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

S/S–NSC files, lot 63 D 351, NSC 144 series

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State (Smith) to the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council (Lay)¹

top secret

[Washington,] July 23, 1953.

Subject:

• First Progress Report on NSC 144/1, United States Objectives and Courses of Action with Respect to Latin America.

NSC 144/1 was approved as governmental policy on March 18, 1953. It is requested that this progress report as of July 15, 1953 be circulated to the members of the Council for their information.

1. Political

Utilization of the Organization of American States (OAS): Active participation in the normal activities of the OAS and its organs and agencies continued throughout the period. Steps were taken to insure that a report² prepared by the Pan American Union relating to the maintenance of internal security against communist or other subversion might be utilized effectively to assist in the attainment of United States objectives. On the other hand, there were two instances in which the United States used its influence to forestall recourse to the OAS when such recourse was unsuitable to the situation and in all likelihood would have proved to be divisive, thereby weakening the inter-American system. One of these was the Deception Island (Antarctica) incident in which a British naval vessel demolished Argentine and Chilean installations on the Island and removed Argentine personnel from the area. When it became apparent that either Argentina or Chile, or both, were giving serious consideration to invoking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty),³ the United States encouraged settlement of the controversy by direct negotiation or, failing in this, by recourse to instrumentalities in which all parties could be heard. To date the matter has remained in bilateral diplomatic channels. The other instance relates to a border incident between Peru and Ecuador. As one of the four guarantors of the 1942 Boundary Protocol,⁴ the United States has joined the other three countries (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) in establishing a commission to investigate the incident. We have also consulted with the Governments concerned and with the other Guarantors on the creation of a Peru–Ecuador group to verify the factual situation regarding allegations of each country of provocative actions on the part of the other.

Consultation with Latin American Countries: The United States took steps to inform or consult with the Latin American States on two important matters relating to the signing of an armistice in Korea.⁵ The Government of Colombia has been invited to join the United States in informing the Foreign Ministers of the Latin American governments of the content and purpose of the “Joint Policy Declaration”⁶ which the United Nations members with forces in Korea (Colombia is the only Latin American country with forces in Korea) are planning to make following the signing of the armistice. To this end each United States Embassy has been instructed to coordinate and make a joint approach to the Foreign Minister with the Colombian Ambassador shortly before the release of the Declaration.

Pursuant to instructions from the President, the Latin American governments are being consulted with respect to their views on the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations⁷ following a Korean armistice. The United States Embassies have been instructed in making the approach, to explain the reasons for the stand of the United States against Chinese Communist representation as fully as is considered advisable in the light of the circumstances of each government. On the basis of reports received to date, it is evident that the United States will be able to count on substantial Latin American support.

Following the Army coup d’etat in Colombia on June 13,⁸ in which Lt. General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla ousted President Laureano Gomez, the United States exchanged information with all the other American republics, except Guatemala, before proceeding to recognize the new regime. The consultation revealed that the other American Republics had substantially the same information regarding the Rojas Government as the United States, i.e., that it appeared to be in effective control of the governmental machinery and territory and that the strong statements made by General Rojas indicated a clear intention to carry out Colombia’s international obligations. The basic criteria of the traditional recognition policy with regard to Latin America having been met the United States recognized the Rojas Government on June 18, an action which, consistent with Resolution XXXV⁹ of the Ninth Inter-American Conference at Bogotá in 1948, did not imply a judgment on the internal policies of the government concerned. Notice of this action was given to all the American Republics in advance.

High Level Consideration of Latin American Problems: The appearance and message¹⁰ of the President before the Council of the OAS commemorating Pan American Day was the outstanding instance during the period of sympathetic attention to Latin American representatives. In his message the President stated his desire that the Government of the United States take careful stock of the economic and social conditions now prevailing throughout the hemisphere and of the efforts being pressed to bring a better life to all of the peoples of the Americas. This assessment is now under way with visits by the Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs¹¹ to Mexico, the Central American and Caribbean Republics and Panama,¹² and by Dr. Milton Eisenhower to the countries in South America.¹³ The Secretary of State in an address¹⁴ before the Council of the OAS on March 23 stressed the purpose of the new Administration to pursue the development of mutual relations of trust and respect with the other American Republics with increased vigor and effectiveness. A further demonstration that Latin American problems are receiving consideration at the highest levels of government, when such attention is required, is evidenced by the announcement from the White House on June 22 that the President, the Secretaries of State and Treasury, and other high officials had discussed the Bolivian problem. The President’s unanticipated appearance at Mr. Cabot’s dinner for Dr. Milton Eisenhower attended by the Ambassadors of all of the South American countries, his invitation to the daughter of President Vargas and her husband to come to Washington where they were entertained at the White House, his invitation to the President of Mexico¹⁵ to participate in the dedication of Falcon Dam¹⁶ on the Rio Grande River and the award of the Legion of Merit to the President of Peru¹⁷ constitute gestures which have considerable appeal to Latin American sensibilities.

