The Deputy Secretary of Defense
the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: As you will recall, negotiations were successfully concluded with the Government of Saudi Arabia for military rights at Dhahran Airfield on 18 June 1951.1 Since that time, however, requirements for certain additional rights in connection with the U.S. operations in Saudi Arabia have developed. I am enclosing a detailed statement of these requirements.2
It is requested that negotiations be initiated with the Government of Saudi Arabia with a view of securing these additional requirements under the general terms and conditions of the present Agreement. The exact form in which these supplementary requirements should be cast is a matter which can best be determined during the course of negotiations, but this Department would wish to review the proposed supplement prior to its signature.
As in the case of the previous negotiations, I will appoint Brigadier General E. M. Day, USAF, to represent the Department of Defense as a military advisor to Ambassador Hare to assist him during the course of these negotiations.
- For documentation on this topic, see
Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. V, pp. 1017 ff. See in particular telegram 698 from Jidda, May 31, 1951, ibid., p. 1053.↩
The statement, entitled “Table of Requirements for New Negotiations with Saudi Arabia for Additional Facilities at Dhahran Airfield,” is not printed. It listed a number of communications and Aircraft Control and Warning (AC&W. requirements desired by the Department of Defense.
Instruction 1 to the Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, dated July 8, informed him the Department of Defense had requested the Department of State to initiate negotiations for supplementary requirements in Saudi Arabia, and General Day had been instructed to assist him. A letter by the Acting Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State, dated July 19, transmitted a copy of the letter of instructions the Department of Defense had sent General Day. Because of the MAAG negotiations going on at the time, the negotiations under reference here were not begun at that time. The matter was brought up in the following year. Documentation on this topic is in Department of State file 711.56386A.↩