790.5/4–1351
The Secretary of Defense (Marshall) to the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: The Department of Defense has studied your letter of 5 April with its enclosed draft memorandum to the President,1 together with your letter of 6 April2 and the public statement proposed to be made by the President, all dealing with security arrangements between the United States and certain of the Pacific island nations.
It is the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with which I concur, that the memorandum to the President and the public statement to be made by him be revised to incorporate the military views set forth in the following subparagraphs:
- “a. There is no objection to having more than one new mutual security arrangement between the United States and certain of the Pacific Island nations. These new arrangements, however, should be as few as possible;
- b. There would be serious disadvantages in the formulation of a new mutual security arrangement between the United States and the Philippine Republic. The present arrangement is adequate and satisfactory. [Page 202] Any enlargement of the scope of Philippine participation in United States security arrangements over that presently in effect would be contrary to United States security interests;
- c. It is essential that any bilateral mutual security arrangements with Japan come into effect concurrently with a Japanese Peace Treaty;
- d. Any trilateral arrangement with Australia and New Zealand should be made as a simple understanding or public declaration rather than by formal pact. If political considerations are so overriding that a formal pact must be made, the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose the inclusion in the pact of any reference to military plans, planning, or organizations therefor. For example, Article VIII of the draft treaty3 proposed by the Department of State for consideration by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, is unacceptable from the military point of view, since this Article would permit the Pacific Council to demand knowledge of and to participate in planning by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization of American States, and vice versa; and
- e. Security problems that arise in areas in the Pacific, other than Japan, the Philippine Republic, Australia, and New Zealand, should each be dealt with on an individual basis and in accordance with the situation obtaining at the time.”4
With further regard to the proposed public statement, the Joint Secretaries have expressed to me their belief that the matter of timing, as suggested by the Department of State, is of sufficient importance to warrant special stress. It is their opinion, however that the statement should not be issued by the President. In view of the level from which the various British proposals and positions relative to the peace treaty have from time to time emanated and the lack of assurance that the current position is in fact formal and not subject to change, it is suggested that a less authoritative source than the President might issue the statement.
Faithfully yours,