High level attention to the Latin American military include the visits to the United States of the Minister of Defense of Brazil¹⁸ in March and the Commander in Chief of the Paraguayan Armed Forces¹⁹ in June at the invitation of the Secretary of the Army²⁰ and the visits in May of Chief of Staff of the United States Army²¹ to Mexico, Panama and Colombia and the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force²² to Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Brazil, Peru and Colombia and in June and July the Visit of the Undersecretary of the Army²³ to Haiti, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela.

Assistance to Central American Countries in Resisting Pressures from Guatemala: Action has been taken to give moral support to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador and military assistance to the latter three to resist pressures from Guatemala. On April 4, Guatemala withdrew from the Organization of Central American States (ODECA)²⁴ charging the other Central American governments with aggressive intent and entering into military and civil alliances against Guatemala. This action appears to have been taken in response to efforts on the part of El Salvador to have ODECA discuss and agree upon measures to combat communism. As such, it constitutes a victory for communist elements in Guatemala who have consistently opposed ODECA, a victory which would have been complete if as a result of Guatemalan withdrawal the Organization were to collapse. At their initiative, and considering that the continuation of ODECA is desirable as a first step toward possible later consideration in the OAS of the communist problem in Guatemala, the United States gave its moral support to the efforts of the four other Central American States to maintain the Organization and specifically their plans to take action against the infiltration of communism in the area. In addition to this psychological backing, consideration is being given to providing limited military assistance to bolster further their resistance to Guatemalan pressures. The extent of the military assistance is described below.

Control of Subversive Activities: The action of the other American Republics against internal subversive activities during the period under review reveals in general the continued vacillating and superficial nature of Latin American resistance to the communist conspiracy. The following steps of a more than routine importance have been taken to reverse this trend.

Requests received from Venezuela and Brazil served to underline the need for more adequate ways to satisfy the desire of Latin American governments for United States Government training in police methods and anti-subversion techniques. In the absence of any such Federal agency training program available to foreign nations, the attention of interested Latin American governments has been called on various occasions during the past year to the facilities of a private United States police investigative organization, whose personnel have had official experience, and a follow-up is being made to assure that these facilities are being used as widely as possible.

As a result of the increase in external subversive activities of Guatemalan communist forces and the heightening of political tensions in neighboring countries. …

Labor: In cooperation with the Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT), the western hemisphere branch of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) a third group of prospective Latin American labor leaders, making a total of thirty labor leaders to date, has been trained at the University of Puerto Rico. However, the new leaders of ORIT have shown sensitivity to formal working relationships with any government and have decided not to continue the school. Consequently, it will be continued by the United States Government in cooperation with United States labor organizations.

The program of training prospective Latin American labor leaders, of bringing more mature labor leaders to this country for travel and orientation, and the approach to Latin American labor through our Labor Attachés and labor officers abroad has begun to make a definite impression on the attitudes of Latin American labor.

Control of Shipments of Strategic Materials: No direct exports of strategic materials from Latin America to the Soviet bloc are known to have occurred during the second quarter of 1953. Continuing reports of trans-shipment of Chilean copper through European free ports prompted the presentation of a note to the Chilean Foreign Office on April 29,²⁵ again recommending institution of the Import Certificate and Delivery Verification system. There have also been reports, so far unsubstantiated, of trans-shipment of strategic materials of Mexican origin.

Embassy Buenos Aires was informed by the Foreign Minister,²⁶ prior to initiation of Argentine discussions with a Soviet trade mission, that no strategic materials would be offered for exchange.

Embassy La Paz is being kept currently informed by the Bolivian Government regarding trade agreement negotiations now in progress with Czechoslovakia.

With United States encouragement the Government of Costa Rica revoked the registry of two ships transmitting strategic materials to countries in the Soviet bloc.

