796.5614/11–251
Memorandum by the Acting Director for International Security Affairs (Bell) to the Director of the Office of Military Assistance, Department of Defense (Olmsted)
secret
[Washington,] November 9,
1951.
Subject: Napalm Bombs for the Philippines
In connection with the immediate background of the above subject, reference is made to the following telegrams:
Incoming JUSMAG telegram no. 6571 of Oct, 25 [24], 1951.1
[Page 1580]Incoming Embassy Manila telegram 1509 of Oct. 25, 19512
Outgoing State telegram to Manila no. 1345 of Oct. 30, 19513
Incoming Embassy Manila telegram no. 1624 of Nov. 2, 1951
In view of the joint Embassy–JUSMAG recommendations, the Department of State views are the following:
- (1)
- Regarding control of napalm bombs, the Department of State, with the following condition, agrees with the procedure outlined in the JUSMAG telegram no. 6571. It is the belief of the Department of State that the procedure should be amended to provide for consultation and agreement between the Chief of JUSMAG and the Chief of the Diplomatic Mission prior to the use of napalm. It will be recalled that General Bradley, in his letter dated June 25, 1951, to Ambassador Cowen agreed that use of napalm bombs by the Philippine armed forces “… is very largely a political problem.” Thus, the Department of State believes that decision to permit the Filipinos to employ napalm should be after joint political-military agreement.4
- (2)
- The Department of State agrees with the Embassy–JUSMAG recommendation that napalm be made available to the Philippine armed forces on a grant basis, and recommends that provision be made in the Philippine Fiscal Year 1952 military aid program for appropriate quantities.
John O. Bell
- Ante, p. 1572.↩
- See footnote 4, p. 1573.↩
- See footnote 1, p. 1577.↩
- In telegram 6613, to G–3, Department of the Army, November 17, General Pierson stated: “I have again consulted with Embassy on control of napalm and both Embassy and JUSMAG agree that the controls enumerated in JUSMAG 6571 fully serve the purpose recm by State and that further consultation and agreement between Embassy and me prior to use of napalm not nec.” (Manila Post Files: 430.1 Napalm Bomb)↩