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

711.56352/4–2253: Telegram

No. 892
The Ambassador in Spain (Dunn) to the Department of State

secret
priority

Madrid, April 22, 1953—6 p.m.

835. Personal for Bonbright, EUR. Am seriously concerned at your indication that FY 1954 aid figures recommended in Department’s letter March 6 to DMS¹ “no longer feasible” (Department telegram 774, April 20²). I am in complete agreement with statement last paragraph Embtel 683³ February 27 that our recommendations represented minimum amounts of military and economic aid “indispensable for negotiation purposes, as evidence good faith US carrying out statement of intent and to achieve cooperative atmosphere for effective utilization facilities in Spain”. In my judgment, these US requirements may not be achieved, even by possible result No. 1 of economy review suggested reference telegram. However, of three possibilities mentioned, this is only one which offers any hope of mutually acceptable conclusion of negotiations provided military aid is increased by not less than $50 million.

We believe that either “reappropriation of 125 million without any increase” or “reappropriation only of military aid portion of 125 million” could only mean that negotiations would not succeed. In the first instance, only reappropriation for second time of amount which Congress first made available to Spain in October 1951⁴ would strengthen doubts which already exist on Spanish side regarding the seriousness of our intentions. To reduce aid to military portion only of original appropriation would, we are convinced, be completely unacceptable to Spaniards who have repeatedly stated that considerable assistance to reinforce Spain’s economy is essential element in providing bases for belligerent purposes. Further on this point (No. 3 of reference telegram) this proposal seems to us self-defeating since, without counterpart generated by economic aid, Defense Department would require substantially larger dollar appropriations than presently contemplated for base construction to purchase Spanish currency to pay local costs. Thus “saving” to US taxpayer by eliminating economic aid would be more apparent than real.

Should results of review of budget be either No. 2 or No. 3 of your telegram, I assume decision will have been based on determination that US Government does not need Spanish bases. Consequently, in such event, I feel I should be authorized to tell Spaniards promptly that US Government has come to conclusion present negotiations should be terminated.

Dunn

1. See footnote 5, Document 882.
2. Supra.
3. Document 882.
4. Reference is to the Mutual Security Appropriations Act of 1952, P. L. 82–249 (65 Stat. 730), Oct. 31, 1951.