Office of the Historian

856D.00 TA/10–652: Telegram

No. 226
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in Indonesia

secret
priority
Washington, October 14, 1952—5:31 p.m.

562. Dept desires take advantage current easing Indo Cabinet situation to renew steps toward new aid Agreement (Deptel 536).1 Emb instructed make fol reply in informal memo to FonMin Mukarto re his Oct 6 oral statement of PriMin Wilopo’s objection Embtel 644 to legal paras in proposed new aid Agreements (Deptel 472 Sept 27):

1.
US Govt considers that inclusion legal provisions in proposed Indo Notes wld be desirable for sake of explicitness and clarity and in interest simplicity program operations. Legal provisions for this reason mentioned in conversations between Indo Amb and Asst SecState for FE and included in US drafts proposed in response Indo Note Sep 9.
2.
US Govt appreciates, however, polit disadvantage which PriMin believes from Indo viewpoint may attach to inclusion these legal provisions in proposed new Agreements, as result identification these provisions with Jan 5 1952 Agreement US Govt prepared to be of assistance this matter within limit legally permissible.
3.
Law does not permit US Govt waive substance legal provisions set forth US Draft Note Sep 29 (Deptel 472 Sep 27, Embtel 620 Oct 3) but on other hand is not rigid as to acceptable form in which substance may be given.
4.
In view of fact that Indo Govt has stated that it continues to regard Jan 1952 Agreement as in effect until replaced by new Agreement. US Govt understands that “anti-attachment” and “return of equip” provisions in that Agreement will have continuing applicability to constab equip which has or will have been delivered to Indo on grant basis under Jan 5 1952 Agreement and before its expiration. In consideration PriMin’s viewpoint orally expressed by FonMin Oct 6, and on basis above understanding, US Govt is prepared accept Indo Note as drafted Sep 25 requesting transfer undelivered constab equip from grant to reimbursable basis without explicit repetition above provisions.
5.
US Govt similarly understands that “anti-attachment” provision will also have continuing applicability to funds allocated to or derived from econ and tech aid projects which have or will have been authorized under Jan 5, 1952 Agreement and before its expiration. In consideration PriMin’s viewpoint US Govt accordingly prepared also accept Indo Note in form drafted Sep 25 re econ and tech aid without explicit repetition above provision.
6.
Authorization of new funds under TCA program in Indo after expiration Jan 5, 1952 Agreement will of necessity depend upon an [Page 330] undertaking in some form which accomplishes purpose “anti-attachment” provision. Such undertaking may subsequently be made on tech level by inclusion this provision: 1) in a communication addressed by Indo Econ Coordinating Comite to STEM Mission at Djakarta, covering all future firm requests or 2) in future individual firm requests as each is presented. (It is noted that first alternative might be preferable from point of view simplicity program operations.)
7.
US Govt observes parenthetically these legal provisions are not expected present substantial problems in Indo. It is not expected that there will be much if any grant constab equip for return US after use in Indo. No court action within terms “anti-attachment” provision has occurred since this provision has been negotiated with recipient countries and only one isolated instance has occurred in whole history US post-war aid programs all countries.

FYI: In view reference to Indo Amb in para 1 he will be informed of substance this informal memo in order that he may be in a position supply his Govt clarification above legalities.2

Bruce
  1. Document 224.↩

  2. The Department of State sent the following message to Djakarta on Oct. 16:

    “At your discretion defer action Dept 562 Oct 14 in view Embtel 699 Oct 15, press report that Parliament has voted motion censuring Min of Defense.” (Telegram 575; 856D.00 TA/10–1652)

    Telegram 699 is not printed.

    ↩