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

734.58/9–453

The Ambassador in Paraguay (Shaw) to the Department of State ¹

confidential
No. 125

Asunción, September 4, 1953.

Ref:

• Embdes 97 of August 22, 1953;² Deptel 15 of August 21, 1953;³ Embdes 124 of September 3, 1953.⁴

Subject:

• Request of Paraguayan Government for Extension of U.S. Military Mission Agreement for Four Years.

The United States Military Mission Agreement signed on December 10, 1943⁵ as extended, expires on December 10, 1953. The Paraguayan Government has asked for a further extension of this agreement for a period of four years. The request for the extension of the agreement makes no suggestions for changes in the text of the agreement. The request brings up a consideration of the advisability of recommending a further extension. It is thought advisable for the Department to have at hand the views of this office concerning not only the military but the political effectiveness of this mission during the ten years just past.

The real reasons why the Paraguayan Government wants a United States Military Mission can only be deduced from local knowledge and from Article 1 of the original agreement which reads as follows:

“The purpose of this Mission is to cooperate with the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Paraguay and to serve as instructors at the Paraguayan Superior School of War and for such other purposes as may be agreed upon by the Chief of the Mission and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.”

The Paraguayan Government transmitted its Note No. 24 of June 13, 1953⁶ to the Embassy, and at the same time informed its Ambassador⁷ in Washington of the action it had taken instructing him at an appropriate time and in his discretion to follow up this request and to express to the Department an interest in the progress of it. The Foreign Office has sent Ambassador Boettner no instructions or communications on the subject since that time. It is understood that Ambassador Boettner did inquire about this matter on August 21, undoubtedly in accordance with the instructions he had received in June. The Foreign Office which had some difficulty even finding the file does not seem to be concerned about the progress of the matter except to express the hope that an extension may eventually be granted. During the informal conversation on this subject the Minister of Foreign Affairs was quoted as stating that should there be any negotiations on this matter involving changes in the text or revisions of the agreement, both he and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces⁸ would prefer the negotiations to be carried out in Asunción.

A consideration of the ten years of experience with this mission in Paraguay; the knowledge of this Embassy of Paraguayan thinking and attitudes; the importance of the military elements in the political picture; the difficult financial situation of the Government; and, numerous other factors including that of personalities, lead to the following conclusions as to really why Paraguay may desire this extension:

The presence of a United States Military Mission lends prestige to Paraguay and, more particularly, to the Paraguayan military establishment. In the Paraguayan mind it shows to neighboring countries that the United States is backing the Government of Paraguay and the party in power, which remains in power largely because of the military.

The presence of the mission enables Paraguay to say that it is following United States military doctrine. It also, by Paraguayan thinking, justifies a claim that Paraguay is cooperating with the United States by accepting the military mission.

Paraguay has impressions also that it is easier to send officers to General Staff and similar schools in the United States, although this is not necessarily so, and the same thing applies to lesser ranking officers, cadets, mechanics, etc.

There crops up in conversations on this subject also a latent desire for Paraguay to get financial aid for the purchase of new and modern military equipment.

While Paraguay desires the presence of the mission, the authorities made it plain that they do not want the mission to extend its influence too far. The language of the present agreement is explicit that the officers are instructors and that is their well recognized field of activity. It is not desired that they get into the field of determining general policy in military instruction.

The stated United States objectives are set out in a confidential communication of the Department of the Army dated June 9, 1950 (AGAO–S 334 (29 May 1950) G3–M).⁹ Subject: “Standing Instructions for the Operation of United States Army Missions in Latin American Countries.”

The stated purposes follow with appropriate comment:

The United States Army Missions in Latin America are constituted for the purpose of promoting hemispheric security by assisting Latin American Governments in military affairs.

Comment: The effect of the mission in Paraguay toward promoting hemispheric security at this time and through its limited operations and slight impact on the Government is very small. It is admitted that it might be advantageous to have the mission established here in case of another world crisis and when it might be desirous of bringing some additional pressure on the Paraguayan Government military-wise. It is an expensive precaution in the meantime.

To foster friendly relations and strengthen the ties of Inter-American solidarity.

Comment: The ability to do this depends in a large degree upon the personalities of the Chief of the Mission and his staff; their command of the language, their ability to mix with the population, their knowledge of the local situation, which pre-supposes close cooperation with the Embassy, all in addition to a high degree of technical ability. The relations of the present mission are friendly but not impressive, or particularly effective. It is seriously not believed that the amount of strengthening of the ties received justifies the considerable expense involved.

To occupy the field of military cooperation in Latin America and the exclusion of non-Western hemisphere participation and influence.

