790.5/8–554
The Embassy of New Zealand to the Department of State1
The New Zealand Government have been giving consideration to the relationship of Japan, South Korea and Formosa to any defence organisation that may be set up in the Pacific area.
While the position of the United States Administration in relation to this question is fully appreciated, as are the military arguments that may be brought forward for the inclusion of some or all of these countries in some form of collective defence arrangement for the Pacific area, neither New Zealand public opinion nor the Government’s appreciation of the political problems involved is likely to lead New Zealand to agree to the association of any of the three countries in SEATO.
In the Government’s view, although SEATO should obviously aim at building up military strength as soon as possible, it should have as its other important objects (a) to give public and formal warning to the Communists of the consequences of further aggression, either overt or indirect, against South East Asia, and to strengthen the resolve of the Asian countries in the front line, and (b) to provide a framework within which might be given the military and economic aid that is needed to strengthen the Asian countries internally.
[Page 710]The New Zealand Government feel that the Communist powers are likely to be deterred from overt aggression in South East Asia more by the possibility of direct retaliation against themselves than by any resistance that could be made by the SEATO powers in the area of attack itself. In the immediate future, the greater threat to South East Asia seems likely to be one of political pressure and subversion, and the New Zealand Government see no overriding military need at this time to have substantial Formosan or Korean forces in SEATO.
Moreover, from the political standpoint, any such move would be unwise and unfortunate. Above all, if a contribution to South East Asian defence were to be sought from Japan, the reaction might well be damaging not only from the point of view of the Colombo countries but also from that of the Philippines, even assuming that public opinion in New Zealand and Australia could be induced to swallow it.
The New Zealand Government has also given consideration to the question of the establishment of a new collective defence arrangement for South East Asia. They feel, however, that the problem of security in South East Asia, the Far East and the Western Pacific generally is indivisible. The threat to the area is a common one, and they therefore doubt the wisdom of creating a separate security system for the North Pacific. They have also taken into account the two practical considerations that (a) Japan’s present lack of armed strength would for some time to come prevent her from playing an effective part in any new security arrangements for the Pacific area, and (b) there already exist bilateral security treaties between the United States and Japan and South Korea.
The New Zealand Government feel, therefore, that it would be wise to proceed with the formation of SEATO on the present basis, deferring any consideration of proposals to add Japan until a more appropriate time. In any case, having regard to the terms of the Sino-Soviet Treaty, the inclusion of Japan in SEATO would certainly be regarded by the Communists as provocative. The New Zealand Government recognise that there might eventually be achieved in the Pacific an overall collective defence arrangement which, in conjunction with NATO, would conduce to the achievement of an agreed allied global strategy.
For the present, however, the New Zealand Government has been pleased to learn from the Department of State that there is no immediate likelihood that requests for the inclusion of Japan and South Korea and Nationalist China in SEATO will be made. The Government agree entirely that SEATO should not be a closed body, and that provision should be made for additional members later.
[Page 711]The New Zealand Government wish to make it clear, however, that in the immediate future New Zealand does not favour the inclusion of South Korea and Formosa nor is it likely to be able to consider the entry of Japan. The Government consider that, in the meantime, the position of the Japanese and South Koreans might be met to a greater extent by the inclusion in the SEATO Treaty of provision for a consultative association, similar to that of Article VIII of the ANZUS Treaty which reads as follows:
“Pending the development of a more comprhensive system of regional security in the Pacific area and the development by the United Nations of more effective means to maintain international peace and security, the Council, established by Article VII, is authorised to maintain a consultative relationship with states, regional organisations, associations of states or other authorities in the Pacific area in a position to further the purposes of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of that area.”
In any case, any cooperation which may be necessary between SEATO and Japan and South Korea could presumably be ensured through the United States as a member of SEATO and a partner in bilateral security treaties with those countries.
- Handed to the Under Secretary by Ambassador Munro on Aug. 5. On the source text, which is apparently a copy of the original, a title, “SEATO”, has been typed and then crossed out by hand.↩