Office of the Historian

411. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Tunisia1

Washington, November 2, 1959—6:02 p.m.

563. Joint State/ICA. Embtel 577.2FYI. We agree proposed 10% cut SA unfortunate and could create considerable friction in US-Tunisian relations. However Bourguiba is realist and conceivably might accept persuasive presentation US rationale behind SA decrease. Furthermore decision has not yet been reached on Oued Nebana. Should it be approved, such action would more than offset SA reduction and total US assistance could then be presented as vivid demonstration our support staunch political ally. In any event US assistance was given Tunisia in two slices FY 1959. Should Tunisians be especially concerned after receiving $18 million and should Oued Nebana not be approved, Dept will re-examine situation at that time. End FYI.

You authorized proceed with notifying GOT of $18 million SA proposed for FY 1960. Know you will make best case possible for this figure. Hope you can keep aid level discussion from becoming public issue pending assessment GOT reaction. We await your impressions and further recommendations following your discussion.3

Herter
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 772.5–MSP/10–2259. Confidential. Drafted by Buckle on October 30; cleared by Dolgin, Bell, ICA, and DLF; and approved and signed for Herter by Satterthwaite.↩
  2. Telegram 577, October 22, recommended against proposed reductions in U.S. aid to Tunisia, citing Tunisian belief that the United States had promised not to allow aid to Tunisia to drop below the fiscal year 1959 level and indications that Tunisia would turn to the Soviet bloc if denied Western aid. It urged that Tunisia’s application for a loan to build a dam in the Oued Nebana region be approved if U.S. aid was reduced. (Ibid.)↩
  3. Telegram 625 from Tunis, November 4, reported it was advisable to wait until after the November 8 Tunisian elections to inform the government of the aid cuts, reiterated arguments opposing the reductions, and urged again that the loan for Oued Nebana be approved if the cuts were upheld. (Ibid., 772.5–MSP/11–459)↩