DOCSLIB.ORG

Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense Security Assistance and Cooperation: Shared Responsibility of the Departments of State and Defense Nina M. Serafino Specialist in International Security Affairs May 26, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44444 Security Assistance and Cooperation Shared Responsibility Summary The Department of State and the Department of Defense (DOD) have long shared responsibility for U.S. assistance to train, equip, and otherwise engage with foreign military and other security forces. The legal framework for such assistance emerged soon after World War II, when Congress charged the Secretary of State with responsibility for overseeing and providing general direction for military and other security assistance programs and the Secretary of Defense with responsibility for administering such programs. Over the years, congressional directives and executive actions have modified, shaped, and refined State Department and DOD roles and responsibilities. Changes in the legal framework through which security assistance to foreign forces—weapons, training, lethal and nonlethal military assistance, and military education and training—is provided have responded to a wide array of factors. Legal Authorization and Funding For most of the past half-century, Congress has authorized U.S. security assistance programs through Title 22 of the U.S. Code (Foreign Relations) and appropriated the bulk of security assistance funds through State Department accounts. DOD administers programs funded through several of these accounts under the Secretary of State’s direction and oversight. Beginning in the 1980s, however, and increasingly after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (9/11), some policymakers have come to view the State Department authorities, or the funding allocated to them, as insufficient and too inflexible to respond to evolving and emerging security threats. As a result, Congress has increasingly provided DOD with the means to offer security assistance under authorities in either Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Armed Services) or the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), both funded as part of the DOD budget. (These are collectively known as “Title 10” authorities and referred to by DOD as “security cooperation.”) DOD security assistance and other security cooperation programs conducted under Title 10 authority and established prior to 9/11 include counternarcotics, counter-proliferation, humanitarian assistance, and assistance for training and equipping NATO forces. Title 10 statutes also provide authority for DOD to pay the expenses of foreign forces to enable them to participate in exercises, exchanges, and other military-to-military contacts. Post-9/11 DOD security cooperation authorities focus on counterterrorism assistance, and assistance to foreign forces in areas of conflict. Much of this assistance is for “building partner capacity” (BPC) to enable foreign forces to take greater responsibility for their own defense and for achieving mutual security goals in order to reduce U.S. costs. As part of the BPC effort, recent legislation provides DOD with authority to help strengthen foreign Ministries of Defense and related defense institutions. (Some of these DOD authorities require the concurrence [i.e., approval] of the Secretary of State.) Post-9/11 innovations include Congress’s establishment through NDAA authority of two joint State Department-DOD authorities with a lead role for the Secretary of State: (1) an Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund established in FY2011 and (2) the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), a pilot project established in FY2012 to address emerging threats. In FY2006, Congress created a DOD “joint formulation” BPC authority to address emerging counterterrorism threats, with DOD in the lead. Congressional Research Service Security Assistance and Cooperation Shared Responsibility To some analysts, the increase of Title 10 authorities and funding to DOD for BPC support to foreign military and other security forces contributes to the perceived “militarization” of U.S. foreign policy. For others, the increase of Title 10 authorities emerged from perceived gaps in existing authorities but has resulted in a confusing, inefficient “patchwork” of authorities and coordination arrangements that are not sufficient to meet all needs. Issues Covered in This Report Since the late 1940s, Congress has played an active role in shaping the legal and institutional construct for security assistance activities. As Congress continues to consider legislation governing security assistance and cooperation, and to conduct oversight of such programs, some Members may seek new ways to improve program effectiveness and address inefficiencies in planning and implementation. This report provides an overview of U.S. assistance to and engagement with foreign military and other security forces, focusing on Department of State and DOD roles. It lays out the historical evolution and current framework of the Department of State-DOD shared responsibility. It concludes with a brief overview of salient issues: how to assess effectiveness; whether and how to modify or change the statutory and institutional framework; how to reconcile institutional roles and available resources; how to provide appropriate transparency for oversight. This discussion is relevant to current FY2017 NDAA proposals. S. 2943, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the FY2017 NDAA, contains broad proposals to consolidate many DOD security cooperation authorities under a new Title 10 chapter dedicated to security cooperation authorities, expanding some, and codifying some NDAA statutes. The House-passed version of that Act, H.R. 4909, would also consolidate a number of existing Title 10 and NDAA statutes under a new Title 10 chapter, but it does not expand existing nor propose new authority. The appendixes provide information on the history of the State-DOD shared responsibility, as well as details of selected State Department and DOD security assistance and cooperation statutes. Additional information on the DOD “Building Partner Capacity” programs and activities may be found in CRS Report R44313, What Is “Building Partner Capacity?” Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kathleen J. McInnis. Congressional Research Service Security Assistance and Cooperation Shared Responsibility Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Concepts and Terminology ................................................................................................ 2 Shared Responsibility ......................................................................................................... 2 Multiple Purposes ............................................................................................................... 3 Definitional Problems ......................................................................................................... 4 Legal and Institutional Framework ................................................................................................. 5 The Development of the Shared Partnership Legal Framework ............................................... 5 The Interagency Cooperation Framework ................................................................................. 7 State Department and DOD Security Assistance Authorities .......................................................... 9 Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 14 Assessing Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 15 Reconciling Foreign Policy and Security Concerns Through Statutory Reform .................... 18 Expand or Modify State Department Security Assistance Programs and Funding ........... 20 Expand the Use of the “Joint Formulation” Mechanism .................................................. 22 Reform Title 10 Authorities .............................................................................................. 23 Considerations for Statutory Reform ................................................................................ 24 Reconciling Institutional Roles and Available Resources ....................................................... 25 Providing Greater Transparency and Accountability?............................................................. 26 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Tables Table 1. Title 22 Security Assistance .............................................................................................. 11 Table 2. Hybrid Authorities ........................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Selected “Title 10” Security Cooperation Authorities/Programs ..................................... 12 Appendixes Appendix A. Terminology ............................................................................................................. 29 Appendix B. Historical Evolution of Roles and Responsibilities ................................................. 33 Appendix C. Title 22 Department of State Authorities ................................................................. 43 Appendix D. Hybrid Department of State-Department
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security Assistance
    AN AUSA SPECIAL REPORT JUNE 1990 SECURITY ASSISTANCE: AN INSTRUMENT OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................................... i GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. I FOUNDATIONS OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE ...................................................................... .....1 EVOLUTION OF THE FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM .................................. 2 OTHER MAJOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ......................................................... .4 U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY SALES ................... ......... ....................................................... ............. 5 DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES ........................... ..................................................... ................... 6 U.S. INTERESTS AND THE PURPOSES OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ...................................................... .......................... 6 PRINCIPAL U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE ........... .................................................................................... 8 SECURITY ASSISTANCE OPERATIONS ........................................................... ....................... I 1 BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE
    [Show full text]
  • Papers of W. Averell Harriman [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress
    W. Averell Harriman A Register of His Papers in the Library of Congress Prepared by Allan Teichroew with the assistance of Haley Barnett, Connie L. Cartledge, Paul Colton, Marie Friendly, Patrick Holyfield, Allyson H. Jackson, Patrick Kerwin, Mary A. Lacy, Sherralyn McCoy, John R. Monagle, Susie H. Moody, Sheri Shepherd, and Thelma Queen Revised by Connie L. Cartledge with the assistance of Karen Stuart Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2001 Contact information: http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/address.html Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress Manuscript Division, 2003 Finding aid URL: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003012 Latest revision: 2008 July Collection Summary Title: Papers of W. Averell Harriman Span Dates: 1869-1988 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1895-1986) ID No.: MSS61911 Creator: Harriman, W. Averell (William Averell), 1891-1986 Extent: 344,250 items; 1,108 containers plus 11 classified; 526.3 linear feet; 54 microfilm reels Language: Collection material in English Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Abstract: Diplomat, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and politician. Correspondence, memoranda, family papers, business records, diplomatic accounts, speeches, statements and writings, photographs, and other papers documenting Harriman's career in business, finance, politics, and public service, particularly during the Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter presidential administrations. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein. Personal Names Abel, Elie. Acheson, Dean, 1893-1971.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance
