Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The American Republics, Volume IV

720.5/8–1253

Minutes of a Meeting Between Representatives of the Department of State and the Department of Defense, Held in Washington, August 12, 1953¹

secret

August 12, 1953

• Those Present:
  • Defense
    • [U.S. Delegation, IADB]
    • Major General Robert M. Webster (USAF)
    • Major General F. A. Allen (USA)
    • Rear Admiral Milton E. Miles (Navy)
    • Colonel William Massello (USA)
    • Captain Joseph W. Leverton (Navy)
    • Colonel Willis F. Lewis (AF)
    • Colonel Edward W. Durant (MC)
    • Major George Williamson (USAF)
  • State
    • ARA—Mr. John M. Cabot, Assistant Secretary
    • ARA—Mr. Robert F. Woodward
    • ARA—Ambassador John C. Dreier
    • AR—Mr. Edward A. Jamison
    • AR—Mr. George O. Spencer
    • AR—Mr. Robert M. Sayre

Subject:

• First State–Defense Meeting on Latin American Military Relations

Mr. Cabot mentioned first the interest of both the Departments of State and Defense in holding regularly scheduled meetings on Latin American military relations between the U.S. Delegation to the Inter-American Defense Board and top officials in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs of the Department of State. General Webster stated that the U.S. Delegation to the Inter-American Defense Board thought that such meetings would be helpful. It was suggested that the most appropriate time to hold these regularly scheduled meetings would be just prior to submission of the progress report on the Latin American policy statement. It was the consensus that this would be an appropriate time for such high-level meetings and the second meeting was therefore scheduled for October 19^* at the Pentagon.

Caracas Conference.

Mr. Cabot referred to the forthcoming Tenth Inter-American Conference to be held in Caracas in March, 1954² and emphasized the importance of the Conference in policy formulation. He said that the Department of State desired to have any comments or suggestions that the Department of Defense might wish to make with respect to the agenda for this Conference. Amb. Dreier interposed that the Department of State had received an interim reply³ from General Webster and went on to say that the Department of State would appreciate receiving any specific suggestions by September 15.⁴ Mr. Cabot remarked that it was not clear what the Tenth Conference would concern itself with primarily but he thought that it would be principally problems of an economic nature. He said our policy at the Conference would depend largely upon the report⁵ presented by Dr. Milton Eisenhower as a result of his recent fact-finding mission to South America.⁶ He expected that the Conference might consider such specific problems as the Peru-Ecuador Boundary Dispute, the Haya de la Torre case,⁷ and the communist situation in Guatemala.

Dominican Proposal for Conference on Communism.

Mr. Cabot referred briefly to the proposal of the Foreign Minister⁸ of the Dominican Republic to hold a meeting of foreign ministers of the American republics on the subject of communist subversion in the Western Hemisphere. He said that the proposal confronted this Government with certain problems. On the one hand we are very anxious to do everything possible to control communism in the hemisphere but at the same time it was difficult for us to act on this proposal because it had been made by Generalissimo Trujillo, who is not regarded favorably by a number of Latin American countries. A foreign ministers meeting as proposed would also interfere with the scheduled Tenth Inter-American Conference which is the supreme organ in the inter-American system and would therefore appear to be the most appropriate forum to consider this problem. Mr. Cabot said that, while the reply to the Dominican proposal would stress our interest in controlling communist activities in the hemisphere, it would probably be negative.

Visit of Dr. Milton Eisenhower to Latin America.

Turning next to Dr. Eisenhower’s trip to Latin America, Mr. Cabot said it had three principal purposes:

1. It was intended as an expression of good-will toward South America on the part of the U.S. From this standpoint, the visit was eminently successful.

2. It gave the new Administration an opportunity to study the situation in Latin America. This aspect of the visit was not as successful as Dr. Eisenhower would have liked because a great deal of time that might have been spent on fact-finding was consumed by required social functions and other similar activities.

3. An important purpose of the visit was to provide the Administration with the essential facts required to revitalize our Latin American policy and to develop a program for Latin America. Mr. Cabot said that of course this was the real purpose of the visit and that the new Administration was just getting a start on developing a new program for Latin America.

He said certain problems would have to be considered in any such program such as the very serious economic situation in Bolivia, and the difficult economic problems facing Chile.

