State–JCS Meetings, lot 61 D 417
Memorandum on Substance of Discussions at a Department of State–Joint Chiefs of Staff Meeting, Held in the Pentagon, 11:30 a.m., April 9, 1954 1
[Here follow a list of those present (24) and discussion of matters relating to China.]
ii
The group then discussed the defense organization with Brazil. The subject was divided up into two phases: (1) the name of the Joint Board; and (2) membership on the Board. Mr. Murphy called on Mr. Holland to present the State Department’s position.
With respect to the Board’s name, Mr. Holland indicated that State wanted to get away from one which was too much like the Canadian-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense. He said that the State Department preferred the title: “Brazil–U.S. Defense Board” or secondly, “Combined Board on Defense, Brazil–U.S.”.
Admiral Radford indicated that the title “Combined Board on Defense, Brazil–U.S.” was acceptable to all three services. Mr. Murphy indicated that it was also acceptable to State. It was agreed to use that title.
Referring to the question of membership, Mr. Holland indicated that the Brazilians shared the view of the State Department that State and Brazilian Foreign Office representatives should be permanent representatives of the Board.
General Bolte drew on his experience with the Canadian-U.S. Board, and with the Mexican-U.S. Board, to indicate why he felt it was preferable that State Department and Brazilian Foreign Office representatives should not be permanent members, but rather should be invited to sit in with the Board only when matters of a political nature were included on the agenda. He emphasized that there had been no difficulty with permanent Canadian and U.S. political department representatives on the Canadian Board largely because the two countries spoke the same language, both literally and figuratively. It was different with the Mexican Board, he said. In the case of the Mexican Board, it would have been better if no political matters had been discussed and if such questions had been handled in the routine way through diplomatic channels. He attributed this conviction to the temperament [Page 649] of the Latin Americans as contrasted with that of the Canadians.
Admiral Radford stated that the Chiefs had no firm position on the question, but that in view of the character of our Latin American friends he felt it was advisable to consider whether politics and military matters should be mixed below the Rio Grande.
Mr. Holland emphasized that there was no military matter which might be discussed with Latin American representatives which did not have political implications, and that therefore the Department felt it was preferable to have its own representatives permanently on the Board.
Admiral Carney inquired whether the inclusion of political representatives did not change the complexion and character of the Board, raising it above the military level. He also brought up the question of chairmanship. He referred to his experiences in Europe in negotiating status of forces agreements, etc., to his reliance on a political adviser who was not present at the military meetings but who studied the political implications of any military decisions and referred them through diplomatic channels.
Mr. Murphy expressed the view that there would be no difficulty with respect to chairmanship.
General Bolte stated that in his experience with the Canadian and the Mexican Boards there was no firm decision without State Department clearance.
Mr. Holland pointed out that in Canada when you dealt with the army you were dealing with a definitely military organization, while in Latin America when you deal with the army you are also dealing with an important political entity, and with personalities who had present or potential political importance.
General Bolte then reviewed his experience in London with General DeGaulle. He indicated that he and Admiral Stark had always dealt with General DeGaulle not as head of the Provisional French Government, but as Commander of the Free French Forces. When any political matters were brought up by General DeGaulle, and there were many, he was referred to our Embassy in London.
General Twining summed up by saying that the whole question of our defense organization with Brazil had been dragging on for some time, and that it was time to get on with it.
Mr. Murphy said that he would like to leave it with the Chiefs that the State Department favors permanent representatives on the Board along with members of the Brazilian Foreign Office.
Admiral Radford indicated that the Chiefs would think it over, and that they would have an answer for State in a week’s time.2
[Here follows discussion of matters unrelated to Brazil.]
-
Admirals Radford and Carney, and General Twining were present; General Bolté attended for General Ridgway. Mr. Murphy headed the Department of State group. Representatives were also present from the National Security Council (Gleason), the Central Intelligence Agency (General Cabell), and the Department of Defense (Admiral Davis).
A note on the source text reads as follows: “(State Draft. Not cleared with any of participants.)”
↩ - See the memorandum by Assistant Secretary Holland, dated May 18, 1954, p. 651.↩