Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

SWNNC Files³

Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of State

top secret
SWNCC 38/25

[Washington,] 7 November 1945.

Over-all Examination of U.S. Requirements for Military Bases and Rights⁴

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, in response to the suggestion of the Department of State in its letter to the Secretaries of War and the Navy dated 7 July 1945 (SWNCC 38/11—JCS 570/24),⁵ have completed an over-all examination of U.S. requirements for military bases and base rights outside the continental limits of the United States.

Appended hereto is a list of those bases and base sites for which diplomatic negotiations in the near future will be required in order to obtain the desired rights, together with appropriate information regarding each of the bases. This division of areas into essential and required is a general indication of the suggested priority for negotiations to obtain the indicated rights. It is appreciated that in practice the sequence of negotiations may be affected by other considerations. Failure to obtain a base listed in a higher category may require the reclassification of a base listed in a lower category.

In view of the political complications and difficulties involved in maintaining U.S. personnel and installations in foreign territory in peacetime and because of the elements of cost and manpower, it is believed that the State Department should give serious consideration to arrangements by which other nations undertake the load of maintaining required installations in certain areas in return for payment in one form or another by the United States.

In any instances where the State Department considers that installations should be maintained by other nations the matter should be referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for approval before final negotiations with respect thereto. The provisions of this paragraph will not apply to primary bases or primary base areas.

In connection with the appended list the following factors should be noted:

a. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that the comprehensive base system which will result from obtaining the desired rights is not only an inescapable requirement for United States security in the event of a failure of the United Nations Organization to preserve world peace, but that the provision of this system of bases will contribute materially to the effectiveness of that organization in maintaining peace throughout the world. It is anticipated that in drafting the contemplated agreement for furnishing military facilities to the Security Council, these bases, along with existing and projected ones of all member nations, would be considered in determining the availability of bases for carrying out such enforcement measures as may be directed by the Security Council.

b. The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that no action is required in the case of bases now under lease to the U.S. as a result of transfer of U.S. destroyers to the Government of the United Kingdom.⁶ In the case of bases projected for the Philippine Islands no immediate action is required because of current U.S.-Philippine agreements.⁷

c. [Here follow views on the Japanese Mandated Islands and Central Pacific Islands detached from Japan.]⁸

d. In order to operate the U.S. system of bases and to provide alternate routes for movement of U.S. aircraft, the United States should have rights for air transit and technical stop at certain non-United States air bases and air base sites. Locations at which such rights may be desired are not included in the enclosed list but will be submitted at a later date in respect to areas where negotiations with other countries will be required.

e. The Joint Chiefs of Staff assume that Joint rights to numerous airfields in South America will be obtained by negotiations in implementation of the Act of Chapultepec⁹ and the joint United States-Brazil Agreement.¹⁰

f. The Joint Chiefs of Staff assume that military base rights and air transit privileges required in Canada will be obtained in extension of present U.S.-Canadian agreements or through a satisfactory substitute therefor.¹¹

The enclosed list of base areas and of sites at which rights for air transit privileges are required is forwarded to the Secretary of State for his information and guidance and for such use as he may require in negotiations with countries concerned. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have, in the past, furnished the Department of State with specific military requirements for certain bases. Further details regarding specific bases and base sites and elaboration of the rights desired, including rights to install, maintain, operate and control aids to navigation, communications facilities and weather and warning stations, together with other pertinent information will be forthcoming.

In approving the above conclusions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee agreed that the attached list is subject to revision by the addition of Formosa if a pending study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff concludes that it should be included in the list of required bases.

The State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee also noted that:

“On October 4, 1945, the Secretary of the Navy addressed a letter to the Secretary of State (SWNCC 38/20)¹² in which he listed locations in areas to which other powers claim sovereign or mandatory rights at which rights for naval bases and/or naval air bases are desired. The list contained in that letter is identical with the attached list except as follows:

(1) Rabaul and Formosa are included in the Secretary of the Navy’s letter but not in the attached list. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are currently reconsidering inclusion of these two areas.

(2) Transit rights in the Marquesas (Nuka Hiva) and at Aitutaki were included in the Secretary of the Navy’s letter but not in the attached list. Presumably these two locations will be included in a subsequent statement by the Joint Chiefs of Staff relative to rights of air transit and technical stop.

(3) In the Secretary of the Navy’s letter the maximum rights desired at Manus and at Ascension were listed as “exclusive”. In the attached list the maximum is listed as “joint”. The latter should be considered as controlling.

(4) Certain bases listed by the Secretary of the Navy’s letter are listed in the attached list only for air use. This is consistent since the only naval use at these locations is for naval air purposes.”

