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

Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 356

Verbatim Proceedings of the Second Plenary Session, Manila Conference¹

[Extract]

top secret
Document No. II

Manila, September 6, 1954—2:40 p.m.

The Chairman.² All right, we will go forward.

Article V. Any remarks on Article V? Anybody has any objections to the approval of Article V?

Delegate of Pakistan.³ Mr. Chairman, Article V. I originally proposed that Article V would have in addition the sentence which stands on the name of the Australian delegation.

The Chairman. The Australian delegation has proposed the sentence underscored, which reads as follows: “The Council shall set up such subsidiary machinery as may be necessary to achieve the military and other objectives of this Treaty.” That is an addition to the original draft.

Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the sentence that you have just read, if “military and other” means “all”, then we would prefer to have the sentence read simply “as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.”

The Chairman. What does the delegate from Australia⁴ say to that?

Delegate of Australia. I think we better face the fact that although this is a military treaty as we all recognize, I do not think there is any gain saying the fact that it is largely a military treaty and as such I do not really see, with great respect to my friend, H. E. Zafrullah Khan, the purpose in avoiding the word “military.” “Military and other” I think, all very rightly covers or intends to cover all the purposes of the treaty although I think we better face the fact that “military” is the most important side and, I think deserves mention, and that is the principal potential obligation into which we are all entering. With great respect to H. E. Zafrullah Khan, I would rather see the words “military and other objectives of the treaty” remain.

Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, with due respect to my esteemed friend, the Delegate of Australia, I did not propose the avoidance of the word “military”. I proposed that the emphasis shall continue to be on the objectives of the treaty, and if the objectives, as the Delegate of Australia has said, are largely military, that obviously covers the objective before you, and the large military objective would have to be implemented. I would rather deprecate the use of the expression “military and other” because that does not bring out so much the character of the treaty but it emphasizes the “military” and creates “and other” as being of little importance.

The Chairman. The Delegate of France.⁵

Delegate of France. (Translated) Mr. Chairman, the French delegation prefers the Australian amendment. It seems clear to us that the development of common action should lead to the setting up of a permanent body. It seems to us that the fact of giving or charging the council with the task of setting it up should give to the parties concerned a useful assurance without actually bridging the ways and means of this future endeavor. But if we have some difficulty in the wording, why do we not use the latter language. That is, the Council should set up the body which might be necessary.…⁶

The Delegate of Australia. Sir, if I might say just one additional word, I think that public opinion in a number of countries that would want to read this treaty—I think public opinion in many countries concerned in this treaty—in my own country, and I would expect, possibly in others, there has been a demand for a treaty with the use of identical expressions, when we come to the use of identical expressions, a treaty with teeth in it, and this has been said in my country not without official tone. I think if we seek to avoid, and I don’t say this with offense to anybody, if we do not use the word “military” I think we will lose an opportunity at least of assuring our countries that this treaty means business. For instance, in Australia, we are prepared to enter into obligations and undertakings designed for the mutual security of the countries of Southeast Asia and also of other countries. I think the use of the word “military” would assure our own people in Australia, and I think at the same time, it will help reassure the peoples in the countries of Southeast Asia.

The Delegate of New Zealand.⁷ I suggest to just cut it down to a sense of “as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty.” As Mr. Zafrullah Khan said, “military” is one of the objectives of the treaty and if it had been originally prepared in that form, it might appear to be all right, but if it has the words “military and other objectives” in it, and now it is suggested that it should be cut, then I think the suggestion to be wise and I find it difficult now to say why, unless we say that “military objectives” are not one of the objectives of the treaty.

The Delegate of the Philippines.⁸ I partly oppose the point of the Minister of Australia, but in view of the fact that there seems to be controversy on this article, so this might be passed over.

The Chairman. It seems that the remarks of the Delegate of Pakistan have engendered a sort of a controversy here, so we are going over and pass to Article VI.

Now, we have reached the end of the draft. We will now go back to consider the controversial articles. It seems that we better start with this which is not highly controversial and where there is only a question of form, Article V. There is a very slight controversy on the elimination of three words.

Delegate of Thailand.⁹ Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this compromise: Instead of saying “the military and other objectives”, because I think “military” is too narrow a word, I propose “the defense and other objectives”. In the NATO what they say is “as may be necessary”. That was pointed out by the French Delegate. But at the same time, the NATO establishes the defense committee there, and I think that if “defense” could be used, perhaps the Pakistan Delegate might be able to agree.

The Delegate of Thailand.…¹⁰ I think if “defense” could be used, perhaps the Thai delegation might be able to accept it. In other words, I do see the importance attached by the Australian delegate to the desirability of pointing clearly to the advisability of creating some organization for considering common defense problems. I think that is the point: and instead of creating a defense committee, I quite agree that we take this general form, but we might say, “defense” instead of military.

