Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volumes VII, VIII, IX, Arms Control; National Security Policy; Foreign Economic Policy, Microfiche Supplement

389. Memorandum from U. Alexis Johnson to Rostow, August 5¹

August 5, 1961

SUBJECT

• Civic Action

In response to your memorandum of July 11, 1961, on the use of local military forces and equipment in civil works and economic projects, we are now accumulating information in Washington on the current scale of such activities and on the plans for their future expansion. To augment this information, we are sending an instruction to the field along the lines of your memorandum requesting the missions to supply us with current information on plans and progress in the Civic Action program area.

The information now available to us, while limited, does show some program activity and accomplishment. Over the past year and a half, a number of policy documents and implementing memoranda have been dispatched by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and ICA. In some instances these have been issued independently; in other cases they represent joint instructions. The principal instruction to the field, attached at Tab A, was forwarded on May 13, 1960, requesting our missions to assess carefully the contribution which could be made to the economic and social welfare of underdeveloped countries by their military and paramilitary forces. The missions were further encouraged to support local forces in economic, social and psychological activities which would benefit the host countries. A Department of the Army letter of November 16, 1960, attached at Tab B, provided the Unified Commanders with an “SOP for Civic Action Teams.” This document not only detailed the concept of Civic Action in a meaningful fashion, but also summarized the procedures and ground rules for assignment and utilization of Department of the Army Civic Action teams by local MAAGs and Missions. On the program planning side, guidance to MAAGs and Unified Commanders is contained in the Mutual Security Objectives Plan and in the FY 1962–67 Military Assistance Plan guidance, attached at Tab C.

Certain actions have already been taken in response to field requests generated by the above instructions or in response to recommendations by the Task Forces on Vietnam and Iran. These actions are, of course, in addition to any projects that may be carried out from time to time by U.S. forces stationed abroad (such as the Armed Forces Assistance to Korea program). The first Civic Action team requested under this program was sent to Guatemala in November 1960. This team was composed of two officers. It remained in Guatemala for a period of sixty days, and was successful in developing for the country an effective Civic Action program with specific recommendations which were accepted by the United States Country Team and by the President of Guatemala.

There are also other projects under way. A Civic Action Team is operating in South Vietnam and another team is being selected for Iran. A Civil Affairs/Civic Action Mobile Training Team will depart soon for Laos, and a survey of the potential for Civic Action programs in Colombia, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua is now being conducted in the field by an officer from the Civil Affairs Office of the Department of the Army. A program for the European Command is also being considered, with proposed application to Iran, Ethiopia and Libya. In addition to activities having U.S. encouragement, the local military forces of many countries engage in “civil relations” or “civic action” activities wholly on their own initiative. Most of these activities are not at present reported to Washington. When field responses to our recent query are submitted, we will be able to provide data on these activities, which are undoubtedly quite extensive. In the meantime, I am sure that you would still find useful the summary report made for the Draper Committee on this question; it may be consulted in Volume II of the Committee’s Report, at page 122.

While there has been encouraging progress in the Civil Relations/Civic Action area, our preliminary analysis leads us to the conclusion that we should now make a very hard assessment of the needs of various countries within the total context of our political, economic and military policies to ensure even further progress in countries where the need is greatest. It is our feeling that perhaps some of our overseas programs reflect habits of thinking and operation that have built up over the years and that do not yet reflect the new thrust of our assistance policies. This is due in large measure to the lack of experience in such activities of many of our personnel—both civilian and military—stationed overseas. And too, perhaps, our guidance has not been sufficiently forceful to bring about the desired reactions to changing needs and situations.

There are many difficult problems involved in making proposals for a more effective program in the future. We must first of all recognize that we are dealing with sovereign nations which are not always willing to follow U.S. advice or suggestions in regard to such activities. Secondly, there is the necessity of balancing economic against military requirements. As expressed in the current policy directives, local Civic Action activities “should not significantly detract from the capability of the indigenous forces concerned to perform those military missions which the United States considers essential.” There is also the problem of appointing civil relations or Civic Action experts to our overseas staffs within the limits of established personnel ceilings. Another major question is whether there should be some kind of special funding operation or separate resources set aside for Civic Action projects, or whether they should continue to be funded in the current manner. These questions cannot at present be given a definitive answer. To help us evaluate them and to arrive at a more dynamic program in the future, we are currently undertaking in Washington a review of the total Civic Action program. Additionally, as mentioned above, we have solicited information from the field to aid us in this evaluation (attached at Tab D). We shall certainly keep you informed of developments in this important area.

U. Alexis Johnson

Deputy Under Secretary

Tab C

EXTRACTS PERTAINING TO CIVIC ACTION

1. Extracts from Worldwide Mutual Security Objectives Plan:

III–B–Para 10. “In furthering U.S. objectives, in appropriate cases, encouragement and support will be given for the participation of indigenous military and para-military forces in less developed nations in economic, social and psychological programs, including their use in the construction of public works and other activities helpful to economic development. Such participation should not significantly detract from the capability of the forces so engaged to perform military missions which the U.S. considers essential.”

Mutual Security Objectives Plan, Far East:

II–C–Para 4. “Promote the development of programs to (a) establish sound civic affairs procedures on the part of individuals in the military forces and (b) impress on military leaders that troop-civil population relations are a command responsibility.”

2. Director of Military Assistance letter of 7 July 1961, subject: “Guidance for Preparation of the FY 62–67 Military Assistance Plan.

Part II–a–B–Paras 3 & 4.

“3. A military force adequate to cope with internal aggression requires strong ties with the environment in which it exists. This involves civic action as an essential part of military operations for combining a basis for consent with capability for coercion—a range of actions employing resources of military establishments in services of recognizable utility to the populace, such as development of transportation and communications, health and sanitation, and improvement in standards of food production.”

“4. The forces must be supported as military forces with adjunct capability for civic action, not vice versa.”

Part II–b–B–Para 7. “Increased emphasis should be placed on support of participation by indigenous forces in economic and social development and other “civic action” projects.”

3. Department of State Instruction, CW–608, dated July 20, 1961, subject: Military Assistance Planning, FY 1962–67.

Part II–a–B–Paras 3 & 4.

“3. A military force adequate to cope with internal aggression requires strong ties with the environment in which it exists. This involves civic action as an essential part of military operations for combining a basis for consent with capability for coercion—a range of actions employing resources of military establishments in services of recognizable utility to the populace, such as development of transportation and communications, health and sanitation, and improvement in standards of food production.”

“4. The forces must be supported as military forces with adjunct capability for civic action, not vice versa.”

Part II–a–C–Para 1.b. “To encourage the development and implementation of civic action programs in Latin America, as referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section B, military assistance will be used as appropriate to support units already so engaged as well as other units, excess to realistic combat requirements, in the process of taking on service and support.”

Part II–b–B–Para 7. “Increased emphasis should be placed on support of participation by indigenous forces in economic and social development and other “civic action” projects.”

1. Interim response for information on use of local military forces and equipment in civil works and economic projects. Secret. 5 pp. Department of State, Central Files, 700.5–MSP/8–561.