Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 1

Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 348

Draft Southeast Asia Collective Security Treaty¹

secret
SEAP D–2

[Washington,] August 2, 1954.

Draft Southeast Asia Collective Security Treaty

Provisions in US Draft of July 9	Comments of Other Governments on US Draft of July 9	Revised Draft [of July 22]
The Parties to this Treaty,	Australia would include at the beginning of the Preamble the following clause: “Recognizing the sovereign equality of all the Parties,”	The Parties to this Treaty, Recognizing the sovereign equality of all the Parties, [The US could accept this Australian suggestion.]
Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments,		Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments,
Upholding the principles of self-government and the intention earnestly to strive by every peaceful means to ensure the independence of all countries whose peoples desire and are capable of sustaining an independent existence, Desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, and to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been deprived of it,	The UK would like to replace these two paragraphs by the following: “Desiring to promote stability and well-being in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, to strengthen the fabric of peace and to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”, New Zealand would like to replace these paragraphs by the following: “Upholding the principles of self-government and declaring their belief that eventual achievement of independence by the countries of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, and the maintenance of that independence, will strengthen the fabric of peace in the areas,” Australia in addition to the UK and New Zealand would like to omit the phrase “and to the sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been deprived of it” and substitute, “and to promote the economic well being and development of all peoples in the area”.	Desiring to promote stability and well-being in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, to secure the independence of all countries whose peoples desire and are capable of sustaining an independent existence, and to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, [The US could accept this type of revision of the two paragraphs.]
Intending to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stands alone in the area, and	The UK would omit this paragraph. In the discussions of the study group the UK suggested that the paragraph might be acceptable if cast in affirmative rather than negative language.	Intending to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that any potential aggressor will appreciate that the Parties stand together in the area, and [The US could accept a reformulation along these lines.]
Desiring further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security,		Desiring further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security,
	Australia would include at the end of the Preamble a declaration along the following lines:
	“Having decided to establish a regional arrangement in accordance with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter,”
	New Zealand believes SEATO should be linked with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and not established as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII.
Therefore agree and declare as follows:	Thailand would delete the words “and declare”.	Therefore agree as follows: [The US could accept this deletion.]
Article I		Article I
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.	Thailand proposes a comma after “Charter of the United Nations”.	The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. [Thai suggestion should be adopted.]
Article II		Article II
In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack, and Communist subversion and infiltration.	The UK would omit the words “and Communist subversion and infiltration” and substitute “and subversion directed from abroad”. New Zealand would omit the word “Communist”, and add, at the end of the article, “directed to the destruction of a free order of society in their territories”. Australia would delete the words “and Communist subversion and infiltration”.	In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Each Party recognizes that subversive activities directed from without against the territorial integrity and political stability of the other Parties would constitute a threat to the security of all of them. The Parties therefore undertake to consult together on the means by which the free institutions of the Parties may be strengthened, [The US could accept a redrafting of Article II along the above lines.]
		Article III
	New Zealand has commented, “the major omission in the Treaty seems to us the lack of reference to economic assistance and collaboration, although we are not certain whether this would be best linked specifically with SEATO or not. We understand that the Australians have made this question a central point of their approach to their thinking on SEATO and we share this view.” Australia has suggested an article along the following lines:	The Parties undertake to cooperate with each other and with other like-minded states in the development of economic measures designed to promote economic stability and social well-being. [The US should propose an article along these lines.]
	“The Parties will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them and will cooperate in international schemes for the economic and social development of the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific and neighboring countries.”
Article III		[Article IV]
1. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific1 on any of the Parties, or on any states or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement so designate, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety, and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.	The UK has stated that this commitment should not cover additional states or territories except upon request by them. New Zealand would omit coverage here of non-signatory countries, and provide for their protection by declarations or through the consultative process. Australia would insert an article stating that the Treaty does not authorize foreign forces to be sent to a country except with that country’s consent. Thailand inquires whether the states or territory to be designated by unanimous agreement come within the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Thailand would substitute “endanger” for “would be dangerous to”, and would substitute “agrees to join in taking appropriate action” for “declares that it would act”.	1. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific on any of the Parties, or on any states or territory in the area which the Parties by unanimous agreement so designate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. [The US would accept two of the Thai suggestions.]