Comment: The mission undoubtedly is occupying one segment of the field and the agreement itself probably would serve to prevent the establishment of a European mission. An existing agreement with the same terms and a mission half the size would accomplish the same thing. While it has been stated as a matter of policy that the United States Government does not object to other friendly Latin American nations establishing military missions in this country, the establishment, expansion, and operation of such missions have, from the correspondence, given us concern. This has been especially true of the willingness of Argentina to replace our influence in Paraguay at every opportunity. There are now two Argentine missions present—a military geographic mission, and military officers actually in charge of and instructing the police school. It is understood that a proposal for an Argentine naval mission is now under consideration. There is present a Brazilian mission about three times the size of the American mission which is operating on the level of combat troops rather than exclusively at general staff level where the United States mission operates. If the objective is to exclude a non-Western hemisphere nation, this might well be accomplished by leaving the field open to such a friendly nation as Brazil which has the same exclusive clause in its agreement as does the United States.

To increase the efficiency of Latin American forces by training their personnel in the military doctrine of United States military forces.

Comment: The instruction given by the United States mission has, as stated above, been limited to the general staff level and has had little effect on the efficiency of the Paraguayan forces generally. Even in the general staff, the United States doctrine is largely a matter of paper organization and competent observers have reported that the office of the Chief of Staff, who is a graduate of courses at Fort Leavenworth, does not have his office organized in accordance with United States Army standards. There must be some eventual results of teaching ranking officers our methods, but they are not readily visible and it is quite certain that the net result is obtained at high cost.

To promote standardization of United States equipment and organization and to encourage the use of material of United States manufacture and design.

Comment: Ten years of effort have resulted in equipping the Paraguayan army with just two 105-mm field howitzers. No other armament is of American manufacture. If material in its broad sense is contemplated, then it should be noted that such trucks and cars as are used are of American manufacture. There are various reasons for this situation, but the fact remains. It is doubtful if the Paraguayan Army will be in a financial position in the foreseeable future to re-equip any large part of its armed forces with United States material. This is the least important reason for the mission remaining in the field.

The above officially stated objectives of the mission did not include the factor of enlisting Paraguayan support of the United Nations and the United States in any foreign campaign. While the Government made a contribution of $10,000 to the Korean situation, it has consistently refused to make a definite statement as to whether Paraguayan troops might be available for service abroad, even if they were equipped, trained, transported, and armed by a friendly nation or nations.

Historical Comment

The Brazilian Military Mission appears to have come to Paraguay in May 1942.

The United States Military Mission signed its first agreement on December 10, 1943.

The Brazilian Mission continued to operate informally until August 3, 1948. When the agreement was signed, Ambassador Warren¹⁰ sent his Note No. 85 of July 30, 1948¹¹ to the Foreign Office stating that this Embassy had no objection to the agreement with Brazil as proposed. In expressing this concurrence, it was understood that Article 3 of the Brazilian contract in no way cancelled or modified the provisions of Article 1 of the United States agreement in which the primary position of the United States Army Mission and its right to participate and work in any or all phases of Paraguayan military activity was established. The Paraguayan authorities have referred to this communication and have pointed out that, as a matter of fact, the Brazilian mission was in the country and operating before the United States mission and for some five years with its tacit consent, at least without any objection, and that in expressing its agreement for the signing of the Brazilian contract it did not violate Article 20 of our agreement as it was within the terms of Article 20 which says, “except by mutual agreement” between the Governments. There is nothing in either the United States or Brazilian contracts which refers to a “primary position”, and the Paraguayan Government considers that the missions are on an exactly equal footing each operating in distinct fields, that the question of rank or precedence does not arise. If the Department feels that this matter should be clarified, during the negotiations for the extension of this agreement is the time to do it. In view of the evident attitude of the Paraguayan Government, this Embassy does not feel that this should be made an issue.

The Paraguayan Government also does not concede that the United States has a “right to participate and work in any or all phases of Paraguayan military activity”. It considers that the purpose of the mission is as stated in Article 1 and that is for the officers to serve as instructors, “and for such other purposes as may be agreed upon by the Chief of the Mission and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces”. The Commander in Chief has pointed out that there has been no such agreement for activities for other purposes. It is believed that the mission might well during the past ten years have sold the Paraguayan military on an expansion of its activities and field of influence, but it is equally evident that this has not been done. If this is really desired it will require a bit of negotiating. It is not recommended that it be made an issue now. The time element is mentioned in view of the recommendation for action mentioned below as regards a short term agreement with an automatic extension clause.