2. Economic

Encouragement of Private Investment: Little further progress has been made in improving the climate for private investment in the Latin American countries, with the possible exception of Haiti and Bolivia. An investment guarantee agreement has been concluded with Haiti.²⁷ Bolivia, which has heretofore followed a policy of developing its petroleum resources through a government monopoly, has signed an agreement permitting a private American firm to exploit two petroleum areas, and Bolivian officials state that they hope this agreement will serve as a prototype for others.

The Bolivian Government on June 10 agreed to an arrangement for payment of American claims arising out of nationalization of the tin mines²⁸ which should help to reassure private investors regarding the future treatment of foreign capital. With this indication of good faith on the part of the Government it will be possible to proceed with plans for stabilizing the Bolivian economy through a tin purchase program and expansion of the technical cooperation program.

The Chilean Government has failed to make any downward adjustment in the official price of Chilean copper to bring it in line with world market prices, thus precluding the American companies operating in Chile from competing in world markets, with resultant strain on their financial position. Expropriation by the Government of Guatemala of the major portion of the United Fruit Company’s Tiquisate properties, under its agrarian reform law, marks further deterioration in the outlook for private captical in Guatemala.

United States Shipping and Aviation Interests in Latin America: The outlook for United States shipping lines operating to the east coast of Latin America has improved. Brazil has recently introduced legislation to cancel certain discriminations against United States shipping, such as exclusive berthing and warehousing privileges accorded the Brazilian line and a consular fee practice which diverted cargo to national flag vessels. On our part, legislation has been introduced which would permit the sale of twelve vessels to Brazil to improve its coastal transportation.²⁹ As regards the west coast, the United States has found it necessary to make representations to the Chilean Government with respect to its recent actions to divert commercial cargo to Chilean vessels.

A civil aviation agreement with Cuba,³⁰ which has been in process of negotiation for over a year, was concluded in June. It is anticipated that a similar agreement³¹ will be signed with Venezuela within the month.

International Bank and Export–Import Bank Loan Activities: Loans authorized by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the Export–Import Bank of Washington during the second quarter of 1953 totaled $6,755,000 as compared with authorizations of $301,567,000 during the first quarter. Of the first quarter authorizations, $300 millions represented a single loan to Brazil for liquidation of its dollar commercial backlog.³²

Brazil’s dollar balance of payments situation deteriorated during the quarter, making it difficult to meet the conditions imposed under the terms of the loan. Nevertheless a second drawing of $60 millions against the loan was permitted in the light of assurances by the new Minister of Finance³³ of cooperation in adjusting the situation.

The fact that the Joint Brazil–United States Economic Development Commission, organized in 1951, is about to be terminated and that financing of its remaining program is to be considered on an individual project basis and will depend on Brazil’s financial position, will tend to slow the rate of lending.

A loan of $120 millions for a copper project in Peru, $60 millions of which was to be covered by a certificate from the Office of Defense Mobilization, was considered by the Export–Import Bank. No final decision has been taken but the Office of Defense Mobilization decided on July 8 not to issue a certificate.³⁴

Credits totaling approximately $80 millions are under active consideration by the two banks. They include a $20 million pulp-paper loan to Chile, $49 millions for four projects of the Joint Brazil–United States Economic Development Commission and $4 millions for airports in Ecuador. Negotiations on some of these loans have been protracted, and the political advantage which the United States might have expected to derive from them has been correspondingly reduced.

Technical Cooperation Program: Appropriations of $24.3 millions have been requested to continue the technical cooperation program in nineteen of the twenty Latin American republics during the fiscal year 1954. If approved, this will permit a 10% expansion in the technical cooperation program being administered by the Technical Cooperation Administration.

Grant-Aid for Highways in Central America: The Congress has tentatively agreed to appropriate $1 million for continuation of work on the Rama Road, which should be helpful in our relations with Nicaragua. The amount tentatively appropriated for the Inter-American Highway, however, was only $1 million, or 1/8th of the amount requested and previously authorized. The appropriation bill providing these amounts is now being considered by a Conference Committee.

United States Trade with Latin America: No progress can be recorded toward fulfillment of our objective of facilitating the sale of Latin American products in the United States with almost all efforts being expended in an effort to retain gains already made. Legislation introduced to increase restrictions on the importation of lead, zinc and residual fuel oil have given rise to widespread criticism of the United States in those countries which might be adversely affected by its passage, especially Mexico, Peru and Venezuela.

Fears regarding the future tariff policy of the United States were in no wise allayed by the fact that countervailing duties were imposed during the second quarter of 1953 on Uruguayan wool tops. This is the first instance in recent years of imposition of a countervailing duty to offset a subsidy arising out of multiple exchange rates.

