740.5/11–551
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for International Security A fairs (Nash) to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Perkins)
Dear Mr. Perkins: I have considered your suggestions in your letter of October 121 and Ambassador Spender’s views on the implementation of the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Quite frankly, his proposals seem to me unwarranted in scope and premature for consideration at this time. It would appear that Ambassador Spender is suggesting a structure that is uncalled for to implement a treaty that has not yet been ratified.
I would like to call your attention to the record of previous correspondence between the Departments of State and Defense of this treaty. The Department of Defense has objected more than once to the inclusion of any military planning and any military organization either explicitly in the treaty provisions or implictly as subsidiary to the Pacific Council, and the record demonstrates that the Department of Defense has the clear understanding that Article VII is political in character and does not call for military organization and planning.
In this light it does not appear that the organization outline proposed by Ambassador Spender conforms to the views of the Department of Defense in that a permanent Military Committee under the Pacific Council, and located in Honolulu would establish the very kind of machinery which the Department of Defense, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, heretofore has opposed. Therefore, I do not [Page 253] believe that it is now possible for this office to consider Ambassador Spender’s proposals in connection with developing an agreed position between the Department of State and the Department of Defense on the implementation of the Tripartite Security Treaty. Moreover, I do not think it would be in the US military interests to furnish Mr. Spender with any substantive comments on his suggestion at this time or to participate in any informal Tripartite working group, although I realize that the Department of State has to discuss other aspects of the treaty with him. I would also like to mention that the Ambassador’s proposals are not now required from any lack of military liaison with Australia and New Zealand which has already been adequately carried out during the past two years through CINCPAC, and which should continue as circumstances dictate.
Accordingly, I wish to suggest that: (a) No discussion be conducted of any military implementation of this treaty with Australian and New Zealand representatives until the Japanese Peace Treaty, the US-Japan Security Treaty, the Tripartite Treaty, and the US-Philippine Security Treaty have all been ratified, and that thereafter State and Defense representatives consult on an agreed position to take with the Australians and New Zealanders in this particular matter.
(b) Representatives of the Departments of State and Defense coordinate their efforts in connection with the forthcoming hearings before the Senate for the ratification of the three Security Treaties, particularly in light of the record of the Defense position on Article VII.
(c) That the presentation to Congressional committees not include any implication of any military organizational implementation of Article VII or of the treaty.
In view of this position on this matter I do not believe that it is advisable at this time formally to designate representatives of the Department of Defense for consideration of these matters at an early date. However, I would like to be of all possible assistance to State Department officials responsible for this matter and will always be ready to discuss it with them. If there are any immediate questions regarding any part of this letter or if you desire further details, Mr. Kenneth T. Young, Jr. of my office (Extension 53210), who is thoroughly familiar with the background of the Defense position in this regard, will be immediately available for consultation with the representatives you designate.
Sincerely yours,
- Not found in Department of State files.↩