Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XII, American Republics

77. Memorandum From the Deputy Coordinator for Foreign Assistance (Bell) to Secretary of State Rusk¹

Washington, June 26, 1961.

SUBJECT

• Proposed Presidential Determination under Section 105 (b)(4) and 451(a) of the MSA of 1954, as amended, permitting the use of funds to furnish military assistance to Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Haiti

There are attached (Tab A)² a proposed memorandum to the President and a Memorandum of Determination by the President which would permit the use of funds to provide grant military aid to Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Haiti.

The military assistance proposed is for the purpose of internal security, which, as you know, requires a decision by the President under the terms of the Mutual Security Act. You are aware of the fact that the proposed Fiscal Year 1962 aid bill seeks the deletion of the requirement that the President make these findings. This has been strongly opposed by those in both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have spoken on the subject. This opposition has been based on the conviction of the speakers that aid to non-democratic Latin American regimes to assist the maintenance of internal security will be equivalent to the maintenance in power of harsh and repressive regimes. Senator Morse, in particular, has spoken vigorously to the effect that decisions on such matters should be made only by the President. There is no question but that the reason for this provision of law is to make plain the view of the Congress in opposition to aid to dictatorships and the belief that the President will be less likely to make exceptions if a determination by him was required.

The proposed determination which is attached (Tab A) would provide internal security military assistance to seven countries, two of which, Nicaragua and Haiti, can hardly be said to have democratic regimes. ARA’s argument as to the necessity for the determination is set forth in the Memorandum to the President and in the case of Haiti, is elaborated in a memorandum from Mr. Coerr at Tab B. ICA has recorded a dissent which appears at Tab C. You are also aware of the particular opposition voiced by Senator Humphrey to giving any aid to Haiti, even economic, under the present circumstances. I am sure that his reaction to military assistance to Haiti would be even stronger as would be that of Senator Morse and such members of the House of Representatives as Mr. Hays. Thus, my feeling is that Congressional reaction to this determination would be seriously adverse to the legislation which we are trying to obtain. Whether this attitude on the part of the Congressional leaders could be overcome by conversations seems to me doubtful and, in any case, there is very little time since this determination to be effective would have to be approved by the President in the next few days.

Since the issue is one of the political necessity as against the assumed adverse effects on aid legislation, I believe you should personally review this proposal and indicate whether you wish it advanced. If so, the Memorandum to the President should be signed.³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 720.5-MSP/6-2661. Secret. Sent through Ball who initialed, indicating his approval. Drafted by Joseph B. Kyle of Bell’s office with revisions by Bell.
2. None of the attachments is printed.
3. A June 29 memorandum from Under Secretary Bowles’ Special Assistant Samuel W. Lewis to Executive Secretariat Director Battle states that Bowles concurred with the recommendation, provided that no action should be taken on aid to Haiti until it could be incorporated in the overall aid package for Haiti. Coerr had assured Bowles that any decision on Haiti could be kept confidential for the time being. (Department of State, Central Files, 720.5-MSP/6-2961) A June 29 note from Rusk’s Special Assistant Emory C. Swank to Rusk, attached to the source text, noted that it might not be possible to keep any decision on Haiti confidential since the Department was required by law to furnish the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee copies of all Presidential determinations. Rusk did not sign the memorandum to the President.