The Chairman. It will read: To achieve the defense and other objectives of the treaty.

The Delegate of the United States.¹¹ Mr. Chairman, the United States would not particularly like the use of the words “subsidiary machineries” because it seems a little bit too rigid to us. On the other hand, we do recognize the merit of the points of view stated by the Australian delegation and now by the Thai delegation. And it seems to us that perhaps a compromise on the different points of views could be found with such language as this: The Council shall provide for consultation with regard to defense and other planning as required by the situation in the area. I repeat: The Council shall provide for consultation with regard to defense as required by the situation in the area. I may say further as far as the United States is concerned, we would accept either the word “military” or “defense” or “security”.

The Delegate of the Philippines. Mr. Chairman, since a suggestion has been made, by compromise and only by way of compromise, because we have already stated that we heartily support the Australian amendment and the view expressed thereon, but only by way of compromise, may we not suggest that after the word “military” a comma (,) should be placed and the word “economic” be inserted so that the thing should read: “To achieve the military, economic, and other objectives of the treaty.” It includes not only the suggestion of the Delegate of Pakistan, but by adding “military, economic, and other objectives” it will have a wider range and might cover the ideas behind the proposal of the Minister of Pakistan.

The Chairman. There are three suggestions now, or three formulas I should say: one proposed by the delegate of Thailand which would replace the word “military” with the word “defense”. The other one proposed by the United States which reads as follows: The Council shall provide for consultation with regard to defense and other planning as required by the situation in the area. And the Philippines formula is to add to the word “military” a comma (,) and then the word “economic”. So that that phrase will read now as proposed by the Philippines: “military, economic and other objectives of the treaty”.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom.¹² Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully suggest this: The Council shall provide for periodic consultation as to the measure which may be necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty in the light of the situation in the area.

The Chairman. We will call this the fourth formula. We have a wide range of choice now and if we could make this choice right now, it would be drafted for the conferees.

The Delegate of the Philippines. May I suggest that we hear from the Minister of Australia.

The Delegate of Pakistan. In a wider sense, all these are amendments to my view, but I may submit that while the Thailand and the Philippine amendments are amendments to the original purpose of trying to achieve the same purpose, but with the phraseology that meets with the points of view of both Australia and Pakistan, subject to whatever view will be expressed on the amendments themselves. With regard to the United Kingdom and the United States amendments, they have a different purpose in view.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my own and accept the Philippine amendment.

The Chairman. So, the Philippine amendment now becomes Philippine-Thailand amendment which will read: To achieve the military, economic, and other objectives of the treaty.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Accepted.

The Chairman. It has been accepted by the author of the first proposed amendment to the draft, and so it becomes now Philippine-Thailand-Pakistan, or Pakistan-Philippines-Thailand, because Pakistan was the original.…¹³

The Delegate of Pakistan. Now, I am prepared to accept the amendment proposed.

The Chairman. So that the amendment now reads: “military, economic, and other objectives of the treaty.”

The Delegate of Australia. Sir, I think if I could express my views as briefly as I can, on the several amendments and on the several alternatives, I think I may be excused, if I continue to support the stand of my delegation for the reasons I have given. But if I have to rest from that, my second line of defense would be … the American amendment. If the American delegate would be good enough to use the word “military” in place of the word “defense” for the reasons I gave before, I really think that this treaty should have teeth. But I think the people would be aware by the wording of the treaty that it has got teeth, and so, for myself and my country, I would not back away from the use of the word “military”. Although this treaty, in the form that it may finally be accepted may not have a great deal of the military, I think that our country and public opinion of my country would look for some appreciable military phase of the treaty, in the verbiage of the treaty, I mean. So that on my part, I stand by that proposal of my own delegation, and secondarily for the American proposal, with the word “military and other planning” in place of “defense and other planning”. But the amendment of the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan is for the inclusion in the existing Australian amendment of the word “economic”.

On the economic side, I hope I am not wrong, there will not be what you might call overall economic aid decided by all the countries represented. All I would like to visualize is that there would be help under the Colombo plan as far as the Colombo plan makes that possible. In any event, on a bilateral basis, the United States, for instance, would discuss it with each individual country that needs aid. It would not serve by and large, as I imagine. We propose that a given sum of dollars should be applied to this area by the United States. The United States will discuss with Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and other countries and agree with them what the United States can and would provide for that country by way of economic aid. Similarly, in the same degree, for my own country, we would expect to discuss bilaterally with each of the countries that would need economic assistance, discuss with them their needs and what we Australians could provide. In other words, I don’t really believe that there is room or need for the prospective council to discuss economic aid in the broad. I think, on practical and technical grounds, the provision of economic aid would be between those countries that find themselves able to provide economic aid and each of the countries that would be in need of economic aid. So, I beg to regret that I find myself unable to support the amendment proposed by the delegates of the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan.

