289. Memorandum of Conversation0
SUBJECT
- JCS Views of Ambassador Briggs’ Recommendations on Personnel Privileges and Immunities1
PARTICIPANTS
- Parker T. Hart, Deputy Assistant Secretary, NEA
- Major General John Dabney, Defense
- Rear Admiral Grantham, Defense, ISA
- Colonel Dallas Haynes, Defense, ISA
- Ellis O. Briggs, Ambassador to Greece
- Owen T. Jones, Director, GTI
- Oliver M. Marcy, Deputy Director, GTI
- L. Bruce Laingen, GTI
- Thomas S. Estes, A
- Barr Washburn, Executive Director, NEA
General Dabney said he would like to present the views of the JCS on the Ambassador’s recommendations. He had only very recently received them and there had not been time to clear them in other parts of Defense.
1. Immunities
The JCS did not concur that all but the top echelon of the JUSMAGG have only those immunities provided for by NATO. SOF and our bilateral SOF Agreement with Greece. JCS referred to specific extension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to military aid mission personnel in the 1947 Greek aid agreement. JCS felt that as a part of the Ambassador’s official family as provided for in that agreement, the JUSMAGG should continue to hold the same privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by other parts of the Embassy staff. These are needed for the effective performance of JUSMAGG duties. General Dabney noted that JCS felt that JUSMAGG had essentially the same contacts and needs for the immunities as Embassy personnel. The JCS felt that the situation in Greece was no different than that in other NATO countries.
Discussion: Ambassador Briggs said he viewed JUSMAGG as a part of the Embassy only to the extent that it came under the ultimate jurisdiction [Page 710] of the Ambassador. The privileges and immunities of JUSMAGG were originally provided for in a period of great chaos and unrest in Greece. The situation had now changed fundamentally. He questioned whether these privileges were now relevant to the effective performance of JUSMAGG duties. His purpose in recommending reductions in privileges and immunities had been to remove a potential area of friction in our relations with Greece.
In response to General Dabney’s query, the Ambassador assured him that relations between the Greek military and JUSMAGG were excellent. It was complaints from other elements of the Greek population that he feared and which he wanted to prevent by early action on our part.
Mr. Hart noted that the privileges and immunities of other civilian agency groups in Athens were also being reviewed. The Ambassador noted his hope to drastically reduce the size of the USOM in Athens and to curtail the immunities of a large VOA group.
The Ambassador said his objective was to place the JUSMAGG, except for the top Command, on the same basis as that of the USAF contingents in Greece. There was no reason why the two should differ in the privileges and immunities they enjoyed. The effect of the change would be that when JUSMAGG personnel were involved in accidents, the Embassy would need to request waivers from the Greek Government as it did for USAF personnel. This was not necessary now. There would be no change in privileges, with JUSMAGG continuing to enjoy free entry privileges plus PX and commissary privileges.
Admiral Grantham responded that JUSMAGG officers deal with military and political authorities. USAF in contrast was an operating agency and would not have such contacts. The Ambassador responded that he felt JUSMAGG contacts were also primarily with the military.
General Dabney asked about the variation within the Embassy staff of privileges and immunities. The Ambassador said that these ranged from persons with diplomatic passports and on the diplomatic list to those who have special passports and who are only listed with the Foreign Office as a part of the Embassy establishment. All had the same privileges but not all the same immunities. Everyone had free entry privileges and he was not proposing that these be removed.
Mr. Jones raised the question of the comparable JUSMATT situation in Turkey, noting the general propensity of the Greeks to always make comparisons between Greece and Turkey. He said he doubted that anyone in JUSMATT, except the top four officers, had immunities beyond those provided for in NATOSOF. There was general agreement that it would be important to determine exactly what the present situation was for JUSMATT in Turkey.
[Page 711]2. PX, Commissary and Other Privileges
The JCS concurred that the PX and commissary should preferably be located on the Athens Air Base. The move, however, would require funds which were not now available. Present facilities were available rent free and there would be a financial loss involved in moving.