Monetary Stabilization and Fiscal Reforms: On May 14 the Bolivian Government initiated a highly important program of monetary stabilization and reform of the foreign exchange system. This action was taken on the urging of the United States and in close consultation with the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations Technical Assistance Mission to Bolivia.

The International Monetary Fund, the Export–Import and International Banks and the Department of State both in Washington and in Rio de Janeiro have urged Brazil to undertake fiscal, budgetary and monetary reforms. A new Minister of Finance has been appointed whose statements are encouraging but whose program is not yet clearly established.

A preliminary report on the Consultation of the International Monetary Fund with Chile, urging fiscal reforms, was published in Chile. The Department of State has consistently pointed out to the Chilean Government the need for an almost complete overhaul of its fiscal and monetary system in order to cope successfully with its economic and trade problems. Chile’s failure to take concrete steps to curb inflation has hampered that Government’s efforts to obtain development loans.

The Stabilization Fund Agreement between the United States and Mexico was renewed with modifications on June 9³⁵ for a further period of 2½ years.

3. Information and Related Activities

Tailoring Information Program to Latin America: Steps are being taken to direct the information program more sharply at individual countries or groups of countries in the region. In view of developments in Chilie which have been detrimental to United States private firms operating in that country, a special information program has been undertaken in Chile with effective results. Efforts directed against the growth and dissemination of communist influence from Guatemala continued successfully. The deteriorating situation in Bolivia, and the blame improperly heaped on the United States as a result, was countered with factual information explaining the United States position but, failing political and economic action which would relieve the situation, the net result of information activities can not be expected to be particularly useful.

Efforts to convince Latin American countries of our interest in them and our determination to devote more attention to them were successfully advanced through information activities connected with (1) the visit of the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs to Mexico, the Caribbean and Central American Republics and Panama and (2) Dr. Milton Eisenhower’s visit to the South American countries.

Action Against Communist Sponsored Meetings: Information activities resulted in almost completely discrediting the Communist sponsored Cultural Congress held in Santiago, Chile,³⁶ to which a great number of non-Communist leaders were invited. This Congress was intended to be a western hemisphere affair and was designed to attack alleged United States restrictions on cultural activities. Attendance was reduced largely to known communists and the Congress failed of its objective. Activities to discredit persons attending local Soviet-inspired “Peace” Congresses as well as European and other “Peace” Congresses continued successfully. An effective exposé contained in a prominent Mexico City daily of Soviet activities out of Mexico City was used to our advantage throughout Latin America.

Local Communist and Other Anti-United States Activities: Continued limited successes in combatting communism on a local level can be reported as well as considerable progress in improving the attitudes of leaders and the masses toward the United States. However, inability to provide propaganda directed at the local level continues to be a weakness of the program.

Little effective work has been done to combat anti-United States propaganda and activities of the Peron Government of Argentina or that brand of ultra-nationalism in a number of Latin American countries which has strong anti-United States overtones. A plan is now in preparation for an information program to meet the problem of ultra-nationalist propaganda.

. . . . . . .

4. Military

The following report on military relations with Latin America covers the period since the Seventh Progress Report on NSC 56/2, “United States Policy Toward Inter-American Military Collaboration” dated October 14, 1952.³⁷ The Seventh Progress Report was submitted as of September 25, 1952.

Military Assistance Program: A limited grant military assistance program for Latin America was initiated in early 1952 under the provisions of the Mutual Security Act of 1951.³⁸ The Congress has appropriated in fiscal years 1952 and 1953 a total of $89,835,750 for this program and is now considering an additional request for $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1954.

A bilateral Military Assistance Agreement with the Dominican Republic was signed in Washington on March 6³⁹ and, after ratification by the Dominican Government, entered into force on June 10.

After a delay of over a year, the Military Assistance Agreement with Brazil,⁴⁰ which was vigorously attacked in Brazil by communist and extreme nationalists and until the second quarter of 1953 rather ineffectively supported by the Vargas Administration, was finally ratified and entered into force on May 19. The three most telling arguments (largely fallacious) used against the Agreement were: (1) it would be used as a pretext to send troops to Korea; (2) it was subject to unilateral amendment by the United States Congress, and is subordinate to United States statutes; (3) it was designed to give the United States control over Brazilian strategic materials and to obtain these materials at reduced prices.

Similar problems plagued the ratification of the Agreement with Uruguay⁴¹ which, almost a year after it was signed, entered into force on June 11. The secret Military Plan, which is an annex to the bilateral Military Assistance Agreement, has not yet been signed by Uruguay.

