Memorandum by Mr. H. F. Arthur Schoenfeld of the Office of the Director of International Security Affairs3 to Mr. William H. Bray, Jr., of That Office
[Subject:] TF II D–12, January 31, 19514—Justification of Point IV Program in the Other American Republics.
You have asked that the FY 52 Point Four Program for Latin America proposed in TF II D–12, dated January 31, 1951, be reviewed in the light of United States security interests.
The proposed program is limited for the present to technical assistance under the Act for International Development.5 It contemplates [Page 1039] an increase in expenditures over those of FY 51 which are around $11 million. It recommends at present that approximately $44 million be employed for bilateral technical cooperation projects in the other American Republics in FY 52 and $2 million as the U.S. contribution to the technical assistance program being undertaken by the Organization of American States.
The composition of the proposed bilateral technical assistance program in Latin America is as follows:
|Cost to US (thousands of dollars)|
|1. Joint Commissions and Economic Surveys||703|
|5. Industry and Labor||528|
|6. Transportation and Communications||1,314|
|7. Mineral Resources||631|
|8. Water Resources||547|
|9. Government Administration and Technical Services||360|
The justification for this Program stems from the fundamental assumption that “… this [western]6 hemisphere, backed up by The Rio Treaty,7 represents the inner citadel of our defenses”. The corollaries of this assumption, as stated in the document under consideration, involve the closest political, economic and military support by Latin America for the world policy of the United States.8 Within these assumptions, the proposed technical assistance program for Latin America has the double objective to: (1) increase production for defense purposes by expanding, on an emergency basis, technical aid programs so that they can effectively assist the Latin American Governments in solving problems, especially in health and supply, that will result from our expanding raw materials requirements, and (2) assist in overcoming the basic Latin American weaknesses which contribute to insecurity.
The justification points out that the proposed program takes into account the “reluctance of Latin American Governments to go in for defense production programs except in the concept of an economic [Page 1040] program which gives consideration to their essential requirements as well as the adverse effect on their economies of the eventual termination of specific productive programs”.
As you have indicated, a statement of the relative strategic importance of any country, or area, to the United States rests upon certain hypotheses regarding the nature and direction of U.S. actions in relation to those of the potential enemy. These hypotheses, against which the fundamental assumption and the corollaries of the foregoing Program Justification must be compared are contained in NSC 56/2,9 and in the Hemisphere Defense Scheme (approved by the U.S. Government) of the IADB, dated October 27, 1950.10
The fundamental assumption, cited above, in the justification for the Point Four Program for Latin America may be considered to be implicit in the first conclusion of NSC 56/2, which states that “In global war, the security of the western hemisphere and U.S. access to its resources and manpower would be essential to the transoceanic projection of major U.S. offensive powder”.
The corollaries which the justification under consideration draws from this assumption are consistent with the basic U.S. military objectives in Latin America. These objectives, as stated in NSC 56/2, are to see to it that the Latin American countries can maintain their internal security; defend themselves against isolated attacks or raids; protect their sources of strategic materials; maintain lines of communication and military bases; and that certain countries, beyond the foregoing roles, should be capable of performing additional tasks as appropriate.
Section V A 1 of the Estimate of the Situation of the Hemisphere Defense Scheme cited above, states that the political, social and economic methods to counteract the probable aggressor are:
- “a. Demonstration of the effectiveness and of the virtues of our democratic system through the development of their [The American Republics]11 basic institutions.
- b. Development of adequate educational systems to maintain democratic faiths among our peoples.
- c. Efforts to raise the economic and social level of the American peoples to a point consistent with principles proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter.”
Section V B of the Estimate states, inter alia, as the requirements for the defense of the continent:
- “a. a standard of living to assure true well being for all citizens.
- b. coordinated industrial development.
- c. adequate public information systems.”
In the light of the foregoing analysis, S/ISA should express the belief that the basic assumption and the argument in TF II D–12 are consistent with the major policy statements on United States security interests in Latin America, and accordingly, that it is in the interests of United States security to seek legislative authorization and appropriation to furnish Point Four assistance to Latin America in FY 52 as proposed in TF II D–12.
- Files of the Office of the Director, International Security Affairs, Department of State, containing material for the years 1949–1951. This lot, and related lots 52–19, 52–24, 52–40, and 52–51, are part of Federal Records Center Accession 62 A 613. Lot 52–26 contains basic subject files on military assistance program development; records of committees and task forces concerned with military and economic assistance programs are in Lot 52–51. For additional information, see the list of sources at the beginning of this volume.↩
- The position of Director, International Security Affairs was established in the Department of State effective January 8, 1951; Thomas D. Cabot assumed the position on February 2. In that capacity, Mr. Cabot also chaired the International Security Affairs Committee (ISAC), an interdepartmental committee comprised of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, and the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). The committee was charged with responsibility to conduct a continuing review and coordinaton of policy and programs relating to international security affairs and mutual defense assistance matters. For additional information, see the editorial note in vol. i, p. 267, and the press release, dated January 4, 1951, printed in the Department of State Bulletin, January 22, 1951, pp. 155–156.↩
Reference is to a paper prepared in the Department of State by Task Force II of the Foreign Aid Steering Group (FASG); a copy is printed as Annex A, below.
The Foreign Aid Steering Group, established in late 1950, was an interagency group comprised of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury, the Economic Cooperation Administration, the Office of the Special Assistant to the President W. Averell Harriman, and the Bureau of the Budget. Representatives from other agencies sometimes attended the group’s meetings, which were held in the Department of State. The FASG was charged with the responsibility for developing a unified foreign assistance program. For further documentation, see vol. i, pp. 266 ff.↩
- The Act for International Development was Title IV of the Foreign Economic Assistance Act of 1950 (Public Law 535), approved June 5, 1950; for text, see 64 Stat. 198.↩
- Omission and brackets in the source text.↩
- Reference is to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro, September 2, 1947, and entered into force for the United States, December 3, 1948; for text, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No. 1838, or 62 Stat. (pt. 2) 1681.↩
- For documentation relating to United States national security policy within a global context and the development of the military assistance program in 1951, see vol. i, pp. 1 ff.; for documentation concerning United States policy with respect to hemisphere defense and related matters, see pp. 985 ff.↩
- Reference is to the National Security Council (NSC) document numbered NSC 56/2, adopted at the 57th meeting of the National Security Council, May 18, 1950, and approved by the President on May 19; for text, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. i, p. 628.↩
- Reference is to the Inter-American Common Defense Scheme, approved by the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) on October 27, 1950, and by the Department of State on January 15, 1951; for information, see Secretary Marshall’s letter to Secretary Acheson, December 16, 1950, ibid., p. 679.↩
- Brackets in the source text.↩
- For text of the treaty, signed at Washington, April 4, 1949, and entered into force for the United States, August 24, 1949, see TIAS No. 1964, or 63 Stat. (pt. 2) 2241. Documentation on the negotiation of the treaty is printed in Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. iv, pp. 1 ff.↩
- For documentation on this subject, see pp. 1079 ff.↩
- Increased Latin American production may be required. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- Increased Latin American production may be required. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- For background information on this subject, see History of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (Washington, 1947).↩