As for a cutback of commodities now on sale in PX and commissary, JCS was prepared to direct European Command action on a review pursuant to OCB policy.2 They were not agreeable to a local committee on the spot in Athens. The Ambassador would be informed when the Command’s review was complete.
The JCS concurred in the Ambassador’s recommendation for a periodic review of holders of PX, commissary and APO privileges.
The JCS concurred on a need to construct barracks at the Air Base for single USAF personnel. It noted that a 133–man dormitory is now provided in the 1961 budget. Requests would be made for additional funds for additional housing.
The JCS concurred in the proposal to issue regular rather than special license plates for the bulk of American personnel in Greece, but recommended some small identifying insignia of some kind.
Discussion: On a building for the PX and commissary on the air base, the Ambassador said that land area was adequate there. He thought State might help in urging Defense to give high priority to funds for a building because of the political importance of the move. General Dabney promised to discuss the matter of funds with the Air Force.
The General promised to do the same on funds for additional barracks. The Ambassador said this had the highest priority in his opinion. He stressed that the problems created by the absence of centralized housing for these young and single airmen combined with the Defense Department’s liberal regulations for the use of automobiles overseas created more public relations problems for the Embassy than any other area of community relations.
3. Size of Attaché Establishment
The JCS did not concur in either the proposed reduction of the Attaché staff or the transfer of the FAST Program to JUSMAGG. To reduce the size of the establishment would cause marked reduction in its intelligence [Page 712] capabilities. Reducing the AF and Navy Attachés to Assistant Attachés would reduce their effectiveness with the Greek military.
The JCS could see no advantage in transferring the FASTP to JUSMAGG since it was not associated in any way with the aid program. The JCS also contested the Ambassador’s figures on FASTP, claiming only three officers were now attached. Mr. Hart said he thought the FASTP very definitely should be separate from the Attaché establishment.
General Dabney promised that Defense would take a hard look at the size of the Attaché establishment. He said “If you think we have too many attachés in Athens, we will be glad to follow up on this with the three Services”. He said he would be personally inclined to agree with the Ambassador. The Ambassador urged that the matter be discussed with the new Army Attaché about to leave for Athens.
4. Joint Inspection at Athens
There was some discussion of the Ambassador’s earlier suggestion that a joint inspection of U.S. Government operations in Greece be made at an early date. Mr. Estes thought there might be merit, in view of overall OCB guidance and efforts, to send out a joint team to consider one specific country. He added that State inspection teams had no formal instructions for coordination with the U.S. military presence in Greece. Each Washington agency inspection team went out in connection with its own operations only. He thought that some way might usefully be devised of getting through to the Washington bureaucracy [the need for?] an over-all and coordinated inspection of our posts overseas.
General Dabney said that for Defense the present guidance under OCB and other directives provided adequate results. As for an inspection, the respective military area commanders have these responsibilities. Mr. Estes replied that he was aware of this but that his thought was that on occasion it might be better for a centralized approach on an overall inspection by representatives from Washington agencies.
There was also some discussion of the Ambassador’s thesis that far too much time was spent by State and Defense representatives in the field in carrying out detailed studies of various hypothetical and theoretical situations growing out of the availability of various levels of aid, various levels of internal budget support, and various levels of achievement of MC–70.3 The Ambassador termed a good deal of this “shadow-boxing”. General Dabney thought it might be possible to cut down the number of reports requested of JUSMAGG in Athens. The Ambassador said he intended to discuss this with Generals Norstad and Palmer in Paris.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 781.5–MSP/3–2160. Confidential; No Distribution Outside Department. Drafted by Laingen.↩
- In despatch 463 from Athens, December 1, 1959, Briggs raised the issue of excessive numbers of U.S. military personnel in Greece and the related problem of the effect of their special privileges on Greek attitudes about the United States and its foreign policy. (Ibid., 711.56381/12–159)↩
- Apparently a reference to the OCB “Report on U.S. Personnel Overseas (July 1959).” A copy of this report, which commented on legal, personal, and community relations problems facing U.S. military and civilian employees serving abroad, is ibid., OCB Files: Lot 62 D 430, Overseas Personnel.↩
- See footnote 2, Document 244.↩