Prospects of an eventual military assistance agreement with Mexico became much dimmer during the period. Following press reports in the United States that the United States was going to insist that Mexico sign such an agreement, the Mexican press started a rather vigorous campaign against it. The visits of Generals Hoyt Vandenberg and J. Lawton Collins to Mexico in early May were seized upon as an indication that the United States intended to press for reopening of discussions for such an agreement and as a further opportunity to oppose it. This press campaign reached such proportions that it was considered necessary to instruct our Ambassador⁴² in June to issue an official release or take other appropriate action denying any effort on our part to reopen discussions. When the joint Mexico–United States Defense Commission had its regular meeting in Mexico City in July the Mexican Minister of Defense⁴³ went out of his way to state to the press that “Mexico will not contribute a single man for fighting abroad.”

Negotiations for funds to cover local administrative expenses of the program are in progress in Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay and have been concluded with Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

The Chief of the Military Assistance Advisory Group in Brazil has been instructed to enter into negotiations with Brazilian military authorities looking toward an increase in the number of Army units Brazil would agree to maintain for hemisphere defense.

As a result of increased tension in relations between El Salvador and Guatemala, a special mission to Washington from El Salvador discussed in February the purchase of a substantial quantity of military equipment from the United States and the inclusion of El Salvador in the military assistance program. The Department of the Army, under the reimbursable provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949,⁴⁴ has offered to sell El Salvador the arms she desires.

Partly as a result of these discussions with Salvadoran officials preliminary consideration has been given to the possibility of developing defense tasks which would warrant the inclusion of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua in the military assistance program.⁴⁵ The principal factors on which the proposal was based are that inclusion of the three countries would contribute to diminishing Communist influence in Central America, particularly in Guatemala, and increase the willingness and ability of Central American states to resist communist subversion and pressure. Moreover, the implicit emphasis on Guatemala’s ineligibility to receive grant assistance might have the effect of establishing in Guatemala a political climate of benefit to anti-communist Guatemalan elements, especially elements in the Guatemalan armed forces. At the present state of consideration, it appears that adequate basis is offered for an approach to Nicaragua to include that country in the military assistance program with the possibility of renewed consideration, if developments in Central America should require, to determine the eligibility of El Salvador and Honduras.

Although Haiti has not been included in the program, that government has again expressed its desire to conclude an agreement.

The principal problems which have confronted the United States in carrying out the program are:

1. Delay in ratification of the Brazilian and Uruguayan Agreements;

2. Working out the necessary administrative and other details involved in carrying out a new military program;

3. Making available, within the existing status of Latin America as the lowest priority area, equipment and supplies to implement the program;

4. Counteracting propaganda attacks by communist and ultra-nationalist, who have made strong efforts to distort the true purpose of the program and prevent its implementation.

Although the first problem has been solved and measures have been taken to solve the second in the near future, it can be expected that the latter two problems will continue to persist in varying degrees as long as the program continues and the world situation remains as it is.

Military Staff Discussions with Venezuela: Consideration is being given to proposing to Venezuela the resumption of military staff talks on the defense of that country’s oil fields which were discontinued in 1951.⁴⁶ These planning talks were discontinued at the request of Venezuela because of her dissatisfaction over the method of payment for and the delay in delivery of military equipment to that country under the reimbursable provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949. Deliveries of equipment have improved but it is expected that the success of any staff discussions with Venezuela will depend primarily on the ability of the United States to satisfy at least a significant portion of Venezuela’s requests for military equipment with reasonable promptness.

Protection of Sources of Strategic Materials: Responsibilities for assisting in the protection of sources and processing facilities of strategic materials in the Latin America area are at present defined by the provisions of NSC 29, “Security of Strategically Important Industrial Operations in Foreign Countries”⁴⁷ and action is guided by the determinations of the Special Inter-Agency Committee on Vulnerability of Foreign Sources of Strategically Important Materials. The Tenth Progress Report⁴⁸ on this subject was submitted to the National Security Council under date of June 8.

Base Requirements in the Galapagos Islands: Consideration is being given to the most effective means by which it can be assured that Ecuador will agree to make available to the United States base rights in the Galapagos Islands in the event of war or other extreme emergency.

Inter-American Defense Board: The United States has continued its participation and leadership in the Inter-American Defense Board.

