Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 2

711.56352/5–352: Telegram

No. 855
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Spain ¹

secret
niact

Washington , May 6, 1952—6:21 p.m.

954. USNEG. Re Embtels 1163,² 1165, 1176, 1190, 1191 and Deptel 926.³ Vigon memo Apr 26 gives impressions Spans desire massive aid as quid pro quo for US use mil facilities in Spain. Their specific desires as indicated Vigon memo are of course far in excess our capabilities. As you know our approach is that agreet with Spans shld be based on concept of mutual security. While Span argument made by Vigon(para 4a) has superficial plausibility, our gen view is that if attack shld come Spain wld inevitably be involved ultimately. Real Def Span against probable attack lies in most effective Def as far to north and east as possible. If discussion more specific quid pro quo required, Spans shld not be permitted lose sight of fact aid we are now discussing includes, in addition mil aid, substantial econ aid program.

We note from Embtel 1190 Kissner has apparently answered Span misconceptions re availabilities equipment intended for NATO divisions. Re Vigon’s specific questions para 4b, Embtel 1163, detailed breakdown Apr 7 draft of requirements, which Lennhoff (Deptel 865⁴) carried, contains list of equipment we desire install and operate for air defense system. Much of this equipment presumably similar to equipment Vigon has indicated Spans require. Difference wld thus appear to arise over: a) amount of this equipment; and b) responsibility for operational control and use this equipment.

Re other armament and transport matériel desired for Span Army, Navy and Air Force, supply of such equipment highly unlikely. (FYI only to supply items desired by 1954 wld require Span priority higher than NATO, and during immediate period after 1954 wld require priority comparable to NATO recipients.)

As you know we plan supply Spans with some mil training equipment including matériel for anti-aircraft training. However before more definite information can be given Spans this regard we must mutually agree re: a) amount $100 million to be allocated to mil equipment; and b) breakdown this amount as to type of equipment and service recipient. This shld be developed ad referendum with Spans.

Re paras 4 and 5 Embtel 1163 (Deptel 926 and Embtel 1165) Kissner shld agree with Vigon’s statement para 6f Embtel 1163 and reply that “paras h and k accordingly need not be made subj further consideration in these negots.”

Re para i⁵ in requirements list suggest this be dropped without further discussion. If Spans themselves shld raise it later, first three paras this tel give basis for informal reply.

Order avoid recurrence confusion similar to problem re paras h, i and k,⁶ note terms of reference JUSMG para 1d,⁷ which indicate “Joint State–Def instructions are to be sent to it through Emb.” No instructions, guidances or other advice affecting substance these negots shld be acted on unless received through this channel. USNEG series established for this purpose.

Re Embtel 1191 you may release to authorized reprs Span Min Def blueprints, carried by Gen Garvin, for 105 mm how under provisions para 8g (2) and para 11a, DADCMI. Even though document unclassified above provisions DADCMI considered applicable.⁸

Acheson

1. Drafted by Dunham and Wolf and cleared with Byington, Connor of the Department of Defense, Billingsley of the Department of the Army, McCaffery of the Air Force, and Weir of the Navy. Repeated to Paris and Rome.
2. Document 852.
3. Telegram 1165 from Madrid, Apr. 29, and telegram 926 to Madrid, Apr. 28, are described in Document 853. Telegrams 1176 of Apr. 30, 1190 of May 3, and 1191 of May 3, reported various details of the aid negotiations. (711.56352/4–3052 and 711.56352/5–352)
4. Dated Apr. 11, telegram 865 reported that Lennhoff departed Washington on that day with the drafts of a proposed defense agreement and of the U.S. military requirements. (711.56352/4–1152)
5. Paragraph (i) is described in Document 834.
6. In a letter of May 23 from Ambassador MacVeagh to Dunham, Kissner was reported to have felt that no harm had actually come of the confusion over which list of military requirements represented the U.S. position. (611.52/5–2352)
7. The terms of reference are summarized in Document 834.
8. In accordance with the instructions contained here, Kissner presented a memorandum complementary to that presented at the fifth meeting on May 1 (see Document 852), during the sixth session with Vigon on May 9. This memorandum, together with a memorandum of conversation for that meeting, was transmitted from Madrid in despatch 1142, May 12. (711.56352/5–1252)