FE files, lot 55 D 480
Memorandum for the Record by the Counselor of the Department of State (MacArthur)
- 1.
- The Secretary made the following comments with respect to the latest
UK suggested redraft of Article 4
(attached)1 which he said might
be passed on to the British Embassy:
The Secretary still believes very strongly that the US formula specifically mentioning “Communist aggression” should be in the Treaty. It is clearly recognized that in the agreed minute of the Eisenhower-Churchill talks2 that what we are trying to do is to combat Communist aggression in the area. Furthermore, the various Communist treaties are always couched in terms of aggression coming from non-Communist countries, and there is no reason why we on our part should not make clear that we are thinking about Communist aggression. By eliminating the reference to “Communist” aggression and adopting the NATO formula, the treaty would in essence proclaim that if any of the member states got into a dispute of some kind among themselves or with other non-Communist states involving incidents or shooting, this could, by the terms of the NATO formula, be construed as an attack against the US and other members. This obviously was not what we had in mind.
With specific reference to the proposal to substitute the NATO formula for the ANZUS formula, the Secretary feels strongly that the ANZUS formula should be adopted to make the terms of the Southeast Asia defense pact entirely consistent with existing US security arrangements in that area with Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines. This involves Congressional and constitutional considerations. As a practical matter, the differences in the two formulae are probably not material. However, there is a definite legislative history connected with this problem, and it would be extremely unfortunate if Congressional debate were reopened regarding US constitutional questions involving the Executive and Legislative branches, which could well result if the NATO formula were adopted.
- 2.
- The Secretary confirmed his earlier instruction that the US Working Group at Manila stand firm on the inclusion of the “Communist aggression” formula in the treaty text, which would mean [Page 793] that the Foreign Ministers themselves would have to discuss and reach agreement on the final formula.