Colombia became the ninth country to approve the General Military Plan for the Defense of the American Continent⁴⁹ which was prepared by the Board as a result of Resolution III⁵⁰ of the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and approved by the Board on November 15, 1951.

The significant omission from the list of countries approving either the Military Plan or the earlier Common Defense Scheme for the Defense of the American Continent⁵¹ is Mexico which is understood to have suggested a number of revisions in the General Military Plan.

Joint Brazil–United States Military Commission: United States and Brazilian defense officials have formulated recommendations to their respective governments concerning the continued operation of the Joint Brazil–United States Military Commission in Rio de Janeiro and the Joint Brazil–United States Defense Commission in Washington under a proposed new permanent board on defense. In general, these recommendations would provide for: (a) an exchange of notes providing for the continued existence of these two Commissions under a new board and (b) a secret arrangement between the Brazilian Armed Forces General Staff and the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff which would define objectives, functions and procedures for the two existing Commissions and the new Board.

Joint Mexico–United States Defense Commission: The Commission continued its activities during the period. The Defense Planning Committee of the Commission held its third plenary meeting at New Orleans October 13–16, 1952. That meeting was followed by the 61st plenary meeting of the Commission in Washington on November 19, 1952 when the Commission approved the Mexico–United States Emergency Defense Plan which has since been approved by the two governments. The Defense Planning Committee held its fourth plenary session at Acapulco May 18–21 and the Commission held its 62nd plenary session in Mexico City July 6–8.

Army, Navy and Air Force Missions: The United States Government has Army, Navy or Air Force Missions in all of the twenty Latin American republics except Argentina and the Dominican Republic. United States Naval Advisors are assigned to the Argentine Naval School by individual agreement with the Argentine Government but the United States does not have a Naval Mission Agreement with Argentina and does not maintain a mission there as such. At the beginning of the report period, the United States had Missions in the following countries:

• Army Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela
• Navy Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Peru and Venezuela
• Air Force Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela

An Air Force Mission was inaugurated in Nicaragua on April 15.⁵² An Army Mission Agreement was signed with El Salvador on May 21.⁵³ This Agreement replaced a previous Agreement⁵⁴ which provided for the assignment of a United States Army officer as director of the Salvadoran military school but which was terminated on January 13 when our officer was withdrawn and El Salvador appointed one of its own officers as director the school. Nicaragua has requested that an Army Mission be assigned to that country.

Training in United States Service Schools: Students from Latin American countries continued to receive training during the period at Service schools in the Canal Zone and in the United States.

Reduction of Attachés in Latin America: Reductions in Attaché offices in Latin America leave the United States with no resident service attaché in Bolivia, Haiti and Paraguay. While assignment of attachés from neighboring countries to serve also in these countries may meet the intelligence requirements of the Service Departments, the reduction has hurt the national pride of these countries and is taken by them as an indication of the lack of importance attached to them by the United States.

Contributions to United Nations Action In Korea: In response to our written inquiry for a clarification of that Government’s policy with regard to a troop contribution for the United Nations action in Korea, the Dominican Government has orally informed our Chargé at Ciudad Trujillo⁵⁵ that the Dominican Government is thinking of sending 1,000 men to Korea. Our Chargé reports that the Dominican Government is preparing an infantry battalion to be sent to Korea and has urged early acceptance of this oral offer of troops made by Generalissimo Rafael Trujillo, Chief of the Dominican Armed Forces. This offer is now being considered.

Colombia continues to be the only country in Latin America with forces in Korea. A request from Colombia to substitute an artillery battalion for its infantry battalion in Korea has been considered and rejected but with the suggestion that if Colombia desires to train artillerymen it might send an artillery battery to Korea. A Colombia frigate continues to serve in Korean waters. Discussions have been held with the Colombian Embassy in Washington regarding settlement of Colombia’s logistical support bill of some $8 millions but no progress has been made,⁵⁶ Colombia showing little evidence of intention to pay any of this outstanding bill.

Standardization of Military Equipment: Latin American countries continue to purchase military equipment, primarily jet aircraft and naval vessels, from other than United States sources. Recent significant contracts made by the British include 70 Gloster Meteor jets to Brazil in exchange for cotton and 6 Canberra jet bombers to Venezuela in addition to the 20 Vampire jets Venezuela had previously purchased. There are reports that a contract for 15 jet fighter aircraft has been made with the Dominican Republic. Venezuela has contracted for three naval vessels from England and three from Italy.

