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 Third Plenary Session, Manila Conference

top secret
Document No. III

Manila, September 7, 1954—9:40 a.m.

At 9:40 a.m., the Chairman called the Conference to order.

The Chairman. The Conference called to order.

The Secretary¹ has some announcements to make.

[Here follow certain procedural announcements.]

The Chairman. We now go back to Article III where we left off yesterday. As you will remember, there were several amendments proposed.

The Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. The Delegate of the United States.

The Delegate of the United States. I propose that Article III should read as follows: “The Parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to cooperate with one another in the further development of economic measures, including technical assistance, designed both to promote economic progress and social well-being and to further the individual and collective efforts of governments toward this end.”

The Chairman. May I ask the Delegate of the United States.…²

The Delegate of the United States. I would send that to the Secretary General so he will have the text.

The Chairman. Will the Secretary General read that proposal?

The Secretary General. (Reading.) Proposal of the United States to Article III: “The Parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to cooperate with one another in the further development of economic measures, including technical assistance, designed both to promote economic progress and social well-being and to further the individual and collective efforts of governments toward this end.”

The Chairman. Did everybody get that now?

We would like to have your comments on this proposal.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we are very content to accept the United States’ proposal and in doing so, may I add that if that is adopted, it prevents any query that we might otherwise have had on Article II. You will remember that we made a reservation on Article II until Article III has been discussed.³ if this proposal is adopted, I have nothing more to say on Article II.

The Delegate of the Philippines. The Philippine Delegation feels that this proposal of the United States meets our point of view.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, the Delegation of Thailand accepts the United States’ proposal.

The Delegate of Australia. The Australian Delegation accepts the proposal, but I would like to query whether the word is “government,” or “governments,” with an “s”.

The Chairman. It is in the plural.

The Delegate of Australia. I imagine it to be that way. Is that the proposal of the United States.

The Chairman. It is in the plural.

The Delegate of New Zealand. It is acceptable to New Zealand, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. What does the Delegate of New Zealand say about that?

The Delegate of New Zealand. We accept.

The Chairman. France?

The Delegate of France.⁴ Mr. Chairman, after the Geneva Agreement which, as I said yesterday, enabled us to stop the long suffering in Indo-China and to substitute for it a new system or classification, one of the main concerns of the French Government now, and a fundamental one, is to make Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia eligible in respect of the advantages to be derived from the present Treaty. These advantages are the economic measures as provided in Article III or the guarantees of security which we find in Article IV. I do not doubt that the Conference shares this view, otherwise, how could we contend that we desire to maintain peace and insure the security and prosperity of Asia and of the Southeast of which these three states are an integral part, and of which, unfortunately, they represent the most exposed area. But all of these advantages, sir, may be obtained in two ways: the first as suggested, and the other by the designation of the free states embodied in the Treaty as it was provided for in the present draft, or by mentioning them in some other way outside of the very text of the Treaty.

The first solution is an interesting one and that is that it seems to the French Government that it would carry certain advantage [disadvantage?], namely, to have a text the duration of which is indefinite but refers to a situation which we hope is temporary only. That is why my Government would prefer another procedure. The second formula, which we would suggest, would offer the possibility of applying one provision of Article IV: “Upon designation by unanimous agreement of the parties, of certain States or territory,” and, therefore, it would enable the parties to proceed with the designation right now with respect to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. This designation would be embodied in a separate protocol which would be an integral part of the Treaty, and its effect would be to extend the purposes of Article IV as well as Article III. This procedure would have a further advantage of preserving Article III as we all wish and at the same time to have other States included as parties to the Treaty in accordance with the provisions of Article VII. We must hope indeed that the development of events would enable those states to accede fully to the Treaty, and I would prefer to accept it myself provided the Conference would accept in principle the system of protocol which I now advocate.

The Chairman. I have one announcement to make. Due to certain deficiencies in our radio service, the Chair requests that the Delegates speak only after they have been recognized by the Chair to allow time for the switching of the loud speaker. The radio technician has certain difficulties.

Anybody would like to comment on what has been said here by the French Delegate?