The Delegate from Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, assuming for just a moment that we accept the reasoning that has been advanced by the foreign minister of Australia for not putting in economic aid, it would become necessary then to leave out “military and other.…”¹⁴ Because if the plan is to cover the economic phase, the economic aspect still remains. But if that will be done bilaterally, then exclude all other aid, so that we may know what we are providing for.

The Delegate from New Zealand. Excepting the military objectives of this treaty, leaving the others to bilateral agreement.

Senator Delgado of the Philippines. In addition, Mr. Chairman, to what the foreign minister of Pakistan has said. These specifications of the objectives are necessarily qualified by the word preceding it as necessary. Then, there need not be any fear on the part of anyone of the economic aspect being taken advantage of by anyone for purposes of their own, because that is qualified necessarily by the preceding words “as may be necessary”.

The Delegate from the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, in order to positively clear the ground a little further, may I say that as far as the amendment I propose is concerned, if the delegate from the United States would accept the addition of one word, I would be prepared to fall in with his amendment. In the draft, the Council shall provide for consultation. I suggest the insertion of the word “periodic” before consultation—”periodic consultation”.

The Delegate from the United States. The United States delegation accepts the addition of the word “periodic”.

The Chairman. The American formula now, as modified by the British delegate, will read: “The Council shall provide periodic consultation with regard to defense and other planning as required by the situation.”

The Delegate from the United States. With regard to military and other planning, I think it is possible, in the light of what the Australian delegate said, that the United States is prepared to take any of the three words, either “military” or “defense” or “security”. But it seems to me that the arguments put forward by the Australian delegate are rather persuasive in favor of the word “military”, and I would, therefore, prefer that the American proposal be considered—“military”—rather than the word “defense”. And in order to be sure that our suggestion is now fully before all the delegates, I would reread it: “The Council shall provide for periodic consultation with regard to military and other planning as required by the situation in the area.”

The Delegate from Australia. That is acceptable to the Australian delegation.

The Chairman. So the choice is reduced now to two formulae—the United States-United Kingdom-Australian amendment which has just been read and the Philippine-Thai-Pakistan amendment which will read “military, economic and other objectives of the treaty.” We have reduced the choice now between these two.

The Delegate from France. (As translated.) Mr. Chairman, may I suggest the acceptance of the United States text, as amended, by adding the word “any” before the words “other planning”. Then it will read, “with regard to military and any other planning.”

The Delegate from New Zealand. Mr. Chairman, I think that New Zealand would accept this amendment. It is rather too vague the last part of it, as required by the situation. Can we make that a little more definite which goes to say as required by the situation?

Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, our delegation prefers to accept the amendment of the Delegate from France, but we object to the use of the words “many others”. Just say one word “periodic”. I am thinking the text of this treaty would be read by public opinion in various countries. All consultations, I think, must be periodic, but its nature will be continuous. If not continuous, it must be periodic. As I understand it, therefore, there is much to be gained by the use of the word “periodic”. It is like—what shall I call it—I think that will be good for general public opinion, at least in my own country. I have no strong liking for the use of the word “periodic” in the text, but I think that if the word is omitted, the sense would be altered.

I should take it that the word “periodic” means at regular periodic intervals say of three months to be called by the Council and to be decided by the Council in the light of the situation. It is not absolutely rigid, but it means a reasonable degree of regularity.

Delegate of Australia. I have no objection to the comment of the Delegate of Great Britain.

The Chairman. Well, there are only two formulas now remaining.

Delegate of Australia. I would like to hear the Delegate of the United States if he has something better than “as required” which may seem to the Council well understood. I think it will require something like that. I do not know that may be misunderstood.

The Chairman. Well, we better have some more time to think to see if we could find a way of reconciling these two amendments. So, we will pass over that for the time being.

1. This and other transcripts of plenary sessions were apparently prepared by the conference officers, all of whom were members of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs or the Office of the President of the Philippines.

   The First Plenary Session was held the morning of Sept. 6. A verbatim transcript, titled “Opening Ceremonies of the Manila Conference of 1954”, is in Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 356. For a summary of that session, see telegram Secto 12, infra.

   A summary of the Second Plenary Session, including portions of the discussion omitted here, is in telegram Secto 13 to Washington, Sept. 6, p. 861.

2. Carlos P. Garcia, Vice President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, and head of the Philippine Delegation to the Conference.
3. Muhammed Zafrullah Khan.
4. Richard G. Casey.
5. Guy La Chambre.
6. Ellipsis in the source text.
7. T. C. Webb.
8. Apparently Senator Delgado spoke in place of Garcia.
9. Prince Wan Waithayakon.
10. Ellipsis is in the source text.
11. John Foster Dulles.
12. The Marquess of Reading, Minister of State in the Foreign Office.
13. Ellipsis in the source text.
14. Ellipsis in the source text.