The purchase of jet aircraft from non-United States sources came as a result of the desire, not necessarily a need, of the Latin American countries to have modern jet aircraft and the inability of the United States, because of more urgent requirements elsewhere, to meet this demand. The British apparently are able to offer much more attractive terms, including barter arrangements, and assurance of prompt delivery.

Efforts are now being made to meet this situation by making available a limited quantity of training and second-line fighter jet aircraft at prices comparable to those offered by the British. Information that some jet aircraft are available for sale resulted in the Chileans deciding to defer a contemplated purchase from the British and to consider purchasing from the United States. Colombia, Mexico and Peru have also indicated an interest in purchasing United States jet aircraft.

Venezuela’s contracts with the British and the Italians for naval vessels arise out of similar circumstances—the inability of the United States to make available new naval vessels to Venezuela at comparable prices and within a reasonable time.

With these exceptions, there have been no significant purchases of foreign military equipment by Latin American countries eligible to purchase equipment from the United States under the reimbursable provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended. As of April 30, Latin American countries have deposited some $32.3 millions for military equipment, $25.7 millions of which has been shipped, under the terms of this legislation, the greater portion of which has been sold at 10% of the original cost plus the cost of rehabilitation.

W. B. Smith

1. A title sheet and summary are not printed. Drafted by Robert M. Sayre, William G. Bowdler, and Jean H. Mulliken; cleared with the Offices of South American Affairs, Middle American Affairs, and Regional American Affairs, the Bureau of Economic Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of State, and the Policy Planning Staff.
2. Strengthening of Internal Security (Washington, 1953); a copy is in Department of State file 361.01/9–953.
3. For text of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro, Sept. 2, 1947, and entered into force for the United States, Dec. 3, 1948, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No. 1838, or 62 Stat. (pt. 2) 1681.
4. For text of the protocol between Ecuador and Peru regarding peace, friendship, and boundaries, signed at Rio de Janeiro, Jan. 29, 1942 (signed also by the representatives of the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile as guarantors), see Department of State Executive Agreement Series (EAS) No. 288, or 56 Stat. (pt. 2) 1818.
5. For text of the Armistice Agreement between the UN Commander in Korea and the Commanders of Communist Forces in Korea, signed in Korea, July 27, 1953, see TIAS No. 2782, or United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (UST), vol. 4, p. 234, Documentation relating to the signing of the armistice is printed in volume xv .
6. For text of the referenced declaration, signed in Washington, July 27, 1953, and released by the United Nations on Aug. 7, see Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 24, 1953, p. 247.
7. For documentation on this subject, see vol. iii, p. 620 ff.
8. Regarding the change of government in Colombia and recognition of the new regime by the United States, see the editorial note and the memorandum by Cabot, pp. 802 and 803.
9. For text of the referenced resolution, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, which convened in Bogotá, Mar. 30–May 2, 1948, see Ninth International Conference of American States: Report of the Delegation of the United States of America With Related Documents (Department of State Publication 3263, Washington, 1948), p. 271.
10. Reference is to President Eisenhower’s speech of Apr. 12, 1953, cited in footnote 6, p. 3.
11. John M. Cabot.
12. Assistant Secretary Cabot visited nine countries during the period Apr. 6–May 3, 1953 (Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama); pertinent documents are in file 110.15 CA.
13. At the request of President Eisenhower, Dr. Eisenhower visited the ten countries in South America between June 23 and July 29, 1953, for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding mission; see the editorial note, p. 196.
14. For the text of the referenced address, see Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 30, 1953, pp. 459–460.
15. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines.
16. The dedication of Falcón Dam and Power Plant took place on Oct. 19, 1953; for text of President Eisenhower’s address delivered at the dedication ceremony, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953, pp. 692–696 or Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 2, 1953, pp. 579–580.
17. President Manuel A. Odría of Peru received the Legion of Merit award in Lima, June 25, 1953; pertinent documents are in file 090.1123.
18. Gen. Cyro de Espiritu Santo Cardoso.
19. Gen. Alfredo Stroessner.
20. Robert T. Stevens.
21. Gen. J. Lawton Collins; documents pertaining to General Collins’ visit, which took place May 4–14, 1953, are in file 711.5820.
22. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, who retired on June 30, 1953.
23. Earl D. Johnson.
24. See footnote 3, p. 1069.
25. Reference is to Embassy note 125, dated Apr. 29, 1953; a copy is enclosed with despatch 1213, from Santiago, dated Apr. 30, 1953, not printed. (460.259/4–3053)
26. Jerónimo Remorino.