    The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs January 18, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45079 The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Historic Significance Summary The European Recovery Program (ERP), more commonly known as the Marshall Plan (the Plan), was a program of U.S. assistance to Europe during the period 1948-1951. The Marshall Plan— launched in a speech delivered by Secretary of State George Marshall on June 5, 1947—is considered by many to have been the most effective ever of U.S. foreign aid programs. An effort to prevent the economic deterioration of postwar Europe, expansion of communism, and stagnation of world trade, the Plan sought to stimulate European production, promote adoption of policies leading to stable economies, and take measures to increase trade among European countries and between Europe and the rest of the world. Since its conclusion, some Members of Congress and others have periodically recommended establishment of new “Marshall Plans”—for Central America, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere. Design. The Marshall Plan was a joint effort between the United States and Europe and among European nations working together. Prior to formulation of a program of assistance, the United States required that European nations agree on a financial proposal, including a plan of action committing Europe to take steps toward solving its economic problems. The Truman Administration and Congress worked together to formulate the European Recovery Program, which eventually provided roughly $13.3 billion ($143 billion in 2017 dollars) of assistance to 16 countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Aid Legislation Time for a New Look Michael H
    Cornell Law Review Volume 38 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 1953 Foreign Aid Legislation Time for a New Look Michael H. Cardozo Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael H. Cardozo, Foreign Aid Legislation Time for a New Look , 38 Cornell L. Rev. 161 (1953) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol38/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOREIGN AID LEGISLATION: TIME FOR A NEW LOOK Michael H. Cardozo* The misnomer "foreign aid" is what we call those measures whereby the United States helps itself by helping others.1 Their constitutional sanction is the same as for social security and arms for our military forces, namely, the power to spend funds of the Treasury to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."2 The statutory prototype is the wartime Lend-Lease Act,3 appropriately described in the heading as "An act to promote the defense of the United States." In every year since the end of World War II Congress has responded to the needs of a disrupted world with at least one new "foreign aid" act. Each one has authorized the use of funds of the U. S. Treasury to pay for goods and services needed by specified friends and allies around the globe who could not pay in foreign exchange.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Relevance to the Present
    Order Code 97-62 F CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Relevance to the Present January 6, 1997 Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Relevance to the Present Summary Periodically, Members of Congress and others have recommended establishment of a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Central America, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere. They do so largely because the original Marshall Plan, a program of U.S. assistance to Europe during the period 1948-1951, is considered by many to have been the most effective ever of U.S. foreign aid programs. An effort to prevent the economic deterioration of Europe, expansion of communism, and stagnation of world trade, the Plan sought to stimulate European production, promote adoption of policies leading to stable economies, and take measures to increase trade among European countries and between Europe and the rest of the world. The Plan was a joint effort between the United States and Europe and among European nations working together. Prior to formulation of a program of assistance, the United States required that European nations agree on a financial proposal, including a plan of action committing Europe to take steps toward solution of its economic problems. The Truman Administration and the Congress worked together to formulate the European Recovery Program, which eventually provided roughly $13.3 billion of assistance to 16 countries. Two agencies implemented the program, the U.S. Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) and the European-run Organization for European Economic Cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan
