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

Secretariat Files

Minutes of the 206th Meeting of the Secretary of State’s Staff Committee, Department of State, Washington, December 20, 1946, 9:20 a. m.

Washington, December 20, 1946, 9:20 a.m.

secret

Present:	Absent:
The Under Secretary (presiding)	The Secretary
The Counselor	The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs97
Messrs. Eddy90
Fahy91	Mr. Braden
General Hilldring92
Messrs. Russell
Thorp93
Henderson
Hiss
Hulten94 (for Mr. Benton)
Matthews
Vincent
Green95 (DA)
Gange
Jamison
Reber96

The Committee met at 9:20 a.m., the Under Secretary presiding.

Policy Relative to the Transfer to Foreign Countries of Military Supplies of U.S. Origin (Document SC–208)⁹⁸

1. Action: the committee approved the recommendations of the document subject to amendment of the second sentence of paragraph 1 to read “pending effective United Nations action to bring about a satisfactory system for the regulation of armaments in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of December 14, 1946⁹⁹ on that subject and until …”

2. it is further agreed that paragraph 9, page 8 of the document should be similarly revised and that paragraph 13, page 9 should be revised to make it clear that the arms program for China, temporarily suspended, is to be handled on an ad hoc basis pending a decision to seek enabling legislation.

3. Discussion: General Hilldring, in presenting the document, stated that it had originated in and been approved by the Policy Committee on Arms and Armaments.¹ He said that the recommendations owed much to the five months experience of that Committee in dealing with the problems for which they were intended to offer guidance. The Arms Committee at its inception, he said, had been confronted with the lack of any overall policy guidance on transfers of military supplies, although there were several isolated bits of policy here and there both written and unwritten. Two documents, SWNCC 202/2² and SC/R–184,³ as amended, covered transfers of supplies from surplus, but there were no definite policies dealing with transfers from other governmental and non-governmental sources. The document before the Committee, he said, represented an attempt to merge all pertinent policy papers and at least one informal understanding and to make those modifications deemed desirable as a result of the Arms Committee’s experience.

4. General Hilldring outlined the chief points of the document, stating that, while several specific categories of military transfers were given standing approval, it had been felt necessary to leave the door open for certain other types of transfers which could not be spelled out in advance. He mentioned specifically the assignment of small amounts of arms to a country for police purposes and pointed to the procedures recommended for handling such transfers. He said that SWNCC 202/2 had set forth the policy on transfers from surplus on a country-to-country basis but it was generally agreed that there were so many variables that such a listing soon became unwieldly. It was recommended, therefore, that any exceptions from the specific categories approved in this document should be considered by the Arms Committee and recommendations submitted to the Secretary of State. General Hilldring emphasized that, while it was generally agreed that the long-term United States policy should be to cut transfers of military supplies to foreign countries to a minimum, it was also recognized that it would be necessary in the foreseeable future to make exceptions to this in the interests of general international security and that of the United States. He reviewed the extensive preparatory work on the document, and indicated that it had been brought before the Staff Committee with a view to getting approval so that it might be taken as the expression of the State Department’s policy on this subject for presentation to the War and Navy Departments before January 2, 1947.

5. The Under Secretary asked how the possible furnishing of military supplies and equipment to China was covered in the document, and General Hilldring and Mr. Vincent replied that any such transfers were to be handled on an ad hoc basis as outlined in paragraph 4 of the Recommendations. There was some discussion of the advisability of including specific reference to a program for China, but General Hilldring indicated that such reference had been deleted at the specific request of the representative of FE on the Arms Committee. The Under Secretary suggested inclusion of language which would indicate that a program for aiding China would be carried out under certain conditions, but Mr. Vincent thought this was not desirable, since the projected program for that country had so many different aspects. At the suggestion of Mr. Thorp and the Under Secretary, it was agreed that the reference to the Chinese program in paragraph 13 of the Discussion section of the document should be clarified to remove any possible ambiguity. General Hilldring stated that it was his view that, since the program for China was temporarily suspended at the request of high authority, a decision to renew that program would have to be reviewed by the Arms Committee and handled as an exception rather than as one of the categories specifically listed in paragraph 2 of the Recommendations.

6. Mr. Vincent indicated that a program for China would be carried out if, after General Marshall gives approval, the necessary legislation is put through the Congress. The Counselor asked whether the China program did not have a limited phase to be carried out through disposal of surplus property and The Under Secretary pointed out that such aid had not been military.

7. Mr. Matthews asked whether the new standardization program for Latin America was included, and General Hilldring stated that the Latin American program referred to in the category listing was only the interim program being accomplished through disposal of surplus.

8. Mr. Matthews asked whether the War and Navy Departments had been consulted on the general principle of drastic limitation of arms transfers as set forth in the first recommendation. General Hilldring replied that representatives of both Departments were aware of the fact that this would be the State Department’s position. He pointed out further that the language of paragraph 9 of the Discussion section of the document had been very carefully phrased so as to meet the possible objections of War and Navy. Mr. Henderson said that it was his view that the section referred to covered this point adequately and he joined with Mr. Matthews in commending the officers responsible for preparing the entire document.

General Hilldring referred to a recent meeting of the National Munitions Control Board which, although a lengthy meeting with no definite action resulting, had involved considerable discussion of the location of responsibility for determining policy on the export of arms and armaments. General Hilldring said that he had gone to the meeting with a brief prepared in Le in which the position had been taken that the Secretary of State should have full authority to make decisions on the export of arms without consulting the Secretaries of War and Navy, although such consultation is acceptable on questions on the import of arms. He said that he had been unable to secure War and Navy Department assent to this position as they had insisted on being consulted with respect to both export and import of arms. The Under Secretary indicated his view that the position of those Departments was understandable and sound. It was the consensus that on both questions of import and export the War and Navy Departments should be consulted by the State Department.

9. The Counselor inquired with reference to the China program whether it was planned to press for the enabling legislation when Congress convened in January. The Under Secretary stated that General Marshall had requested that action on the proposed legislation be suspended until he could report a more favorable situation in China.

10. Mr. Fahy said that the document appeared to have been prepared without reference to the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the regulation and limitation of armaments, and he suggested that this action should be mentioned specifically. It was agreed that paragraph 1 of the Recommendations and paragraph 9 of the Discussion should be so revised.

[Here follows discussion of another subject.]

97. William L. Clayton.
90. William A. Eddy, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Research and Intelligence.
91. Charles Fahy, Legal Adviser.
92. John H. Hilldring, Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied Areas.
93. Willard L. Thorp, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.
94. Charles M. Hulten, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs.
95. James F. Green, Associate Chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs.
96. James Q. Reber, Chief of the Committee Coordinating Section of the Central Secretariat.
98. Infra.
99. Ante, p 1099.
1. Regarding the organization and functions of the Policy Committee on Arms and Armaments, see footnote 72, p. 840.
2. Ante, p. 1145.
3. Ante, p. 1141.