Delegate from the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I do accept the suggestion of the Delegate of France, but it seems to me that the right way of handling the matter, the second suggestion, is that it should be done by way of protocol. There is only one point that I would like to get clear from the Delegate of France. He spoke of preferring the protocol to be an integral part of the Treaty. What would happen would be that the protocol would be drawn up and signed by the Parties at the time when the Treaty is signed, but will come into effect, presumably, only upon ratification of the Treaty because the system of designation is a system which has not been established by the Treaty, and, therefore, [is] inoperative until the Treaty itself is ratified.

The Chairman. All right. Are you now ready to agree on Article III, with this understanding, that it might be reopened in connection with the discussion of Article IV?

The Delegate of Australia. Can we presume that Article II is generally accepted with the inclusion of the words “mutual aid”?

The Chairman. We will submit that now. So that is declared approved—Article III, subject to the understanding that it may be reopened in connection with Article IV. Now we will consider Article II. There was an announcement made ….

The Delegate of the United States. Do we understand also that Article II is now approved?

The Chairman. Not yet. I am submitting this now. Now we are going back to Article II. There has been an announcement made here by the British delegate that he is withdrawing his reservation on Article II in view of the final amendments approved on Article III. Now, are we ready to approve that? (After a pause) I hear no more objections, so the Chair declares Article II approved. Now, we will go to Article IV.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, can we take up Article V first because an agreement is now possible on Article V?

The Chairman. I think the suggestion is good. I think there are a few controversial points in this Article V. I therefore withdraw my announcement and we will now proceed to discuss first Article V.

The Delegate of Australia. Sir, I would like to suggest to the delegates that Article V read now as follows:

“The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall provide for periodic consultation with regard to military and any other planning as the situation obtaining in the area may from time to time require. The Council is empowered to arrange with the states not parties to the Treaty for cooperation in giving effect to any of the provisions of the Treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet at any time.”

In the text I have in brackets the word “periodic” and the word “regular” as alternative words. But I am suggesting with respect to the delegates that we accept the word “periodic” in the fourth line.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer the word “regular”—shall provide for “regular” consultation. Because obviously “consultation” involves some preparatory work and preliminary study. The term “periodic consultation” seems to me not to have that implication or connotation, while the term “regular consultation” will meet the case very well because that means periodic, but at the same time any preparatory work or preliminary study that has to be done should also be done.

The Delegate of Australia. Sir, personally I have no objection to the word “regular”. After talking to a few friends. I gather that “periodic” would probably be more acceptable than the word “regular”. Myself, I have very little choice between the two words.

The Delegate of the Philippines. Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, the United Nations Charter provides for periodic consultation of the foreign ministers of the member nations and yet as far as I am informed there has never been any such meeting, obviously, because they regard the word “periodic” as rather vague and indefinite. We therefore support the word “regular” because it might be more emphatic and mandatory in order to get together in any matter that might be the subject of consultation.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment now proposed is, “The Council shall provide …” There is an obligation on the Council to make provisions for consultation; even if you have the word “periodic” or “regular”, still it is [for?] the Council to interpret that expression. “Periodic” might mean from time to time; it might mean stated intervals. But it is the Council that will provide. In all respect, both words are redundant. Neither is needed. The purpose will be served by leaving them both out.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, of course, I would accept that “consultation” with neither the word “periodic” nor “regular”. I stated my position the other day and even now I am ready to accept that word “consultation”—”To provide for consultation.” I have no objection to the word “periodic”, still I prefer the word “regular” to the word “periodic”.

The Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I think that under the suggestion just made by the Honorable Delegate of Thailand, which is to provide for consultation and the Council can have it as such if it wants, it becomes compulsory to have consultation, because the Council shall provide. And we get away from the duty which seems to surround the use of the word “periodic” or “regular”. I don’t think it is a matter of great moment because in any event the Council will make its decision. But I do see the interpretation of these qualifying words. Therefore, it may be best to follow the idea of the Thai Delegate and just drop out the word “periodic” or “regular” and simply say, “The Council shall provide for consultation.”

