Office of the Historian

Conference files, lot 60 D 27, CF 357

Memorandum of a Meeting of the United States Delegation to the Manila Conference1

secret
Manila, September 5, 1954—10:12 a.m.

Participants:

  • The Secretary
  • Senator Smith
  • Admiral Davis
  • Mr. Sullivan
  • Senator Mansfield
  • Mr. MacArthur
  • Mr. Phleger
  • Ambassador Sebald
  • Mr. Stelle
  • Mr. O’Connor
  • Mr. Galloway
  • Mr. Trulock

Following is a summary of the principal comments on the Working Group draft of the Treaty:2

Preamble

a.
Self-determination point. The Secretary said that we would have no objection to the inclusion of the Pakistan language in the preamble but that if the UK and others had difficulty with this we might propose language from the Potomac Charter3 referring to the right of “people who are capable of sustaining independence”. Another alternative would be to use Mr. Phleger’s suggestion referring to the principle of self-determination “as therein declared” in the UN Charter. The Secretary said that as a tactical matter we should not take leading role in this discussion.
b.
The Geneva Agreements. It was agreed that we would have no objection to the inclusion of the Australian language on this point.
c.
“Communist“. The Secretary said that we would probably be willing to eliminate the word “Communist” in the Preamble.

Article I

Approved—no comments.

Article II

a.
“Mutual aid”. The Secretary said that we could accept the UK substitution for this phrase if necessary.
b.
“Subversion”. Mr. MacArthur pointed out that the French were alone in wishing to delete this phrase. The Secretary said that we think this phrase a necessary part of the Treaty.

Article III

It was agreed that we would probably be able to get something very close to our language if we stick on it, and the Secretary said [Page 847] we should do this since it was most important that the economic provisions be broad enough to apply to countries outside the area, particularly to Japan.

(The Philippines proposed a new Article IV. It was agreed that while we would agree to refer to self-determination in the Preamble, it would not be advisable to have an Article on this subject in the operative part of the Treaty since it might be charged that the Treaty was in competition with the appropriate sections of the UN Charter.)

Article IV

  • Paragraph 1

    a.
    The Secretary instructed Mr. Phleger to draft a Protocol for limited circulation to the principal officers of the Delegation, which would cover Cambodia, Laos, and free Vietnam.
    b.
    The Secretary said that regarding “Communist aggression”, he leaned toward a unilateral understanding along the lines suggested by Mr. Phleger. Senator Smith and Senator Mansfield stressed the necessity for leaving the “constitutional processes” in the text. They both felt it was likely that the Senate would attach a further reservation to the Treaty stating that it was specifically designed to meet Communist aggression. It was agreed that it might be desirable to change the word “would” in the 6th line of the present draft to “will”. It was agreed that we should stick to the ANZUS language.

    Coverage Of “South Vietnam”. The Secretary said the situation in South Vietnam was so precarious that while he wished this Treaty to cover the territory against aggression, he had serious doubts about coverage against other forms of take-over. He felt that it might be desirable to draw a line rather than name the State of Vietnam or Free Vietnam, thus making clear that it was crossing of the line that we would act to meet.

    Senator Mansfield said he could see the Secretary’s point in wishing to draw a distinction between South Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, but he saw real disadvantages if it were obvious that we had differentiated between South Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia.

  • Paragraph 2

    Senator Smith raised the point that there was no reference to constitutional processes in paragraph 2. It was pointed out that this paragraph calls for consultation only and it is taken directly from the Rio Treaty and that the Executive would consult with the other Parties to the Treaty and any action under paragraph 1 would, of course, be in accordance with constitutional processes.

[Page 848]

Article V

The Secretary said he would discuss the Australian suggestion regarding subsidiary machinery with Foreign Minister Casey this afternoon. He will show him our substitute sentence on this point. It was pointed out that one of the advantages of “consultation” instead of “machinery” is that there would be no necessity for deciding on a site under the former.

Article VI

Agreed—no comments.

Article VII

It was agreed that we should propose that the Philippine Government be the depository for the instruments of accession.

Article VIII

It was agreed that if suitable language to meet the “Communist” point in Article IV is obtained, we could support the Pakistan substitute language with the substitution of the word “and” for “but” in the 4th line.

Articles IX and X

No comments, but presumably we would support the Government of the Philippines to fill in the blanks.

Observers from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam

Mr. MacArthur said that Laos and Cambodia did not intend to request observer status. He added that if this matter were considered by the Conference with a negative result it would be most unfortunate. He therefore recommended that we not raise in the Conference the question of observers from Vietnam.

The Secretary agreed.

  1. All participants were members of the U.S. Delegation to the Manila Conference.

    The Secretary and Senators H. Alexander Smith of New Jersey and Michael J. Mansfield of Montana were U.S. Plenipotentiary Representatives. MacArthur was Delegation Coordinator and Trulock, Deputy Coordinator. Phleger, Ambassador Sebald, and Vice Admiral Davis were Special Advisers. Stelle, Galloway, and Charles A. Sullivan (Chief, American and Far East Division, Office of Foreign Military Affairs, Department of Defense) were Advisers. O’Connor was Special Assistant to the Secretary. For a complete roster of the delegation, see Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 6, 1954, p. 345.

    ↩
  2. For text, and description of the proposals of the several delegations mentioned below, see telegram Secto 9, supra.↩
  3. For text, of the “Declaration by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”, June 29, 1954, sometimes known as the “Potomac Charter”, see Department of State Bulletin, July 12, 1954, p. 49.↩