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

RA files, lot 58 D 387, “Spain VI”

No. 905
Memorandum by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Bonbright) to the Secretary of State¹

secret

[Washington,] September 24, 1953.

• Subject: Proposed Change in Base Agreement with Spain.

Discussion

The attached memorandum of September 22² to the Under Secretary (Tab A) explains our view that certain clauses in technical schedules attached to the base agreement with Spain contain an implied U.S. commitment to cooperate in the air defense of Spain. It is our opinion that such an implied security commitment cannot be made without Senate ratification. General Smith concurred in our recommendation that this language be deleted even though this might cause difficulties and delay the signature of the agreements.

The Defense Department does not agree that there is any implied commitment and does not concur with our recommendation. Secretary Wilson has asked that the matter be brought to you for decision and would appreciate having your views by telephone.

The Department of Defense feels that our request for this change at this late date will delay early signature and may jeopardize conclusion of the agreements which are regarded as very advantageous to the U.S. However, we believe that if the Spaniards attach such importance to this matter as to jeopardize the agreements, this can only mean that they understand the language to contain the very commitment we are seeking to avoid. Secondly, the Defense Department argues that the permissive nature of the sentence at issue does not bind the U.S. and further that the separate exchange of notes regarding the use of bases (Tab B³) provides the U.S. sufficient latitude in this respect. However it is clear that if the US stations intercept squadrons on the bases, as is intended, it is then bound “to cooperate with the Spanish air force in air defense” and nothing in the exchange of notes would alter that commitment.

We will be available to discuss this subject at your convenience if you should so desire.

Recommendations

1. That our Embassy be instructed to obtain the deletion of “in air defense” even though this may cause difficulties and delay the signature of the agreements.

2. If you agree with the above, that you inform Mr. Wilson of your conclusion.

1. Drafted by Dunham and Rogers.
2. Not found attached to the source text; a copy is in Secretary’s Letters, lot 56 D 459, “S”.
3. Not found in Department of State files.