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I think I was responsible for introducing the word “periodic” into this discussion, and the remarks which have been made on the word “regular” seem to indicate that both words are capable of interpretation …

Delegate of France. (Translation from French into English) Mr. Chairman, I fully agree to the interpretation given by the head of the British Delegation. To clarify the debate, may I read out the suggested text of protocol:

“The Parties to this Treaty unanimously designate, for the purposes of Article IV of the Treaty, the States of Cambodia, Laos and the free territory under the jurisdiction of the State of Vietnam. The Parties further agree that the above mentioned States and territory shall be eligible in respect of the economic measures contemplated in Article III.” The text will be passed on and circulated.

The Chairman. Are we now ready to approve Article III?

Delegate of the United States. I gathered that from what has been said that we could, regarding Article III if adopted, reserve the right to reopen it if there should not be a satisfactory solution of the matter to which the Delegation has referred to.

The Chairman. Then, we could pass on to Article IV to which the French proposal referred.

The Delegate from U.S. But the wordings and the text of the protocol would be a subject to further study by all the Delegations and further discussion in conjunction with Article IV.

The Chairman. All right. Are you now ready to agree on Article III with the understanding that it might be.…

Delegate of United Kingdom. I am therefore inclined to point the right solution is to omit any objective and merely retain the word “consultation”, seeing that it is mandatory on the Council to call for consultation that any situation requires.

Delegate of Australia. As the Pakistan Delegate said it is understandable but it is only to people with logical minds. My purpose is to put this in what you might say, “public relations” words. However, on the part of my Delegation, I am quite content to omit both words.

The Chairman. Any more remarks?

Delegate of New Zealand. I don’t think there will be any difference. It will be for the Council to decide how periodic or how regular the meetings should be. I just want to know if it would be better to make consultations with the member countries.

Delegate of the Philippines. Our remark about the word “regular” is premised on the proposition that a choice is to be made. If both words are eliminated, we would be perfectly satisfied.

The Chairman. Well, are we ready to adopt this article, as amended, and again amended by the United States by omitting the words “periodic” and “regular” so it will read: “The Council shall provide for consultation, etc. Are we ready to approve this now?

Delegate of United Kingdom. There is one point which occurs to me and that is on the expression, “the Council is empowered to arrange with the States not parties to the treaty for their cooperation in giving effect to the provisions of the treaty,” whether there is any danger in that sentence of getting into a position in which we are contemplating a bridge on the arrangement made in connection with Laos and Cambodia relative to the Geneva Agreement. Those two countries are in a rather special position; they made certain declarations defining that in the Articles of the Geneva Agreement. This can look as if it was a violation of their undertaking.

The Chairman. Do you have any change there that you would suggest?

Delegate of Pakistan. In the meantime, may I inquire, Sir, whether the suggestion made by the Foreign Minister of New Zealand is accepted, that the word “consultation” shall be on the floor. I understood him to make that suggestion.

The Chairman. As far as the Chair is concerned, I think it does not make any difference whether it is or is not in the plural. This is a collective word which might well denote plurality. I think that it is all right, as it is.

Delegate of New Zealand. My idea is if you put it in the plural, especially in view of what the Delegate of the Philippines said that the provisions in the United Nations Charter provide for consultations if we put it in the plural, we are just giving emphasis, but if we don’t put it in the plural, that is all there. But what strikes me is that it should provide for periodic or regular consultation and that is where the word should be eliminated. It might just give a little emphasis to the view expressed by the Delegates here that consultation should take place more than once in a lifetime, which to put it that way is to exaggerate.

The Chairman. If you are going to place that, I will ask for comment.

The Delegate of United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, we do not interpret it that way. I see the point made by the New Zealand Delegation suggesting that putting it in the plural does not strengthen the situation. What is important is to get a general idea of consultation between the various parties, and if you prescribe it in the plural form, it merely provides some form of specific consultation and it is better to keep it in the wider sense.

Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Delegation of the United Kingdom because if you say “provide for consultation,” it may mean some consultation, whereas if you say “shall provide for consultation,” it means a process of consultations and I think that reinforces the idea or the principle that there shall be consultation.

The Chairman. If we put in the word “periodic” or “regular”, I think the plural form is more proper, but since we have abandoned those two words, I would ask the New Zealand Delegate that we take the text as it is. Now, there was some question of the Delegation of the United Kingdom here.

Delegate of United Kingdom. There is a question I raised about Cambodia. If you agree with this point whether we do it rightly or wrongly, I wonder if you would be good enough not to conclude the discussion of this article at the moment to give opportunity to discuss this a little further because it might, I think, have serious implications.

