Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

780.5/9–1952

No. 86
Memorandum by the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Mutual Security Affairs (Martin)¹

secret

[Washington,] September 19, 1952.

Subject:

• Mr. Ohly’s Memorandum of September 15—MEDO and United States Armed Policy in the Middle East²

In the Department’s telegram to London dated September 6, 1952, number 1645,³ the statement “supply some arms and training assistance” to certain of the Middle East states in furtherance of the MEDO objectives was based directly on an official statement of position prepared with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense as a briefing document for the President in his discussions with Mr. Churchill earlier this year.⁴ This statement included the following passage: “U.S. participation will be limited to participation in the integrated command staff and to the provision of some military aid.”

In stating the U.S. position on the UK proposals for MEDO, the Department of State and the Department of Defense felt it necessary to make it clear that U.S. participation in the proposed organization did not imply a commitment to provide forces to the Middle East for its defense. This negative statement, unbalanced by any positive indication of the contribution the U.S. is prepared to make, would have had most unfortunate effects. The Department of State feels that if launched under the proper auspices, the MEDO may make an important contribution to the furtherance of the Western interests in the Middle East, but that without strong evidence of U.S. interest in the organization, the prospects of accomplishments of any significance are poor. In view of our inability to provide forces for the organization, the most important contribution we can make will be in the form of military aid. Although the language of the telegram quoted above might be construed as describing nothing more than the reimbursable aid program now under way, we felt that to have stated merely that the U.S. is prepared to sell some arms to the Middle East would hardly have accomplished the described purpose. The language used was in fact intended to suggest the possibility of grant military aid, which we believe was also the intent of the position paper prepared for the President.

The eventuality of the U.S. providing such grant military aid to the Near East has, of course, been foreseen in Mutual Security Legislation of the past two years, which has authorized the President, under certain conditions, to transfer up to 10% of the appropriations for military aid to Greece, Turkey and Iran to other Near East States.

As you are aware, the Department of State and the Department of Defense have been of the opinion that the time has not been propitious for the exercise of this authority. However, the Department of State has become increasingly convinced that more positive actions on the part of the United States are required in the Middle East. This requirement is acknowledged in NSC 129/1,⁵ which states that the “US should be prepared to play a larger role in safeguarding Western interests in the area… by providing appropriate economic, technical and military assistance”.⁶ The study of the allocation of U.S. resources now under way should give clearer indication of the amounts of assistance the U.S. can provide for the Near East area in implementation of this policy. In addition, the Department of State is now preparing for NSC consideration a further development of the position stated in 129/1. Moreover, as you know, the Department of State has requested the Department of Defense to undertake a study of the problems involved in a forward defense of the area with particular reference to the forces, equipment and facilities required. The results of this study, we understand, may be available by the end of the month.

We feel that the studies listed above may provide a solid basis for the work of developing military aid programs for some of the Middle East States and possibly for an Executive Branch request for additional legislative authority. In the meantime, as was agreed with you in our meeting of September 15, representatives of the Department of State are exploring with officers of the Department of Defense the preliminary steps which can now be undertaken in planning for such programs and what can now be done to provide against the eventuality that the several studies mentioned above will indicate the desirability of including additional provision for the Near East States in Mutual Security Legislation for 1954.

We will, of course, keep you currently informed of developments in this matter and will furnish you with additional data as these become available.

Edwin M. Martin

1. This memorandum was addressed to Frank Nash and John H. Ohly.
2. Not printed.
3. The telegram under reference transmitted the undated paper prepared by Daspit, supra.
4. The document referred to is the Negotiating Paper Prepared in the Department of State, TCT D–4/2d, Document 55. The section of the paper under reference here reads: “Our participation does not involve the commitment of troops. United States participation will be limited to participation in the integrated command staff and to the provision of some military aid.”
5. Document 71.
6. Ellipsis in the source text.