department has received your 2300, July 25, 8 p.m., with satisfaction and trusts you will have expressed its gratification to Salazar.