The Chairman. Do you think we can approve this, subject to opening at any time at the Delegations’ request?

Delegate of Australia. I suggest that if we disagree on this article, we just leave the last part for discussion later, as from time to time required.

The Chairman. No question then. Do I take it now you approve this Article V subject to that understanding of reopening it?

Delegate of U.S. Mr. Chairman, if there is any question anybody wants to ask, we just take it out. The Council can always do it, and you do not need to say so. The Council acting on unanimous action can always decide to cooperate with somebody else and I don’t think there is need for it to be said. As far as I am concerned, take it out.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Pakistan.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that perhaps the best way to proceed at the moment would be to leave the sentence out as suggested by the Delegate of the United States, subject to any substitution or anything that may be proposed later, otherwise if no further proposal comes, the article should be adopted, leaving the sentence out.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Australia.

The Delegate of Australia. There is one point here raised by the United States Delegate. I understand that the text of this article in its original form has become public knowledge. There might be some criticism, something sinister might be said about the fact, if we omit that. I think there is just the point in that.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Pakistan.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, it will also get known although we omit that. The council would have the power to do so in any case, and therefore it is not necessary if the substance becomes known. By whatever means, it will become known also.

The Chairman. The Delegate of the United Kingdom.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to say that if this sentence is omitted, we should not propose any word in substitution for it, and as far as we are concerned, the article could go forward, and if I may say to the Australian delegation, I don’t think that. This fact that unfortunately the text will become public can regulate our consideration of what is the right attitude and the right wording of the treaty. We must deal only on the actual text before us and not take into account the external circumstances; but if the sentence were to go out, I would be prepared to withdraw that suggestion that this article should be held up for further consideration.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Thailand.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, from the point of view of the Thai delegation, we would like to have the substance in here or somewhere else in some form. I think the frightening words are the words “is impowered to”, and certainly, if it is kept anywhere, I will propose an amendment to say that the Council “may arrange”, because as the Delegate of the United States rightly pointed out, the Council can in any case do so already. Now it may be that even with that amendment, the Delegate of the United Kingdom would still reserve his position and therefore I am in favor of deleting this sentence or provision here from Article V. But could we have some statement in the official record, because we agreed that official records of the conference would be kept on the questions on which agreement is reached, and if the statement of the Delegate of the United States or words to that effect could be put in the official record, I would be satisfied.

The Chairman. The Delegate of New Zealand.

Delegate of New Zealand. Mr. Chairman, I think that the suggestion deferring this for further consideration is desirable. In one draft that we received, the provision invoking the cooperation of other states was limited to the provisions of Article III, and I think it was the United Kingdom Representative who suggested enlarging it to take in the other provisions of the treaty. But in the original draft it said; “for cooperation in giving the effect to the provisions of Article III,” which deals with economic cooperation.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Pakistan.

Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, the observations just made by the Foreign Minister of New Zealand were to support the suggestion that the sentence had become redundant as a consequence of the amendment of Article III.

The Chairman. The Delegate of France.

Delegate of France. (Translated) Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the remarks made by the United Kingdom Delegate on the possible conflict between the substance agreed in the Geneva Agreement and this Article V because it covered a number of states, parties to the Geneva Agreement. In accordance with the French proposal, Vietnam and the other Indochinese states should be eligible for the benefits of the treaty, and therefore the situation is being defined with regard to vis-à-vis the treaty. With reference to Articles III and IV mentioned in the draft but not in reference to Article V, I do not think that any confusion will be held on the subject, and therefore the French Delegation would like your views on the matter as to whether the sentence should be deleted or maintained. We would rather leave it to the majority of this Committee.

The Chairman. Any more remarks on this question? If I may be permitted to remind, if the theory that this council has inherent power to make the arrangement with some member states for cooperation, then I believe that putting in the word “may” there instead of “is impowered” takes the nature of a suggestion to the council that it could have the power when as a matter of fact it has already that power to make arrangement for cooperation. So I believe that the suggestion of the delegate of Thailand may perhaps be again looked into as a good suggestion, on the premise that the council has already this power.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I get it from the discussion that this part of the article is unnecessary, but I am afraid that the suggestion made does not really meet my point at all. It still leaves the question as disturbing, and I would like to make clear how we would like to meet it. If with respect to that, if that sentence should go out, I am prepared to accept the article as it now stands; if the sentence is to be retained, then I would like the article to be left for further discussion until we get more fully into it.

