Office of the Historian

128. Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation Between the Secretary of State and the Director of the International Cooperation Administration (Hollister), Washington, February 9, 19571

Washington, February 9, 1957

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. HOLLISTER

I asked Mr. Hollister if he could make available for the SEATO meeting one of his top people. He said that Mr. Moyer,2 who he thought at that time would be in the Philippines, could go on and that he would arrange this.

He then referred to my letter [memorandum] with reference to multilateral economic assistance through SEATO.3 He said that he was not inclined to agree with what he understood to be the State Department view that in effect we would turn over $10,000,000 to be used in any way that the Asian SEATO members wanted. I said that I had not understood this to be the State Department position and that I myself would not be in favor of our losing control over the ways of expenditure. I said that my thought had rather been that there might very well be situations involving SEATO members which we would be dealing with in any event, and that if so it might be useful to put them into the SEATO context.4

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/2–957. Drafted by Dulles.↩
  2. Raymond T. Moyer, Regional Director for the Far East, International Cooperation Administration.↩
  3. Supra.↩
  4. In a memorandum to Dulles, dated February 12, Robertson stated that he had seen this memorandum and wished “to advise that your understanding of the proposal for expenditure of $10 million was entirely correct. The proposal in no way involved our losing control over the expenditure of the funds. I am also advised that ICA now understands the true nature of the proposal.” (Department of State, FE Files: Lot 58 D 209, Foreign Aid 1957)

    The ICA responded to the memorandum from Dulles to Hollister, supra, in a memorandum to Dulles, February 14, from the Acting Director, which reads: “We will, of course, implement the proposal if you believe the political advantages are overriding.” The remainder of the letter dealt with the administration of the proposed fund. (Ibid., Central Files, 790.5–MSP/2–1457)

    ↩