Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VII, Part 2

895.20/11–1849: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in Korea

top secret

Washington, November 28, 1949—noon.

994. Urtel 1407 Nov 18 noon. Dept appreciates reduction to 10.23 million wld make impossible accomplish full objectives NSC 8/2.¹ Similarly Congressional action on ECA program reduced overall availability funds to accomplish purposes set forth conclusions NSC 8/2.² Cong action on entire MAP reduced sums available to extent where objectives approved by NSC and President cannot be fully accomplished in any area. Allotment for Korea must be made from total of $27.64 million appropriated for Iran, Korea and Philippines. Granting 10.23 of this sum to Korea leaves balance inadequate meet needs Iran and Philippines. Legis permits President utilize up to five percent amounts made available for purposes any title MAP legis for purposes any other title. However, such diversions possible only at expense other programs for which funds appropriated are inadequate meet objectives. Decisions must be based on overall national interest U.S. and require evaluation comparative risks of inadequate program in one country as against similar situation in another.

Under these circumstances and to assist in determining MAP allotment for Korea, views Emb and KMAG on for questions urgently desired.

1. Are all requirements to meet security objectives NSC 8/2 incorporated in list furnished Emdes 570 Sep 16³ and urtels 1295 Oct 19 and 1376 Nov 8?

2. In ur considered judgment are risks involved in program possible with 10.23 figure inacceptable? If inacceptable what in ur judgment is minimum by which program shld be increased to bring risks to point where they can be assumed? If risks inacceptable and 10.23 figure cannot be increased, shld MDAP for Korea be abandoned? Full justification ur position desired.

3. If 10.23 program does not involve inacceptable risks wld assumption by MDAP of POL and lumber expenditure for remainder FY 1950 involve inacceptable risk? FYI present ECA policy is not to finance POL or lumber for Korean armed forces. In this connection, however, see Deptel 933 Nov 2.⁴

4. In your opinion which program (ECA or MDAP) cld better bear costs necessary POL and lumber in interests securing best possible combination US objectives in Korea?

5. Wld presence of survey team (re Warx 96702 Nov 18)⁵ be helpful?

FYI, pricing policies are uniform for all MAP countries and therefore impossible consider any exception for Korea (ref last para reftel).

Webb

1. Dated March 22, p. 969.
2. See the editorial note under date of June 7, p. 1039.
3. See footnote 3, p. 1099.
4. Not printed. It stated that in inter-agency discussions the Department of State intended to support the position that common use items furnished to Korea for forces in being would be programmed for and financed by ECA (840.20/11–249).
5. Not printed.