He mentioned briefly the fact that Dr. Eisenhower’s party was somewhat surprised at the very genuinely cordial reception they received in Argentina. He said that of course the U.S. has no desire to feud with any country in Latin America including Argentina, and, although we were still skeptical that it would prove possible, we would welcome cooperation with Argentina. Mr. Cabot referred to the visits of naval vessels to Latin American countries and thought that it would be desirable if Argentina could be included in a forthcoming visit which would also include the other two countries on the east coast of South America (Brazil and Uruguay). Admiral Miles recalled the recent visit of an aircraft carrier to Rio de Janeiro, Santiago and Lima enroute to the Pacific. He said that he had suggested to the Department of State that Buenos Aires be included in the itinerary but this suggestion had not been received favorably and for that reason it was also believed desirable to drop Montevideo from the itinerary. Mr. Cabot recommended that Argentina be included in a future naval visit to the countries on the east coast of Latin America.

One of the problems raised with the Eisenhower party was the dissatisfaction of the Venezuelan Government over the assistance it has received in purchasing military equipment from the U.S. Government. Mr. Cabot mentioned in particular the fact that Venezuela had apparently been unable to obtain new naval vessels and aircraft. Admiral Miles said that it was true that the Navy did not have any excess destroyer-type vessels to sell to Venezuela. He said that the Navy had however, in response to a Venezuelan request, offered to construct destroyers for Venezuela for $22,000,000 each. Some time later, Commander Moreno⁹ of the Venezuelan Navy visited the Department of the Navy and complained that no reply had been received to their request. Subsequent investigation disclosed that the Naval Attaché of the Venezuelan Embassy had failed to forward the information to Caracas. At the same time this delegation from Venezuela was in Washington, another Venezuelan delegation was signing a contract in England to purchase three destroyers from an English ship building firm for $21,000,000. Adm. Miles said that the U.S. could not compete with British prices on naval vessels but that the Department of the Navy had offered to train Venezuelan crews of these vessels when they are received.

Colonel Lewis commented on the availability of jet aircraft. He said that in response to a request from the Commanding General, Caribbean Air Command,¹⁰ information on the availability of jet aircraft had been furnished to him and it was expected that he in turn would make it available to Latin American countries through the Air Mission Chiefs or the Air Attachés. He said that Venezuela had purchased and received 20 vampire jets from Great Britain, that they had contracted for and are receiving six Canberra bombers and may have contracted for six more. He doubted that Venezuela would be interested in any further purchases of jet aircraft. He went on to say that Venezuela was purchasing from the U.S. substantial quantities of spare parts for conventional aircraft. The Air Force, he said, had the same difficulty as the Navy in being unable to compete with British prices. His information was the British are able to make available the Gloster Meteor, which is a second-line jet aircraft, for something like $65,000. Our first-line jet trainer, the T–33, could be made available for about $124,000 and our second-line F–80 jet fighter for about $94,000. Our first-line F–86 would cost approximately $422,000. These estimates did not include spare parts or ground handling equipment.

In Ecuador, the problems of a military nature which were considered by the Eisenhower party concerned the interest of the U.S. Naval Mission to Ecuador in providing Ecuador with suitable naval patrol craft under the military grant-aid program and the reimbursable provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended, and the creation by Ecuador of an anti-aircraft battalion under the bilateral Military Assistance Agreement. Adm. Miles said that he was aware of the proposal to provide Ecuador with patrol craft and that he supported it.

Nicaraguan Participation in Military Assistance Program.

Mr. Cabot asked what progress was being made within the Department of Defense on the proposal to include Nicaragua in the military assistance program. General Allen understood that the matter was progressing satisfactorily within the Department of Defense and that a letter¹¹ would be sent to the Department of State in the near future stating that the participation of Nicaragua in the program had been found necessary in accordance with hemisphere defense plans and recommending that the President be requested to make the finding required by Mutual Security legislation. Mr. Cabot said he hoped this matter could be taken care of as soon as possible because the Department of State believed such an arrangement with Nicaragua would be a stabilizing influence in Central America. Adm. Miles expressed disagreement with this point of view. He thought an agreement with Nicaragua and not with the other Central American countries would serve only to drive them further from us and Guatemala in particular further into the arms of the communists. Mr. Cabot replied that El Salvador was purchasing arms from the United States and was apparently not very anxious to sign a military assistance agreement unless it could be kept confidential, which would be difficult. Honduras does not appear to be too anxious to participate either. Mr. Cabot thought that there might be some dissatisfaction on the part of Costa Rica but Costa Rica did not appear to have any military potential to warrant considering an agreement with that country. As regards Guatemala, he did not think that concluding an agreement with Nicaragua would in itself make the situation any worse in Guatemala and would have the advantage of making it very clear to that Government where the U.S. stood.

