396.1 MA/8–2854: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the Philippines
secret
Washington, August 28, 1954—1:28
p.m.
778. Philippine Chargé today handed Department proposed changes1 in draft treaty to be considered at SEA Conference.2 Our views on most significant proposals cited below should be conveyed soonest to appropriate Philippine officials.
- 1.
- Philippine proposal would eliminate use of word “Communist” in preamble and Article IV. We favor use of word “Communist” as purpose of treaty is to defend against Communist aggression. Our formula would also for purposes of commitment under Article IV exclude any armed attacks which might occur in area involving non-Communist states. If for example Pakistan should become involved in armed conflict with non-Communist neighbor we would not wish treaty to apply. We also believe that armed attack on any parties to treaty would endanger peace and safety of all only if attack were Communist.
- 2.
- For armed attack provision in Article IV, Philippine Government has proposed language similar to that used in Article V of NAT. We strongly prefer language proposed in US draft rather than NATO language since pattern of US security arrangements in Pacific (ANZUS, Philippines, etc.) have been defined in language similar to what we propose for present treaty. Precedent therefore well established with Congress and also with countries in area, and we wish avoid invidious comparisons in Congress. Using NATO language for present treaty where all other US–Pacific treaties have used different language might reopen debate on constitutional powers within US Government.
- 3.
- Philippine draft provides for decisions of Council to be made by three-fourths vote and admission of new parties to agreement by three-fourths vote of states already acceding to treaty. These provisions would in effect permit extension of U.S. commitments by a process in which we would not have controlling voice and are wholly unacceptable. Accession new members would require Senate approval and Senate could not be expected to ratify treaty that provided for possibility of extension US commitments amounting to new Treaty obligations without US approval.
- 4.
- Philippine redraft eliminates any reference to free Viet-Nam, Laos or Cambodia. We consider it essential that these states be brought within purview of armed attack provision of treaty. Failure to include them would be interpreted as sign of weakness and possibly as decision to actively resist Communism aggression only after these states have been lost to Communists.
We will have further comments in Manila on other Philippine proposed changes in text.
Smith