Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI

398.00–BA/6–1550

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Philippine Affairs (Melby)

restricted

[Washington,] June 15, 1950.

Subject: Baguio Conference¹

Participants:	Brigadier General Carlos P. Romulo, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Philippines
	Joaquin Elizalde, Philippine Ambassador
	Dean Rusk—FE
	William Lacy—PSA
	John Melby—PSA

In a conversation this noon, General Romulo outlined the work and accomplishments of the Baguio conference in the following terms:

He stated at the outset that as he had anticipated there was considerable suspicion concerning the real purposes of the conference among most of the delegates who feared it as an American trick. In this sense, he believed the conference was a great success in that he was able to disabuse the delegates not only on this point but also concerning their doubts about American intentions and activities in the Philippines. He said he was able to explain the underlying philosophy of the Bell Trade Act² and the accomplishments of the various rehabilitation programs, and thus to demonstrate that there has been nothing sinister in American activities. He also said that the delegates, including Australia, were unanimously critical of the American press as presenting an unfavorable picture of their respective countries.

He outlined the specific work of the conference as follows:

(1) Under instructions from President Quirino he proposed the inclusion of Nationalist China and South Korea since it had previously been agreed that all decisions would be unanimous. As India, Pakistan, and Indonesia opposed this proposal it failed. Romulo said he then raised the question of observers and the same three countries again opposed.

(2) Vietnam. An unnamed delegate proposed that a Commission composed of three members of the conference be named to investigate the situation in Vietnam. Romulo said he was able to sidetrack this question, but he pointed out that not a single delegate, not even Thailand or Australia who had recognized Bao Dai had a good word to say for him. Romulo said the Australian delegate explained Australian recognition of Bao Dai as having come about at a time when there was a change of government in Australia and anything done by the previous government is almost automatically reversed by the new one which has particularly close relations with London. Romulo then went on to add that after talking with various Asiatic representatives his own views on Bao Dai remained as he had expressed them in his letter to the Secretary of State.³

(3) Formosa. An unnamed delegate suggested that since the consensus among those present was against imperialism, consideration should be given to the question of Formosa where Nationalist China was playing an imperialist role in denying the legitimate aspirations of the Formosan people for autonomy and independence. Romulo claims that he also succeeded in sidetracking this issue.

(4) Communist China. According to Romulo, India raised the question of the recognition of Communist China as the legitimate government. Romulo stated that he at once pointed out the impossibility for the Philippines now or in the predictable future to recognize Communist China because of its behavior and aggressive intentions, and that this question therefore also came to nothing. Despite what appeared to have been a series of inconclusive debates on specific topics, Romulo reasserted his belief that the conference had been a success because he was able to strengthen the prestige and influence of the United States in the area, and that this fact, combined with the hands off attitude of the United States, had redounded to the American benefit.

1. The Baguio Conference, May 26–30, was attended by representatives of India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Ceylon, Pakistan, and Thailand.
2. Reference is to the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 141).
3. The letter has not been found in the files of the Department of State, but for Secretary Acheson’s memorandum of his conversation with General Romulo on March 10, during which the contents of the letter were discussed, see p. 752.