Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 1

MSA–FOA Director’s files, FRC 56 A 632, box 8, “State Department 1954”

The Acting Secretary of State to the Director of Foreign Operations (Stassen)¹

confidential

Washington, February 11, 1954.

Dear Harold: I should like to reply in some detail to your memorandum of January 30, 1954 to the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, concerning the presentation of the Mutual Security Program for Fiscal Year 1955.²

At the outset, I want to assure you that we agree on the need to proceed as rapidly as possible in the formulation of both the legislation and the necessary illustrative programs for presentation to the Congress at as early a date as possible. I understand that the drafting of the legislation and the preparation of programs and a presentation book are proceeding as a joint effort between members of your staff, Defense Department and State Department officers. I realize, however, that a failure to agree upon an Executive Branch position with respect to certain of the issues raised in your memorandum would, at some point, impede the work now going on. I am therefore anxious to give you a complete statement of the views of this Department on these issues so that we may proceed as rapidly as possible to the formulation of a program for presentation to the Congress.

With regard to the name of the program, it is my view that the present name—The Mutual Security Program—is an adequate and acceptable descriptive title. I think that a change to the title, “Freedom Fund”, would be confusing and possibly misleading. Since the program represents by and large a continuation of many of the activities carried on in the past—although some activities have been eliminated and others sharply curtailed—I do not believe that a change in the title would be helpful in gaining for the program additional public or Congressional support.³

I have three comments with regard to your paragraph II 2. I had understood that it was agreed between the agencies involved that funds for carrying on the Mutual Military Program would be sought as a direct appropriation to the Secretary of Defense, rather than to the President as you suggest. This question is not a matter of direct concern to this Department, but it has been my understanding that the matter had been agreed, based on the consideration that the Mutual Military Program should be clearly identified as a part of our national defense effort. What is of direct concern to this Department, however, is the absolute necessity, from the foreign policy point of view, that there be provided either by legislation or by Executive Order the means for assuring adequate guidance and direction in the programming of the funds in order that the Mutual Military Program will fulfill its important foreign policy purposes.⁴

My second point with regard to this section of your memorandum concerns the surplus agricultural disposal bill. I believe that the proposed legislation for the disposal overseas of $1 billion of surplus agricultural commodities over a three-year period, presently being developed on an interdepartmental basis, should be put forward as separate legislation, rather than being incorporated in the Mutual Security bill. As a separate piece of legislation, the funds would be requested separately from those for the Mutual Security Program. My reason is twofold: the first is that I think it would be politically helpful and wise to move ahead as rapidly as possible in an effort to assist in solving the problem of surplus agricultural commodities and that separate legislation for this purpose could and should be passed prior to the passage of the Mutual Security bill; and second, I think that from the foreign policy point of view it is preferable not to have the Surplus Food Disposal legislation confused with the Mutual Security Program. In this general connection, it is important to note the decision that was reached at Governor Adams’ office on February 5 that an Administrative Assistant to the President should be appointed, whose responsibility would be to see that the views of the Executive Branch are coordinated on the whole range of surplus agricultural issues, including the question of administration of the resulting policies and programs.⁵

My third comment concerns the multilateral programs. It is my understanding that the original decision to include the requests for contributions to multilateral organizations in the appropriation to the Department of State was based on the expressed desire of the Appropriations Committees. However, after discussions with members of your staff, we agree that it is preferable to request these funds as an appropriation to the President, provided consultations with appropriate committee chairmen indicate that they are willing to go along with this procedure. In any event, we should not fail to coordinate the activities of the multilateral programs with similar activities carried on bilaterally between the United States and other nations.

I agree with the recommendations in your paragraphs II 3 and II 4, except as modified by the above comments.

With respect to paragraph II 5, this Department has no comment on the question of merging of funds, provided we can be furnished adequate reports on the status and progress of the military programs.⁶

Regarding paragraph II 6, I agree that preparations for presentation to the Congress should be made on the basis that the Foreign Operations Administration should coordinate the programs as at present. I also agree with your view that the question of organization and coordination should not be made an Executive Branch issue with the Congress and that the main concentration should be upon the substance of the program.

In paragraph III you list as broad objectives of the program what appear to me as objectives of the entire United States Government’s efforts in the field of foreign policy. While, of course, the Mutual Security Program contributes to our attainment of these objectives, I should think our presentation to the Congress should be in terms of the specific support this program provides to our effort to obtain these objectives, principally in the fields of military and economic assistance and technical cooperation. I think it would be a mistake to convey the impression that these principles are peculiar to the Mutual Security Program and I would not favor so broad a statement of the objectives of that program either in the draft legislative bill or in the presentation to the Congress. This comment applies particularly to objectives No. 2 and No. 3, in the promotion of which several governmental agencies and departments participate. So far as the administration of the program is concerned, I feel that all agencies of the U.S. Government involved in this program should work together to promote these objectives, but that the division of responsibility between them should continue as at present.

In order that these matters may finally be worked out among the interested agencies of the Government, I believe that a meeting of the principal officers concerned should take place at an early date in order that the preparation of this program for presentation to the Congress can move forward rapidly.⁷

Faithfully,

Bedell Smith

1. A number of notations by Stassen appear on the source text. The first is at the head of the document and reads: W[illiam] M. R[and] Believe my agreement this date with Roger Kyes will cover this. HES[tassen]”. Rand was Deputy Director of Foreign Operations.
2. Ante, p. 678.
3. In the margin next to this paragraph appears the following notation: “President has agreed with Vorys[,] Halleck & others to new name”.
4. In the margin next to this paragraph appears the following notation: “Agreed now all to Pres & Meyer when activated to Defense. Leg [?] automatically assures this.” The reference to Meyer is presumably to Clarence E. Meyer, Director of U.S. Operations Mission at Vienna.
5. In the margin next to this paragraph appears the following notation: “Even though legislation is separate & Spec rep at Paris coordinates Domestic and Foreign—believe FOA can best implement the foreign in Bolivia, Pakistan, Libya, East Germany, Yugoslavia, etc. etc.” The “Spec rep” under reference was the Special Representative in Europe for Foreign Operations.
6. In the margin next to this paragraph appears the following notation: “Now agreed with Kyes.”
7. At the bottom of the source text Stassen wrote: “WMR Believe we are now sufficiently on the track so that the meeting of principles can be deferred until Glen Lloyd and I return.” Lloyd was Deputy to the Director of Foreign Operations.