Appendix

		Rights
Base	Sovereignty	Max.	Min.	Use
1. Essential:
Galapagos Is.	Ecuador	Exclusive*	Joint	Naval and Air
Manus	Aus. Man.	Joint†	Joint	Naval and Air
Iceland		Exclusive	Joint	Naval and Air
Panama Republic (airfields)		Exclusive	Joint	Air
Canton	U.S.-British	Exclusive	Exclusive	Naval and Air
Greenland	Denmark	Exclusive	Joint	Naval and Air
Azores Is.	Portugal	Joint	Participating‡	Naval and Air
Cape Verde Is.	Portugal	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Ascension Is.	British	Joint	Joint	Air
2. Required: (If reasonably obtainable by negotiations, but not absolutely essential to the base system.)
Tarawa	British	Joint	Joint	Naval and Air
Funafuti	Disputed U.S.-British	Exclusive	Joint	Naval and Air
Talara	Peru	Joint	Participating	Air
Canary Is.	Spain	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Morotai	Dutch	Joint	Participating	Air
Biak	Dutch	Joint	Participating	Air
Guadalcanal-Tulagi	British	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Espiritu Santo	French-British	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Noumea	French	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Viti Levu	British	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Christmas	U.S.–British	Exclusive	Exclusive	Air
Bora Bora	French	Joint	Joint	Naval
Clipperton	French	Exclusive	Joint	Air
Edmonton–Whitehorse route to Alaska	Canada	Joint	Joint	Air
Fort Chimo–	Canada	Joint	Joint	Air
Frobisher Bay route to Greenland Goose Bay	Newfoundland	Joint	Participating	Air
Upolu	New Zealand	Joint	Participating	Air
Salinas	Ecuador	Joint	Participating	Air
Batista Field	Cuba	Joint	Participating	Air
St. Julian-Lafe	Cuba	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Curacao	Dutch	Joint	Participating	Air
Surinam	Dutch	Joint	Participating	Air
Casablanca-Port Lyautey		Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Dakar	French	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Monrovia	Liberia	Joint	Participating	Naval and Air
Formosa13	China	Exclusive	Joint	Naval aid Air

The above list is predicated on the following assumptions:

a. [Here follows comment on the Japanese Mandated Islands and Central Pacific Islands detached from Japan.]

b. Base rights in the Philippines will be as required by U.S.

c. Additional rights in Canada will result from agreements under the Joint Canadian-U.S. Basic Defense Plan.

d. Eights in Mexico, Central and South America will be obtained as required in implementation of the Act of Chapultepec.

3. Lot 52M45, the files of the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee located in the National Archives under the administration of the Department of State. The State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee was the principal inter-departmental organization concerned with the coordination of foreign and military policies in 1946. Documentation regarding the establishment of SWNCC is printed in Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, pp. 1466–1470. In 1946, the Department of State was initially represented on the committee by James C. Dunn, Assistant Secretary for European, Far Eastern, Near Eastern, and African Affairs; representing Mr. Dunn in his absence was H. Freeman Matthews, the Director of the Office of European Affairs. After the creation of the office of Assistant Secretary for Occupied Areas in April, Assistant Secretary John H. Hilldring became State representative. The War Department was represented by Assistant Secretary of War Howard C. Petersen, the Navy Department by Under Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan.

   SWNCC held its first meeting on December 19, 1944, and met twice more in that year, approving a substantive policy paper on December 29. In 1945, SWNCC held 31 meetings and initiated 241 policy paper series. In 1946, SWNCC met 20 times, continued or completed the series begun in 1945, and commenced work on 104 additional series. In 1946, SWNCC was vitally concerned with problems relating to the occupation of Germany and Japan, but dealt with policy coordination on a broad variety of matters. SWNCC subcommittees with the regional purview and subcommittees created for the consideration of specific questions were active. In addition to its policy formulation role, SWNCC repeatedly served as the liaison unit through which the Department of State requested and received military estimates on matters related to foreign policy.

   In Foreign Relations volumes for 1945 and 1946, SWNCC documentation is presented according to subject in bilateral and general compilations. For additional information on the establishment, organization, and functions of SWNCC, see “The State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee,” by Harold W. Moseley, Colonel Charles W. McCarthy, and Commander Alvin F. Richardson in the Department of State Bulletin, November 11, 1945, p. 745, and “The State–War–Navy Committee,” by Major General John H. Hilldring in Logistics, April, 1947, p. 7.

4. Circulated in the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee as SWNCC 38/25, November 8, 1945.
5. Not printed.
6. For texts of notes, the exchange of which in Washington on September 2, 1940, constituted the agreement under reference, see Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. iii, pp. 73–75; for text of the implementing agreement signed on March 27, 1941, at London, see Department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 235, or 55 Stat. (pt. 2) 1560.
7. For the text of the Preliminary Statement of General Principles Pertaining to the United States Military and Naval Base System in the Philippines To Be Used as a Basis for Detailed Discussions and Staff Studies, signed in Washington by President Truman and President Osmena on May 14, 1945, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. vi, p. 1208.
8. For information on this subject, see editorial note, p. 550.
9. For text, see Pan American Union, Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, Mexico, February–March, 1945 (Washington, 1945). See also Department of State, Publication 2497, Conference Series No. 85, Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Inter-American Conference on War and Peace, Mexico City, Mexico, February 21–March 8, 1945 (Washington, 1946).
10. For text of the Military Aviation Agreement between the United States and Brazil signed at Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1944, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. vii, pp. 560–565. For information on United States-Brazilian wartime cooperation, see Stetson Conn and Byron Fairchild, The Framework of Hemispheric Defense, in the official Army history United States Army in World War II, issued by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army (Washington, 1960).
11. For text of the Agreement Between the United States and Canada Relating to Flights of Military Aircraft, effected by exchange of notes signed at Ottawa, February 13, 1945, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts (TIAS) No. 2056, or 62 Stat. (pt. 3) 3943. For information on United States-Canadian wartime cooperation, see Stanley W. Dziuban, Military Relations between the United States and Canada, 1939–1945, in the United States Army in World War II series (Washington, 1959).
12. Not printed.
13. Exclusive: The long term right to use as a military base under the exclusive control of the United States. [Footnote in the original.]
14. Joint: The long term right to use as a military base jointly with the government of original sovereignty. [Footnote in the original.]
15. Participating: The long term right to participate with other nations, on the most-favored-nation principle in the use of a military base. [Footnote in the original.]
13. Added by a corrigendum of November 9 (SWNCC Files).