    The Marshall Plan The Lessons Learned for the 21st Century There are not many of us left who served through the Marshall Plan from its beginning, and fewer still who served time in the Hotel Talleyrand in Paris, the site of the anniversary celebration, in June 2007, of Marshall Plan Secretary George C. Marshall’s 1947 commencement address launching the European Recovery Program. There are, though, scholars who can address those times and evaluate them so that the experience can live on. The dedication of the Hotel de Talleyrand as a memorial to that unique enterprise provided the opportunity; The Marshall Plan and the analyses and evaluations in this splendid volume, The Marshall Plan: Lessons Learned for the 21st Century, refl ect the excitement, as well as the accomplishments, of an economic enterprise that produced the infrastructure of NATO and the European Union. Long live the spirit of Marshall’s vision! Lessons Learned Thomas C. Schelling, Marshall Plan alumnus, Washington, for the 21st Century Copenhagen, Paris, Washington, ’48-‘53, Nobel Prize in Economics 2005 Lessons Learned for the 21 A historical event is and remains crucial when it does interact with others in such a way as to contribute to a deep and positive change in the course of history. In this sense, the Marshall Plan made an outstanding and lasting contribution. It was instrumental to overcoming the temptation of isolationism in the US, to reviving our badly needed economic recovery and gave a decisive input to coordinating our national efforts, thus paving the way to our future European integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Assistance: Adapting to the Post-Cold War Era
    . .·. ·. ' . · . Associ tion .· · . � oftbe, Unite�. States.. Army ·; . :. I '; . .· · . ' . • ... ·' . '. · . • . � . • . ' ' . .. i • • ' . ·. ' ·' .• .,i - ... · . : . SECURITY ASSISTAN:CE:. ._ . ·._ . , ,· . · . ADAPTING TO THE. POST-COLD WA� ERA .: .. • ,. • . '· .. , • • • • J • · · • . : . ' · • . ..' . .. ' . ·· : . ' ·' .. ' · . · .. _September 1996 .·· . ·.. ,_. ' ' . '..· ... I ·, · . · ·:. · . :-. · . · Institute. of. Land. .Warfare · . · •. .. ··.· SECURITY ASSISTANCE: ADAPTING TO THE POST-COLD WAR ERA CONTENTS FOREWORD................................................................................................................................................ v SECURITY ASSISTANCE: ADAPTING TO THE POST-C OLD WAR ERA ......................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 Fiscal Year 1997 Program ........................... ..................................................................................... 1 SECURITY ASSISTANCE ................................................... ......................................................... ....... 2 Program Evolution ............................................................................................................................. 3 Foreign Military Financing (FMF)..................................................................................................... 3 International Military Education and Training (IMET)..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eisenhower's Mutual Security Program and Congress: Defense
    Eisenhower’s Mutual Security Program and Congress: Defense and Economic Assistance for Cold War Asia Eric Setzekorn President Eisenhower reviews troops on Taiwan, 1960 pon entering office in January 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower Ustruggled to balance military requirements and budget imperatives during a tense period of the Cold War. In East Asia, Eisenhower adopted a policy of military and economic aid to build security partnerships that would limit American costs and ease the United States out of direct military confrontation with Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic of China (PRC). In the aftermath of the bloody stalemate in Korea, President Eisenhower sought to create a deterrent force of local allies rather than rely on American soldiers. Although the military and political strategy Eisenhower adopted was implemented by the Department of Defense and State Department, congressional opposition to what was perceived as “foreign aid” threatened to derail the program. From the beginning of his term until his last days in office, Eisenhower struggled to explain his program to a skeptical Congress that felt mutual security allocations were Eric Setzekorn is a historian with the U.S. Army Center of Military History at Ft. McNair, Washington, D.C. 7 8 | Federal History 2017 poorly managed and nontransparent. The Eisenhower administration used personal appeals, created bipartisan committees of experts, and published reams of glowing statistics, but it achieved only marginal success in protecting its policies from congressional opponents. Throughout the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration was forced to cajole, plead, lecture, and sometimes deliberately mislead Congress to get money for mutual security spending.
    [Show full text]
  • “An Excellent Laboratory”: U.S. Foreign Aid in Paraguay, 1942-1954
    “AN EXCELLENT LABORATORY”: U.S. FOREIGN AID IN PARAGUAY, 1942-1954 by CHRISTOPHER R. MCQUILKIN A THESIS Presented to the Department of History and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts September 2014 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Christopher R. McQuilkin Title: “An Excellent Laboratory”: U.S. Foreign Aid in Paraguay, 1942-1954 This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Department of History by: Marsha Weisiger Chair Carlos Aguirre Member Reuben Zahler Member and J. Andrew Berglund Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signature is on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded September 2014. ii © 2014 Christopher R. McQuilkin iii THESIS ABSTRACT Christopher R. McQuilkin Master of Arts Department of History September 2014 Title: “An Excellent Laboratory”: U.S. Foreign Aid in Paraguay, 1942-1954 After the United States entered World War II, the nation began a technical assistance program and a military aid program in Paraguay as part of its Latin American foreign policy. The U.S. rooted its technical assistance program in an idealized narrative of U.S. agricultural history, in which land-grant colleges and the agricultural reforms of the New Deal had contributed to prosperity and democracy. The extension of this American Way to other countries would strengthen prosperity, encourage democratic reforms, and prevent fascist and Communist subversion. The U.S. also extended military aid to Paraguay to draw Paraguay’s military away from its fascist sympathies.
