THE HEMISPHERE: Farewell to Arms?

• Share

If the U.S. does not soon transfer surplus arms to Latin American governments, warned War Secretary Robert Patterson last week, they will seek arms and training "elsewhere." The Secretary did not say where. But Argentina had already ordered jet fighters from Britain, and Russia had large stocks of German tanks and planes to spare.

Secretary Patterson was testifying in Washington on behalf of the so-called Truman plan to standardize hemisphere arms out of U.S. arsenals. The U.S. Army & Navy had marshaled their biggest brass to get the bill passed before the Rio conference opens, presumably next month.

General Eisenhower bore down on the importance of having U.S. military missions in each of the 20 republics. Navy Secretary James Forrestal pointed out that 100 surplus U.S. warships in friendly Latin navies (including two cruisers to Brazil, one apiece to Chile, Peru, none for Argentina) would help protect the Panama Canal. Secretary of State Marshall summed up: "The opportunity to give material assistance to the foreign policy of our country at so little cost should not now be lost." The new bill, as Marshall pointed out, set Army expenditure at only $10,000,000 a year "for a period of years." But Congress was still unimpressed. Senator Taft had already gone on record against the bill. Senator Vandenberg would concede no more than "an open mind." Even House leaders thought the bill unsound, figured that this was no time to ship away U.S. guns and powder, that to do so might touch off a string of Latin American revolutions anyway.

Latin reaction was also mixed. Big countries were generally for it, though only Argentina, Venezuela and a few others had money enough to pay for what they would get. Chile's President Gabriel González Videla, against the idea last year, changed his mind and came out for the bill in Rio. The little countries were not so sure. Said a Costa Rican: "We have an army of about 100 men. If we get lots of arms and equipment, we'll find ourselves with a real army, a burden on the treasury, with a militarist outlook that would destroy our democracy."