Navy Shipping Control Stations in Latin America.

Admiral Miles said that the Department of the Navy was now working on plans to establish shipping control stations in Latin America. This responsibility had been assigned to the United States by NATO. Arrangements to establish such stations would be made between the United States Navy and the countries concerned. He thought it would be necessary, however, to precede such arrangements with an agreement on the diplomatic level. Two problems were now holding up finalization of the plans: (1) it is expected that the quid pro quo for agreeing to the establishment of such stations will be a request by the Latin American countries for equipment to operate the stations for which the Navy is now trying to arrange and (2) it is essential that all such stations throughout the world use common signals, etc., and the Navy is meeting rather strong resistance from the British in making NATO classified documents on signals, etc., available to Latin American countries.

Mr. Cabot said that the Department of State would like to be kept informed on the progress of these plans and would of course render all appropriate assistance.

Regular Staff Level Meetings Between State and Defense.

General Webster said that he understood there was a desire, both in State and Defense, to hold regular meetings on Latin American military problems at the staff level. Mr. Jamison said that he thought some arrangement for a regular exchange of the views on Latin American military problems at the staff level would be very useful. It was agreed that arrangements would be made at the staff level in Defense and State to hold such meetings, probably as frequently as monthly.

Participation of Haiti in the Military Assistance Program.

Admiral Miles inquired concerning action within the Department of State on a request from Haiti to be included in the military assistance program. Mr. Spencer replied that a memorandum¹² had been sent (on June 15, 1953) to Major General Stewart requesting information on whether the Department of Defense believes an agreement with Haiti would be desirable from the military point of view and whether the Department of Defense is prepared to develop a hemisphere defense role for Haiti.

Mr. Cabot closed the meeting by urging that continuing and careful attention be given to the relative amounts of attention and assistance that might be given to Brazil and Agrentina. He said that Brazil is our best friend in the hemisphere and that the United States had to be very careful that it did not offend either Brazil or Argentina.

1. The meeting was apparently held in the Department of State. The minutes were drafted by Mr. Sayre on Aug. 18.
2. This date was changed from September 21 to October 19 because progress reports are submitted every four instead of every three months. The next report would be due on or about November 1. [Footnote in the source text. The second meeting was held Nov. 5; see p. 164.]
2. Reference is to the Tenth Inter-American Conference, held in Caracas, Mar. 1–28, 1954; for documentation concerning the conference, see pp. 264 ff.
3. Apparent reference to an undated letter to Ambassador Dreier, not printed, in which Major General Webster stated that inasmuch as the draft agenda for the Tenth Inter-American Conference contained no matters of military concern, the Department of Defense had no constructive comment to offer. (OAS files, lot 60 D 665, “Pre-Conference–1. Agenda, General”)
4. In a letter to Ambassador Dreier, dated Sept. 28, 1953, Colonel Lewis stated in part that the Department of Defense recommended that when representatives of the Department of State participated in meetings pertaining to the agenda for the Tenth Inter-American Conference, they should “resist the inclusion of military topics that may result in imposition of any special demands on the United States.” (362/9–2853)
5. For text of the report, submitted to President Eisenhower under date of Nov. 18, 1953, see United States-Latin American Relations: Report to the President (Department of State Publication 5290, Washington, 1953), or Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 23, 1953, pp. 695–717.
6. Dr. Eisenhower visited the ten countries in South America during the period June 23–July 29, 1953; regarding his mission, see the editorial note, p. 196.
7. Reference is to the controversy between Colombia and Peru concerning the status of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the Peruvian political leader who sought asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima in January 1949, and was unable to obtain safe conduct to leave until March 1954, when the Peruvian Government allowed him to proceed to Mexico.
8. Presumably Virgilio Díaz Ordóñez.
9. Col. Félix Román Moreno.
10. Brig. Gen. Ruben C. Hood, Jr.
11. See the editorial note, p. 168.
12. No copy of the referenced memorandum to Maj. Gen. George C. Stewart, Director of the Office of Military Assistance, Department of Defense, drafted by Mr. Spencer and signed by Edwin M. Martin, was found in Department of State files; a memorandum by Mr. Sayre to Mr. Spencer, dated June 28, 1953, indicates that the memorandum of June 15 was misplaced. (738.5 MSP/6–2853)