    [Show full text]
  • On 4 November 1956, Marshal Ivan Konev, the Commander In
    Rollback, Liberation, Containment, or Inaction? U.S. Policy and Eastern Europe in the 1950s ✣ László Borhi On 4 November 1956, Marshal Ivan Konev, the commander in chief of the Warsaw Pact’s Joint Armed Forces, oversaw the large-scale deploy- ment of Soviet tanks into Hungary to crush an armed uprising against Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. President Dwight Eisenhower promptly sent an appeal to Soviet premier Nikolai Bulganin calling on Soviet forces to pull out. This mild response was in stark contrast to the expectations of many participants in the revolution, who hoped for some form of Western military assistance and were disappointed by Eisenhower’s “do nothing” attitude.1 The American response to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution encapsulated Washington’s Janus-faced atti- tude toward the liberation of Eastern Europe. Although U.S. officials worried that the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe extended Soviet power to the heart of Europe, the “rollback” of Communism ultimately was subordinated to efforts to improve Soviet-American relations and avoid a general war. 1. “Hungarian Refugee Opinion,” Radio Free Europe Munich Audience Analysis Section, Special Report No. 6, January 1957, National Security Archive, Washington DC (NS Archive), Soviet Flashpoints Collection (SFC), Record No. 64450. Eight hundred escapees were asked to evaluate the performance of Western broadcasts to Hungary and to recall whether the broadcasts had led them to expect Western military intervention. Ninety percent of those interviewed expected some form of intervention after the 4 November 1956 invasion of Hungary. Twenty percent expected the United States to intervene, 48 percent expected the United Nations to intervene, and the rest expected help from the “free world.” According to another survey conducted among Hungarian refugees in Austria, 96 percent of those questioned had expected some form of American assis- tance in Hungary, and 77 percent believed it would come in the form of military support.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Aid to Europe As Viewed by the United States Senators and Representatives from Kansas, 1947-01/01/1959
    Fort Hays State University FHSU Scholars Repository Master's Theses Graduate School Summer 1960 Foreign Aid to Europe as Viewed by the United States Senators and Representatives from Kansas, 1947-01/01/1959 Darrell Munsell Fort Hays Kansas State College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Munsell, Darrell, "Foreign Aid to Europe as Viewed by the United States Senators and Representatives from Kansas, 1947-01/01/1959" (1960). Master's Theses. 683. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/683 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository. FOREIGN AID TO EUROPE AS VIEWED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM KANSAS 1947-1959 Being A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Fort Hays Kansas State College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Darrell Munsell, B. A. Fort Hays Kansas State College TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION. 1 Statement of the problem 2 Limitations and sources 3 II. A HISTORY OF THE MARSHALL PLAN. 6 Interim Aid 8 Isolationism. 9 Harriman Committee. 12 Herter Committee •• 13 Krug Report 14 Nourse Report ..•••• 15 Republicans in Congress 16 The Democrats in Con_gress 19 Bipartisan foreign policy 21 Controversies over European Recovery Progr am. 22 Mutual Security Administra tion. • . ••• 24 III. SENATORS • . • • . • • • • • 26 Senator Capper •• 27 Senator Reed. 34 Senator Schoeppel 40 Senator Carlson 47 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreignaidlookinside.Pdf
    Foreign Aid and the Legacy of Harry S. Truman The Truman Legacy Series, Volume 10 Based on the Tenth Truman Legacy Symposium National Security May 2012 Key West, Florida Edited by Raymond H. Geselbracht Edited by Raymond H. Geselbracht Volume 10 Truman State University Press Kirksville, Missouri Copyright © 2015 Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Missouri, 63501 All rights reserved tsup.truman.edu Cover photo: President Truman confers with advisors (George C. Marshall, Paul Hoffman, and Averell Harriman) on the Marshall Plan, November 29, 1948. (Photograph 73–2875, HSTL). Cover design: Katie Best Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Truman Legacy Symposium (10th: 2012 : Key West, Fla.) Foreign aid and the legacy of Harry S. Truman / edited by Raymond H. Geselbracht. pages cm.—(Truman legacy seriesw; vol. 10) “Based on the Tenth Truman Legacy Symposium: Truman and Foreign Aid, May 2012, Key West, Florida.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61248-122-7 (alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-61248-123-4 (e-book) 1. United States--Foreign relations--1945-1953—Congresses. 2. Economic assistance—United States—History—20th century—Congresses. 3. Truman, Harry S., 1884-1972—Congresses. I. Geselbracht, Raymond H., editor, author. II. Title. E813.T718 2012 327.73009’04--dc23 2014024829 No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any format by any means with- out written permission from the publisher. The paper in this publication meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1992. To Mike Devine and Bob Wolz Colleagues and Friends Contents Illustrations & Table ................................
    [Show full text]