Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXI, Africa

197. Letter From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Williams) to the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (Williams)⁰

Washington, August 17, 1961.

Dear Governor Williams: We have thoroughly reviewed and discussed with your staff the draft paper on “U.S. Policy on Arms Supply to Tropical Africa” which Mr. Bowles sent to Mr. Gilpatric in his letter of May 3, 1961,¹ and fully agree with you that our military assistance policy in Africa should contribute toward limiting the armed forces of the independent African countries to legitimate internal security needs, if possible. We have, however, a number of suggestions for changes which we believe will clarify points open to misinterpretation, particularly by people operating in the field. We believe, for example, that a clear statement of assumptions, by showing the rationale behind some of the stated conclusions, helps assure a single coherent interpretation of the intended policies. These proposed changes also reflect fresh insights on military assistance and other African problems gained during my recent trip with Mr. Bowles. I enclose a copy of the State draft marked with our suggested revisions,² and, in addition, a complete redraft setting forth the same basic views in a different format which we believe to state the policy guidance in a manner more useful for operating purposes.

Discussions between our respective staffs indicate that we agree on almost all substantive issues, but there are three primary areas where we believe clarification of State language is highly desirable. First is the question of whether the U.S. should ever take the initiative in eliciting requests for military assistance from African governments. Clearly this will sometimes be highly desirable, for example where otherwise the Bloc would supply military assistance or where such assistance will help stabilize an otherwise unstable internal political situation.

Second is the question of whether we should “discriminate between countries … in the matter of arms supply according to their political behavior.” The language in paragraph 10 of your draft suggests that we should not, although your staff agrees, citing language elsewhere in the draft, that this implication is not really intended. Presumably neither of us would favor supplying arms to a country which is clearly expecting to use them (perhaps in conjunction with arms from the Bloc) for aggression against its neighbors.

The third question is the meaning of “maximum civilianization” in your Conclusion No. 4. We interpret it to mean that, consistent with sound internal security objectives, military assistance should also have a capability to contribute to economic and social betterment, and that the public evidences of U.S. military participation in the military assistance program should be minimized.

The State paper makes certain presumptions about U.S. policy for regional arms control (e.g., the opening paragraph, paragraph 8 and Conclusion No. 1) which seem to pre-judge this issue which I understand is presently being examined separately. We are in strong agreement with you that it is desirable to minimize the military capability of the African States to do anything more than maintain internal security. On the other hand, the technique of regional arms control is one which bears examination in depth to assure that the principles and terms of any such arrangement will not have far-reaching and adverse consequences on the U.S. and allied military posture, which, as you know, depends heavily upon certain bases and installations in Africa, as well as its consequences as a precedent elsewhere and upon the U.S. position in East-West disarmament discussions. Therefore, we think that statements on this subject should be deferred until the study now in process has been completed.

I also note that your staff is currently preparing a message which will elicit a comprehensive study of the arms supply problem by African posts. Replies to this message, which will bear directly on the various policy questions at issue, are to be received by 15 September. These replies should be taken into consideration before a final articulation of arms policy for tropical Africa is made.

We have attempted to clarify the State draft statement of policy in the foregoing and certain other respects. However, I should appreciate your sympathetic consideration of our proposed alternative statement of policy. In view of the substantial concurrence of views evidenced in staff consultations between our two Departments, I would hope that we can work out and issue a statement of U.S. policy on arms supply to tropical Africa which will be mutually satisfactory.

Yours sincerely,

Haydn Williams³

0. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OASD/ISA Files:FRC 64 A 2382, Africa 400.12-680.1, 1961. Secret. Drafted by McQuade and Junkermann.
1. Document 193.
2. Attached but not printed.
3. Printed from a copy that indicates Williams signed the original.