229. Letter From the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy) to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Gray)1
Dear Mr. Gray: I refer to Mr. Leffingwell’s letter of September 5 to Mr. Barnes2 which transmitted a pricing and availability study on the list of equipment requested by Argentina for its armed services.
That letter states that the Department of Defense would be prepared to loan two submarines and two destroyers to Argentina, subject to Congressional approval and to Argentina’s willingness to obligate these vessels to hemisphere defense missions “under a mutual assistance arrangement similar to those made with other Latin American nations.”
While Argentina has shown no inclination to conclude a general military assistance agreement, the Department of State has reason to believe that it would be prepared to make specific commitments regarding the use of naval vessels in hemisphere defense missions in, for example, an exchange of notes. There are, of course, affirmative reasons of both a military and political nature for the United States to assist Argentina in acquiring military equipment. Particularly relevant is the fact that the present pro-United States Government in Argentina is largely military-controlled and supported. Having expressed its frank desire to work more closely with us and to seek aid from us in several fields, including the military, the extent to which we can meet legitimate military aspirations is bound to influence Argentine judgement of the value of continued cooperation with us.
I therefore believe that we should explore every feasible means of meeting requests for equipment in order to mitigate inevitable Argentine disappointments that might adversely affect that country’s willingness to cooperate with us. This is particularly true since even if a MDAP with Argentina were possible the amount of United States grant assistance which could be extended thereunder would necessarily be limited and would not meet Argentina’s aspirations.
One way of accomplishing this objective would be to loan naval vessels to Argentina, since the latter has limited resources with which to buy equipment outright or on credit and since grant aid is [Page 453] not feasible. Accordingly, I would appreciate being informed whether specific Argentine hemisphere defense commitments made in an exchange of notes would be acceptable as a basis for loaning naval vessels and if so, what the nature of those specific commitments should be. I would also appreciate being informed, should a loan of vessels not be feasible, whether it would be possible to sell Argentina vessels of the type requested under the reimbursable aid provisions of the Mutual Security Act.
I believe that should a loan prove feasible, careful consideration should be given to the number of vessels offered. Since two submarines and two destroyers are approximately the same amounts as those being loaned to Brazil and Chile, these latter countries might be resentful at Argentina’s acquisition of the same number of vessels without an MDAP. We would, of course, wish to avoid embarrassment in our relations with Argentina’s neighbors or risking damage to our long and close military collaboration with them. We have asked our Embassies in Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, and Buenos Aires for their preliminary estimate on this point. I would appreciate your views as to what number and types we could appropriately loan Argentina, should that be possible, without damaging our relations with Brazil and Chile.
Ambassador Vicchi has been furnished with the balance of the information contained in Mr. Leffingwell’s letter regarding the Air Force and Army materiel, and has been apprised of our policy with respect to grant aid. The Ambassador was also informed that the Department of State wished to consult further with the Department of Defense regarding the availability of naval vessels and that no estimate of the possibilities in this regard could yet be given. A memorandum covering this conversation has been sent to your office separately.3
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 735.5–MSP/10–3156. Secret. Drafted by Vaky. In a memorandum to Murphy, October 25, Rubottom discussed the possible loan of U.S. naval vessels to Argentina and enclosed this proposed letter to Gray which Murphy approved without change. (Ibid., 735.5621/10–2556)↩
- See footnote 2, supra.↩
- In a letter to Murphy, December 26, Gray explained that the Department of Defense considered that the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement of January 8, 1951, between the United States and Argentina “constitutes a basic country-to-country agreement for the loan of naval ships to Argentina.” “The Department of Defense,” he added, “reaffirms the position that the naval vessels in question are available for loan to Argentina; however, if the Department of State does not consider the loan to be feasible from a political or economic point of view, the Department of Defense will reconsider the Argentine request on a sale basis. It should be noted, however, that the existing provisions of the Mutual Security Act do not authorize the sale of these vessels.” (Department of State, Central Files, 735.5–MSP/12–2656) For text of the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement between the United States and Argentina, signed on January 4 and 8, 1951, and entered into force on January 8, see 3 UST 2735.↩
- Printed from a copy which bears this typed signature.↩