Secretary’s Staff Meetings, lot 63 D 75, “Documents Jan–Aug 1952”
Notes on the Secretary’s Staff Meeting, Held at the Department of State, 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 24, 1952
. . . . . . .
1954 Mutual Security Program
7. Mr. Martin stated that we have received from the Bureau of the Budget a time schedule for preparations of the 1954 Mutual Security Program. The President wishes to have in his hands the figures for the program by early November. The Bureau of the Budget has set a deadline of September 15 for submission of the figures to that office. Mr. Harriman has set August 10 as the deadline for submission of the figures to DMS. Mr. Martin explained that the Bureau of the Budget has set a ceiling of $7-billion plus $500 million for aid to Japan. He pointed out that this is a reduction of our planning figure for this year. The Bureau of the Budget has also submitted figures by titles and countries, and the Bureau [Page 510] asks the individual agencies to develop justification for these figures. Mr. Martin pointed out that at the last meeting of MAAC, we and MSA protested the establishment of these figures, and the Bureau of the Budget agreed to submit its assumptions on which the figures were based. Mr. Martin was concerned that this preparation by the Bureau of the Budget freezes to some degree what we might propose and continues programs which we might wish to reexamine. He also questioned the relationship of these planning figures to the NSC 114 review.1 It is hoped that DMS will work with the NSC on this general problem. Mr. Bohlen pointed out that the NSC reappraisal, which is general, would not help in the establishment of ceiling figures or individual figures for countries or programs. However, the annexes which are being prepared by the individual agencies might help in this respect. Mr. Martin pointed out that, in effect, we are preparing the annexes before the general report. Mr. Ferguson was inclined to believe that the NSC review could be of some assistance. Mr. Bingham added that he was not in sympathy with Mr. Martin’s criticism of the approach by DMS and the Bureau of the Budget. He felt that it was much better to have these figures now rather than at the last moment as was the case for the 1953 program. He doubted that submission of figures by the Bureau of the Budget would freeze action on the individual agencies involved.
. . . . . . .