890.00/7–2254: Circular telegram
The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Offices1
50. Limit distribution. Letter July 20 from Assistant Secretary Robertson2 airpouched you requests your opinion about extent to which program expanded economic assistance, maximizing Asian participation, and designed primarily stimulate economic development would strengthen ability and willingness free Asian countries resist Communism.
Recent developments have heightened Department’s interest your reply. You should therefore send written reply to inquiries accompanying letter but telegraph summary reply soonest.
Telegraphic summary should also include your views following matter which was not mentioned Robertson letter: UK, Australia and New Zealand have advocated inclusion economic provisions in projected SEATO collective security pact presumably with intention developing economic organization within SEATO framework. Such organization would necessarily contain very few Asian powers. Our preliminary thinking is provisions in SEATO treaty should be in very general terms and merely pledge signatories cooperate with each other and with non-member States in developing measures which will promote economic stability and social wellbeing. Such language would leave U.S. and other signatories free to participate if desirable in Asian economic organization of wider scope and not specifically related to a collective defense organization.3
[Page 653]Replies this telegram should be marked “limit distribution”.
Discuss this and related matters with fewest possible members your staff.
- Drafted by Baldwin. Sent to Bangkok, Djakarta, Manila, Rangoon, Saigon, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei, and Tokyo.↩
- Not printed. The letter, sent to each Chief of Mission personally, and a number of letters in reply, are in FE files, lot 55 D 480. Several telegraphic replies to the letter and to this telegram are in file 890.00.↩
In a memorandum for the files dated July 22, Baldwin stated in part:
“In the forenoon of July 20, Mr. MacArthur (Counselor of Department) asked me to come to his office to discuss a matter of considerable importance. He told me that during the bilateral Anglo-American talks which had just ended, the British side had submitted several proposals concerning economic provisions which should appear in the SEATO treaty, asked my opinion as to how these provisions would affect the possibility of organizing a Regional Organization in the Far East which would have wider scope and would not be attached to a collective defense organization.
“I told him that in my opinion the wrong language in the SEATO treaty might well prevent our encouraging and supporting a broader organization of that kind and, in fact, might prevent some of the other SEATO members from participating in such an organization. I said that this might be avoided if the language in the SEATO treaty were general in nature and thus would not have the effect of tying our hands.” (890.00/7–2254)
↩