27. For text of the exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the United States and Haiti relating to guaranties authorized by section 111(b) (3) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, signed at Washington, Mar. 13 and Apr. 2, 1953, and entered into force on the latter date, see TIAS No. 2818, or 4 UST (pt. 2) 1546.

    The Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 is Title I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 (Public Law 472), approved Apr. 3, 1948; for text, see 62 Stat. 137.

28. For documentation on the nationalization of the Bolivian tin mines and the response of the United States, see pp. 485 ff.
29. Reference is to Senate bill 2370, introduced July 13, 1953, which subsequently became “An act to authorize the sale of certain vessels to Brazil for use in the coastwise trade of Brazil” (Public Law 496), approved July 15, 1954; for text, see 68 Stat. 481.
30. For text of the exchange of notes constituting an agreement to facilitate notification of private flights between the United States and Cuba, signed at Habana, Jan. 19 and Feb. 26, 1953, and entered into force on the latter date, see TIAS No. 2779 or 4 UST 210.
31. For text of the exchange of notes constituting an air transport agreement, signed at Caracas, Aug. 14, 1953, and entered into force Aug. 22, 1953, see TIAS No. 2813 or 4 UST 1493.
32. Reference is to an Export–Import Bank loan to Brazil, approved Feb. 21, 1953; see Mr. Mann’s memorandum, Feb. 20, 1953, p. 606.
33. Oswaldo Aranha.
34. On Nov. 4, 1954, the Export–Import Bank approved a loan not to exceed $100 million to the Southern Peru Copper Corporation for development of the Toquepala copper deposits in southern Peru; see footnote 4, p. 1534.
35. For information pertaining to the renewal of the referenced Stabilization Fund Agreement, see the Department of the Treasury press release, dated June 9, 1953, printed in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances (Washington, 1954), pp. 226–227.
36. Reference is to the Congreso Continental de la Cultura (Continental Cultural Congress), held in Santiago, Apr. 26–May 1, 1953; a detailed report on the meeting and its aftermath is contained in despatch 1331, from Santiago, dated June 8, 1953, not printed. (398.44 SA/6–853)
37. For text of the Seventh Progress Report on NSC 56/2, see p. 132.
38. For text of the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (Public Law 165), approved Oct. 10, 1951, see 65 Stat. 373.
39. For text of the referenced agreement, see TIAS No. 2777 or 4 UST 184.
40. The referenced agreement was signed at Rio de Janeiro, Mar. 15, 1952, and entered into force, May 19, 1953; for text, see TIAS No. 2776, or 4 UST 170.
41. For text of the Military Assistance Agreement between the United States and Uruguay, signed at Montevideo, June 30, 1952, and entered into force, June 11, 1953, see TIAS No. 2778 or 4 UST 197.
42. Francis White.
43. Gen. Matias Ramos Santos.
44. Public Law 329, approved Oct. 6, 1949; for text, see 63 Stat. 714.
45. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 144 ff.
46. Documentation relating to the referenced military staff talks is printed in Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. ii, pp. 1623 ff.
47. NSC 29, dated Aug. 26, 1948, adopted by the NSC, Sept. 2, 1948, and approved by President Truman on Sept. 4, is not printed.
48. Not printed.
49. For information on the referenced plan, approved by the Inter-American Defense Board, Nov. 15, 1951, see the editorial note, Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. ii, p. 1028.
50. For text of Resolution III, adopted by the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which convened in Washington, Mar. 26–Apr. 7, 1951, see Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs: Proceedings (Washington, 1951), pp. 239–240.
51. For information on the Common Defense Scheme, approved by the Inter-American Defense Board, Oct. 27, 1950, and by the Department of State, Jan. 15, 1951, see Secretary of Defense Marshall’s letter to Secretary Acheson, Dec. 16, 1950, Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. i, p. 679.
52. An agreement providing for the establishment of a U.S. Air Force mission in Nicaragua was signed at Managua, Nov. 19, 1952, and entered into force on the same date; for text, see TIAS No. 2683 or 3 UST (pt. 4) 5027.
53. For text of the agreement providing for the establishment of U.S. Army mission in El Salvador, signed at San Salvador, May 21, 1953, and entered into force on the same date, see TIAS No. 2825 or 4 UST (pt. 2) 1579.
54. For text of the referenced agreement, signed at San Salvador, May 21, 1943, and entered into force on the same date, see EAS No. 238 or 57 Stat. 1000.
55. Richard A. Johnson.
56. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 769 ff.