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

Minutes of Meeting Held in the Department of State¹

secret
SEAP Special 2

[Washington,] August 5, 1954—noon–1 p.m.

Subject:

• Southeast Asia Pact

Participants:

• The Secretary
• The Under Secretary
• Mr. Murphy
• Mr. Phleger
• Mr. Merchant
• Mr. Bowie
• Mr. Drumright
• Mr. Jernegan
• Mr. Stelle
• Mr. Nunley
• Mr. Ogburn
• Mr. Galloway

Status of Southeast Asia Pact

Mr. Merchant said that on July 28 we had informed the representatives of the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand that we hoped simultaneous announcements could be made in the seven capitals on or about August 7, stating the intention of the governments to establish a Southeast Asia defense arrangement and stating that the Foreign Ministers would meet on September 6 for this purpose. They were given a draft text of a proposed announcement and told that we hoped that on or about August 9 an informal working group could begin work on the text of the treaty here in Washington, leaving only a few principal questions for discussion and decision by the Foreign Ministers in September. They were informed that we believed Baguio would be an appropriate meeting place; we did not think Washington or Singapore would be appropriate; however, we would be willing to meet in Honolulu if others wished or to consider other sites.

Thailand and the Philippines have accepted our proposals regarding site and timing.

The Australians have accepted, but proposed that the Foreign Ministers’ meeting be postponed until September 13 and wished to make a few changes in their announcement.

The French have suggested postponement of an announcement until August 21. Since the cease fire will not be in full effect in Cambodia until August 7 and in Viet Nam until August 11, they feel that an announcement prior to the latter date might be considered provocative by the other side. They also wish to “water down” the announcement somewhat. Mr. Merchant said that he told the French that we would consider their proposals but were disappointed at the prospects of additional delay. He asked them if they would be willing to proceed with the working group before the announcement if the latter were postponed beyond August 11. The French are querying Paris on this point.

UK—Mr. Merchant said he had just talked with Mr. Scott of the British Embassy regarding the Colombo Powers. The UK has received a negative answer from India, an affirmative one from Pakistan, and an indefinite reply from Ceylon. No formal replies have yet been received from Burma and Indonesia, but they are known to be negative. The Embassy here still has no further instructions regarding timing and the form of announcement. Presumably a UK position on these questions will be forthcoming only after all replies from the Colombo Powers have been received.² The other difficulty with the British is that they prefer invitations issued by the US and UK rather than simultaneous announcements.

It was generally agreed, since August 7 was only two days away, there would be some slippage in our target date for the announcement. General Smith said August 15 was perhaps the earliest date we could expect. He said that he would try to get agreement from the Australians and New Zealanders that the announcement would be made not later than August 15. In order to avoid additional loss of time, Mr. Merchant said that he would plan to hold next week another round of bilateral discussions on our working draft II³ of the treaty text.

As to the date of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting, Mr. Merchant pointed out that it could not be held much later than the second week in September since it would be necessary for the Secretary to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly on September 21. It was generally agreed that the Australian proposal of September 13 would be acceptable, but that we should try to hold to the September 6 date. Mr. Merchant said that Eden would probably agree to a short Foreign Ministers’ meeting to “wrap up” the treaty, since there seemed to be no support for the UK position among the other participants.

Tactics regarding the Colombo Powers⁴

It was agreed that, since Pakistan has given an affirmative reply⁵ to the British invitation to participate in the meeting on the Southeast Asia Pact, and since Ceylon is the only other Colombo Power which is likely to join, we should instruct Minister Crowe to urge Ceylonese participation. However, we would not be willing to transfer the site of the conference to Ceylon in an effort to bring them in (Crowe has already been informed that we have told other prospective members including the Philippines that we felt Baguio would be an appropriate site.)⁶

Philippine request for Philippine-US Council Meeting⁷

It was generally agreed that the Filipino request for a council meeting under the terms of our mutual defense treaty with them should be met if at all possible. It was suggested that the request might be met if the Secretary could arrive in the area for discussions with them one or two days prior to the SEAP meeting in Baguio.

Philippine Recognition of Laos and Cambodia⁸

It was agreed that Mr. Drumright should instruct Spruance to see Magsaysay and express in strongest terms our concern over the Philippine delay in recognizing Laos and Cambodia.

Revised Text of the SEA Treaty

The Secretary went over the revised text of the draft of the Southeast Asia Treaty and, after a few revisions, authorized Mr. Merchant to conduct a third round of bilateral discussions with the other six powers regarding the text.

1. Drafted by Trulock on Aug. 6. Trulock is not listed among the participants at the meeting.
2. Eden had sent another message to the Prime Ministers of India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Burma, and Indonesia on July 30. Prime Minister Ali replied on Aug. 2, and Prime Ministers Nehru and U Nu replied on Aug. 4. Representatives of the British Embassy gave copies of all four documents to officials of the Department by Aug. 6. (790.5/8–654) Sir John Kotelewala’s first reply is included in SEAP D–3 dated Aug. 6. His reply dated Aug. 10, in which he stated that Ceylon would not participate in the proposed conference, is attached to SEAP D–3/1, Aug. 12. (Both in Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 348)
3. Infra.
4. A typewritten marginal note on the source text next to this paragraph reads: “Action: Mr. Jernegan”.

5. Pakistani adherence was among the topics discussed by the Secretary and Ambassador Spender in the conversation cited in footnote 3, p. 685.

   “Sir Percy then mentioned Pakistan and said that his government has the firm view that Pakistan will join SEATO and that there should be nothing dilatory about admitting her. The Secretary said he had not thought the British formal invitation to the five Colombo powers was a good idea but that he did not disagree with the Ambassador as to admittance once the invitation was accepted. He added, however, that he was not sure that East and West Pakistan could or should be included in a defense line. The Ambassador readily agreed, saying that the defense line was entirely another matter.”

6. In telegram 113 from Karachi, Aug. 3, Ambassador Hildreth reported that the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Zafrullah Khan, believed that if the Pakistani Government should suggest to Prime Minister Kotelewala of Ceylon that the SEATO discussion meeting be held at Colombo, the chance of Ceylonese adherence to a Southeast Asia defense treaty would increase. (790.5/8–354)

   Telegram 39 to Colombo, Aug. 5, contains instruction along the lines indicated here. (790.5/8–454)

7. A typewritten marginal note on the source text next to this paragraph reads: “Action: Mr. Drumright.”
8. A typewritten marginal note on the source text next to this paragraph reads: “Action: Mr. Drumright.”