37. Telegram From Secretary of State Rusk to the Department of State0
Secto 61. Reference: Secto 53.1 SecGen review during SEATO luncheon of major problems facing treaty organization sparked vigorous discussion on voting procedures. Dominant theme emerging was necessity to avoid excessive concern with procedures, rules and semantics and concentrate instead on maintaining the treaty as a basis for action. Rusk–Thanat formula important development in this regard.2 Secretary cited importance of SEATO treaty for U.S. as constitutional basis our actions in Viet-Nam and troop movement to Thailand. Eyeing Thanat, said these actions show value of treaty and we must not allow development of public opinion that SEATO is unimportant. On contrary, as threat grows, it is more important than before.
Barwick said treaty important to him for same reasons in justifying Australian actions, including economic help, in Viet-Nam and Thailand, said value of treaty clearly demonstrated in troop movements, that treaty has been obscured and could be endangered by excessive concern with organization and procedure. Troop movements to Thailand showed that complicated rules don’t have much meaning when time to act comes. Secretary commented action itself under treaty more important than form. Holyoake fully supported Australian position.
[Page 77]Lord Home registered partial dissent. He said decisions in an alliance should be unanimous, that we shouldn’t “fiddle around” with decisions which could mean peace or war, that perhaps better leave present rules alone and rest on our ability to act, as in Thailand recently, “in spirit of SEATO treaty.” Home emphasized, however, that this not final word and UK willing to consider abstentions proposal. When Home at one point said abstentions might allow less than full memberships make “foolish” decision, Alphand of France corrected him with observation that veto power is preserved.
Thanat said Thailand does not seek or want any member SEATO act against its will but wants prevent reduction SEATO to importancy [impotency]. Problem is not just unanimous decision when issue arises but failure reach any decision over period of months. Secretary said question perhaps is that minority should not prevent action by others if they feel they can act in accordance with treaty provisions. Thanat said Thailand could show “resilience” to reach agreed solution on voting rule.
Alphand said that with some amendments, France perhaps able accept recent proposals, is thinking in terms of decision on basis affirmative votes by three-fourths membership if there no vetoes. Paris sending instructions to Bangkok shortly.
Suggestion by Pelaez that group formally endorse Rusk–Thanat formula, his major contribution to discussion, was answered by Secretary to effect each Foreign Minister would have to speak for own country but otherwise proposal was lost in discussion and not pursued by Pelaez.
Was clearly understood by all present that decision would be reached on voting procedures in Council Reps Bangkok.
FYI. Pote Sarasin unhelpful with excessive insistence on importance procedural rules, and statement at one point that “procedural questions” might be decided by majority vote though decisions on “security questions” should, of course, be on basis unanimity. End FYI.
Above is uncleared report of Secretary’s remarks.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 379/9–3062. Secret. Repeated to Bangkok, Manila, Karachi, Vientiane, Saigon, and CINCPACPOLAD.↩
- In Secto 53, September 29, the Secretary provided a brief overview of the luncheon of the SEATO Foreign Ministers (minus a Pakistani representative) and the subsequent 2-hour discussion. (Ibid., 379/9–2962)↩
- Reference is to the Rusk–Thanat communiqué, March 6, 1962, printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 1091–1093.↩