711.56352/8–1652: Telegram
No. 866
The Ambassador in Spain (MacVeagh) to the
Department of State1
155. USNEG. Urtel 141 Aug 13.2 On basis penultimate para of prelim remarks, feel Dept has perhaps not completely understood Span present position.
Specifically, (1) Span Govt is not “requesting vast mil aid” at this time, but has only stated, at our request, what it believes necess for adequate natl Def if bases utilized by US. Actually, Kissner’s full screening this connection (see mytel 103 Aug 13), which now practically ready for forwarding,4 not only indicates actual needs very much less than stated but also that aid to such reduced extent, if phased over 5-year period, might both be within US possibilities and acceptable to Span. (2) Span Govt does not “expect mil alliance with US,” but only desires, for home consumption, some explicit [Page 1877] statement covering basic fact, which implicit in proposed agrmt are that US and Span engaging in cooperative effort “on continuing friendly basis in support of the policy of strengthening Def of West”. Dept will realize that merely telling Span Govt privately that “US Govt considers relations between US and Spain” should be on such basis cannot satisfy need which Span Govt feels most urgent to justify publicly its entry into detailed agrmts affecting sovereignty. (3) Span Govt has not “rejected” US use of bases in peace time but only indicated special difficulties in meeting proposals this connection. (4) Finally Span Govt does not propose that $125 mil aid be extended “without commitment to accept any of US proposals”. On contrary, it has indicated willingness to sign an econ aid agrmt with “modifications only on those points where it may be considered necess”, and has shown same attitude as regards MDA agrmt. It is fully aware that in signing such agrmts it will assure definite obligations.
In general, we wld emphasize that entire Span memo, to which answer now proposed, was intended to be revealing of Span’s thinking but was also expressly informal and suggestional in character. Positive terms such as “request”, “expect”, and “reject” are consequently not appropriate, way is still open to ultimate composition in friendly official atmosphere on all points where differences exist. However, what is now legitimate bargaining shld not be allowed to degenerate into controversy. Span Govt, so far, is making no “demands”, which might justifiably arouse US indignation, but only seeking by argument to secure best possible terms. Impression to contrary now being created by press comment, concerned in and dedicated to other than responsible governmental purposes, shld receive no credence.
In view of above and forthcoming mil recommendations we shld be glad to know whether Dept wld wish to give a somewhat different slant to its presently proposed communication. On receipt its advice this connection, it [we?] wld propose draw up communication as informal memo similar to that originally handed us and deliver this personally to FonMin at earliest opportunity.5
- Repeated to Paris, London, and Rome.↩
- Supra.↩
- Telegram 103 reported that Kissner wanted to undertake an exhaustive analysis of Spanish military requirements as submitted by Vigon. (711.56352/8–152)↩
- Not found in Department of State files; it was forwarded to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, on Aug. 20. For a brief description of the report, see Document 868.↩
- In telegram 163 to Madrid, Aug. 22, Acting Secretary of State Bruce assented to MacVeagh’s suggestion that a somewhat more conciliatory reply to the Arguelles memorandum be drafted, and solicited the Embassy’s advice for the revision of the response set forth in telegram 141. (711.56352/8–1652) The result was the memorandum enclosed with Document 871, which was finally agreed upon after several exchanges between Washington and Madrid.↩