Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

18. Memorandum From the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Thompson) to Secretary of State Rusk ¹

Washington, November 9, 1964.

SUBJECT

• DOD Draft Legislation Transferring MAP to the DOD Budget

I bring to your attention an evolving problem in consideration of MAP legislation, which raises very serious issues affecting State Department ability to exercise a reasonable influence in the formulation and execution of Military Assistance Programs. The major elements are the following:

1. As you know, without making any final decisions, we have been examining the question of transferring Military Assistance to the DOD budget, on the grounds that this might ease some of the difficulties in obtaining adequate funds. Also, since a very substantial part of Military Assistance funds are expended for foreign forces activities in the U.S. military interest (e.g. Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Congo), a transfer to the DOD budget might facilitate internal DOD transfer of funds to meet military exigencies.

2. Discussions on the draft legislation have been carried on by State Department staff and the DOD General Counsel’s Office. The DOD proposed legislation is basically similar to that which was considered last fall (suspended due to Congressional attitudes).² At that time, the State Department had strong objections to various proposals which DOD incorporated into the draft legislation. George Ball expressed these views in a letter to Bill Bundy of November 30, 1963.³ The substance of our objections was that the DOD language effectively circumscribed and virtually gutted appropriate State Department control over foreign policy aspects of military assistance. Virtually identical language in all respects has been reintroduced by the DOD General Counsel’s Office, and is being maintained against repeated objections voiced by the State Department staff-level representatives.

3. The issues can perhaps best be appreciated if it is recognized that the present legislation is formulated in terms of authorizing the President to furnish military assistance on such terms and conditions as he may determine, subject to certain legislatively-imposed restrictions. Exceptions to these restrictions can normally be made on a Presidential finding of necessity in terms of U.S. interests, with appropriate notification to the Congress. The Secretary of State is responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of the programs authorized by the Act, including but not limited to determining whether there shall be a military assistance program for a particular country and the dollar amount, in order to assure that MAP is effectively integrated with economic assistance and our general foreign policy objectives. The Secretary of Defense has certain practical responsibilities related to program management.

4. The DOD draft legislation would substantially remove from the President most of the powers presently residing in him under the present act, and would give to the Secretary of Defense the right to make these various determinations. These include such matters as:

a. The terms, conditions, and eligibility of countries to receive military aid;

b. Authority to initiate credit sales;

c. Authority to detail personnel to foreign governments and international organizations;

d. Authority to enter into international arrangements for the acquisition or construction of facilities for joint use with friendly foreign forces.

Furthermore, the language with respect to the Secretary of State’s authority would be modified so that it would only speak in vague terms of that authority, essentially that nothing contained in the Act shall be construed to infringe on the powers of the Secretary of State.

Finally, DOD legislation attempts once again to achieve an objective which the State Department has repeatedly rejected: to grant to the Secretary of Defense authority to maintain special missions or staffs outside the U.S., in such countries and for such periods of time he may desire, compensating them at any of the rates provided under the Foreign Serv-ice Act of 1946.⁴ This could permit creation of a foreign service composed of DOD civilian personnel, which we have consistently rejected. Indeed, in terms of DOD effort to establish a senior defense representative (as in the UK), a recent DOD/State/BOB report on Europe, approved by the Joint Committee on DOD Representation Abroad, has decisively rejected this concept. This Committee is composed of Messrs. Crockett, Horwitz (DOD) and Lewis (BOB).

5. I have taken this opportunity to inform you of this development, because I think that the issue of the language of the draft legislation may be raised by Mr. McNamara in the near future, or you may wish to express your concern with these developments.

6. I recommend that, if the occasion arises, you say to Mr. McNamara:

a. You understand that DOD staff is continuing to reject views on important elements of the legislation, which the State Department expressed a year ago. You believe that DOD should be responsive to these views.

b. Without prejudice to your final conclusions on the advisability of transferring MAP to the DOD budget, you think that the President should retain the necessary authorities, rather than having these transferred wholesale to the Secretary of Defense.

c. In any event, the Secretary of State should retain authority in the statute for determining whether there should be a Military Assistance Program in a particular country, its dollar amount, and its relationship to overall foreign policy objectives.

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 286, AID Administrator Files: FRC 68 A 2148, ADM 7–4 (White House) July–November, FY 1965. Confidential. Drafted by Howard Meyers and George L. Warren (G/PM) on November 6 and sent through Under Secretary Ball.
2. A copy of the draft Department of Defense legislation has not been found; however, in a November 3 memorandum to Rusk and Ball, Legal Adviser Leonard Meeker wrote that a proposal from the Department of Defense to separate military assistance legislation from the Foreign Assistance Act was shelved last year “on the basis of the reactions of Speaker McCormack and Chairman Morgan, and partly as a result of a decision in the Executive Branch to seek minimum changes in the Foreign Aid legislation.” (Ibid.)
3. This letter has not been further identified.
4. P.L. 79–724 (60 Stat. 999) was approved on August 13, 1946.