2. If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific should be affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by any other fact or situation which might endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order to agree on the measure which should be taken for the common defense and for the maintenance of peace and security in the area.	The UK believes that the area referred to in Article III of the July 9 draft needs definition, and that the geographical scope of the coverage of this article requires precise definition. The UK would omit or reconsider the words “an aggression which is not an armed attack”. New Zealand would bring up Article V of the July 9 draft and place it where Article III(2) stands in that draft. New Zealand would then give Article III(2) of the July 9 draft as a new Article IV. Australia would delete the words “affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by any other fact or situation which might endanger the peace of the area,” and substitute “threatened in any way other than by armed aggression”. Australia would cast Article III(2) of the July 9 draft as a separate Article IV.	2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any Party in the area of Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific should be affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack or by any other fact or situation which might endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall consult immediately in order to agree on the measures which should be taken for the common defense and for the maintenance of peace and security in the area. [The US could agree to combine Article III(2) of the July 9 draft with Article V, with the combined provision appearing as the second paragraph of Article IV.]
3. Measures taken under this Article shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.	The UK and Australia believe that the reporting called for here should not cover all the measures taken under Article III(2) of the July 9 draft. New Zealand would cast Article III(3) of the July 9 draft as a new Article V referring to action taken under both of the preceding articles. [Articles III(1) and (2), and IV, according to the New Zealand renumbering.]	[Article VI of the July 9 draft preserves the obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations, which includes their obligations under Article 51 of the Charter. Article III(3) in the July 9 draft is therefore not necessary in relation to Article III(1), and is undesirable in relation to Article III(2).]
Article IV		Article V
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet at any time.	The UK would add at the end of the first sentence of this article a clause such as: “and for this purpose to establish machinery for effective cooperation including co-operation with states not Parties to this Treaty”.	The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council is empowered to arrange with states not Parties to the Treaty for cooperation in giving effect to the provisions of Article III. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet at any time. [The US could agree to this expansion of the article.]
Article V
The Parties would consult together, whenever in the opinion of any one of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties, or the peace of the area, is endangered.	The UK would omit this article. New Zealand would place this article where Article 111(2) stands in the July 9 draft.
Article VI		Article VI
This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of any of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.	The UK would add: “Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.”	This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of any of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. [The US would accept the UK suggestion, which is patterned on Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty.]
Article VII		Article VII
The Parties may by unanimous agreement invite any other State in a position to further the objective of this Treaty, and to contribute to the security of the area, to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of ------. The Government of ----- will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.	The UK and Australia have suggested a separate provision on “association” with the organization of countries which do not become Parties.	The Parties may by unanimous agreement invite any other State in a position to further the objective of this Treaty, and to contribute to the security of the area, to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of -----. The Government of ----- will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article VIII		Article VIII
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of -----, which shall notify all of the other signatories of such deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of a majority of the signatories shall be deposited, and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.	The UK suggests that it may be desirable to require that certain specified signatories must ratify before the Treaty enters into force.	This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of -----, which shall notify all of the other signatories of such deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of a majority of the signatories shall be deposited, and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.
Article IX		Article IX
This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of -----, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.	The UK and New Zealand suggest the possibility of including a provision on review of the Treaty.	This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of -----, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

1. A covering note by Trulock reads:

   “The attached paper was prepared by Mr. Meeker, L/UNA. The first column contains the text of the U.S. draft treaty dated July 9.

   “The second column contains comments of other governments.

   “The third column contains the text of a draft treaty revised in the light of the comments received.”

   All brackets in this document are in the source text.

1. Another text of the July 9 draft has at this point the following footnote: “The question of more definite definition is to be considered immediately. (Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 341, “Documentary History”, tab 24)