The Paraguayan Government has on occasion offered to give the United States Military Mission exclusive jurisdiction in the instructional field, at the price of taking over all of the activities, which would mean increasing the size of our mission to double or treble its present complement.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The record of the last ten years shows that the United States military mission has fallen far short of obtaining the objectives outlined by the Department of the Army. It has accomplished something, of course, but the results have been obtained at considerable expense and it is doubted if they could be justified economically. During the period of the war they could, undoubtedly, be justified politically and as a matter of expediency. That is not true today. The military mission could be pulled out of Paraguay and, while the Paraguayan Government would not like it any more than it liked the closing of the military attaché’s office recently, it would have no serious effect, at least militarily.

There is a question of the bolstering up of the present constitutional Paraguayan Government. It is believed that removing the mission would discourage the Government considerably. Its enemies would make capital of it as would the enemies of the United States. It is believed that the mission’s removal next year might well be contemplated.

Economically it has been pointed out that, while the maintenance of the mission is expensive, transferring these officers to another post of duty would not relieve the United States Government of the cost of their salaries and allowances. The Paraguayan Government pays them some extra compensation and it provides office quarters (see Embassy Despatch No. 116 of September 2, 1953¹²) and certain other privileges so the cost really is not as great as it might appear to be at first glance nor would the saving be as great as might be thought by withdrawing the mission.

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the objectives be reviewed and restated, and that the chief of the military mission be informed that the principal objective is political, and that it must be achieved through close cooperation with the United States diplomatic mission and through its guidance and knowledge of the general situation. This has not been the case heretofore; in fact, there has been an evident lack of desire to maintain close contact with the Embassy and the help which the Embassy has received from the mission and which it might logically expect has not been forthcoming.

It is further recommended that certain minor changes be made in the text of the agreement. It is believed that there would be no objection to changing the title to read “Army Mission Agreement”. The Chief of Staff would consent to inserting in the preamble after the word “officers”, “and enlisted men”. This would simplify customs procedures in connection with free entry.

It is not recommended that any attempt be made to force the Paraguayan Government to give the United States Mission precedence or control over the activities of the Brazilian or Argentine missions at this time. It is recommended that the Chief of Mission endeavor to sell this idea to the military authorities during the coming year. This will depend upon the personality and influence of the Chief of Mission, which should be one of his outstanding characteristics. The Department is informed that any attempt along this line would probably bring forth a counter-proposal from the Paraguayan Government to take over all their military instruction at the price of increasing the mission at least three-fold. It is doubtful, according to what appears in current instructions on economy, that our Government would be willing to undertake this proposal. There is also the objection that the Brazilian Mission is instructing the horse cavalry and we do not appear to have officers available for detail to this type of duty.

It is recommended that the United States do not show too great an eagerness to renew this agreement, but as a practical matter it might advantageously follow the lead of the Brazilian Government and propose that the agreement be extended for a period of one year, with the proviso that the agreement would continue to be extended year by year indefinitely, unless either Government advised the other in writing three months in advance of the expiration date. It is strongly recommended that this clause be inserted and it is believed that it would be accepted by the Paraguayan Government. The advantage of it is that it would relieve the United States Government, including the Department of State and the Department of the Army, of periodically considering an extension. Simply taking no action at all would allow the agreement to run as long as desired. On the other hand, it could be terminated at any time on three months notice. The door would not be closed to modifications of the agreement at any time in the future.

The Embassy has now established contact and familiarity with the points involved as well as a working basis with the responsible military officers and would be happy to undertake the negotiation of any of the changes recommended above or any others which the Department may have in mind¹³

Geo. P. Shaw

1. Drafted by Ambassador Shaw.
2. Not printed; it concerned Paraguayan interest in an extension of the U.S. Military Mission Agreement (734.58/8–2252).
3. Not printed; it instructed the Embassy to present appropriate notes to the Paraguayan Government with respect to an extension of the Military Mission Agreement (734.58/6–2653).
4. Not printed; it contained a report on the status of the military mission in Paraguay (734.58/9–353).
5. For text, see Department of State Executive Agreement Series (EAS) No. 354, or 57 Stat. 1184.
6. Not printed.
7. Luís Oscar Boettner.
8. Maj. Gen. Alfredo Stroessner.
9. Not found in Department of State files.
10. Fletcher Warren, Ambassador to Paraguay, Apr. 10, 1947–July 25, 1950.
11. Not printed.
12. Not printed; it concerned the obligation of the Paraguayan Government to furnish quarters for the U.S. military mission in Paraguay (734.58/9–253).
13. Negotiations looking toward extension of the Military Mission Agreement were initiated in late 1953 and continued intermittently through 1954, but no agreement was signed until mid-1955. Documents pertaining to the negotiations are in file 734.58 for 1953 and 1954.