The Chairman. At any rate, we are now in the area of discussing controversial articles. None of the non-controversial is left. If we go to the controversial ones, we would just be shifting from one controversial question to another. We might just as well finish with this. I think there is little left there.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, let us look into what the original object of this sentence was. The original object in the draft which was the basis of the discussion before the working body was to provide for a council to secure full cooperation in giving effect to Article III of the treaty, that is to say, the economic provision. In its Article III, it specifically provides for cooperation between states members of this treaty and also other states. Now, the sentence was as it is now in this draft. In the meantime, in conference, Article III has been amended so as to read that so far as the operation of this treaty is concerned, without affecting any economic cooperation or otherwise along lines which we have already adopted, or may hereafter be adopted so far as this treaty is concerned, the economic provision shall be confined to the parties to the treaty, subject to the suggestion that has been made with regard to the protocol. Therefore, there in the original draft, this sentence would have become null, not only unnecessary, but it would have become redundant, but merely because in the working party, instead of specific reference to Article III, a reference to all provisions was made. Let us consider what is really necessary to retain cooperation. It is not expected that the council, however mighty it might be, would be able to obtain cooperation in the military clause of the treaty from states who are not parties to the treaty. That gives us only the economic clause. In the economic clause, we have so amended the treaty as to confine the benefits to the parties to the treaty and, possibly, to the designated areas. What object will this sentence now serve? What is the cooperation that anybody visualizes that the council shall be able to get with regard to military planning and with regard to economic planning?

Senator Delgado from the Philippines. Mr. Chairman, we really have no strong feeling in this matter, but for the sake of gaining time, it seems to us that the best thing to do is to leave out that sentence and to have this article deemed approved and, by doing that we save time.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, in view of the explanation of the delegate of Pakistan, which I consider quite sound, I now agree to the deletion of this sentence.

The Chairman. Are you now ready to give your assent to the approval of this Article, subject to the same understanding that it might be reopened later on if it is involved in other articles? (After a pause.) With the deletion, I think we might give to it a final approval. Are you agreeable now to approve this article with that part deleted?

The Delegate of Australia. Unfortunately, for me, I am in the presence of many distinguished lawyers, but I just like to be assured that a layman in this matter may understand that if we omit that second to the last sentence, are we quite certain that the council has power to cooperate with the states that are not parties to the treaty? What gives the council that power? I would just like to be sure that the council has the power because this sentence is quite important. To me, there is no doubt that we can do what we please, subject to the agreement and cooperation with Cambodia, Viet Nam and Laos.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, if I might venture an explanation, so far as I am concerned, and I am only speaking for myself, it is obvious that the council could not do what the parties to the treaty under the treaty could not do. That is clear.

Next, we take the powers of the council generally. The opening sentence of the article says, “The parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty.” Whatever the treaty provides with regard to the implementation of the treaty, the Council may take action whether there is any specific mention of one aspect or another aspect or not. That, I venture to submit, is my reaction to the question put forth by the foreign minister from Australia.

The Chairman. Is that satisfactory now, Mr. Casey?

The Delegate of Australia. Yes, I am prepared to stand by the comment made by the chief delegate of Pakistan for as he says, it is inherent in the powers of the council, but I thought that it might be important to volunteer some specific expression. But if the distinguished lawyers among my colleagues are of the opinion that the powers are inherent, then I say no more, sir.

The Chairman. Personally, I believe that the first sentence includes this power of arranging cooperation among the states. I believe that the interpretation of the Pakistan representative who, I understand, is an eminent lawyer and jurist, is an interpretation acceptable to the delegates. Are we now going to vote for the approval of Article V with the deletion of that sentence? (After a pause.) I don’t hear any objection. So that the Chair declares that Article V is approved with the deletion.…

The Chairman. So the Chair declares that Article V is approved with the deletion of the following sentence: “The Council is empowered to arrange with states not parties to the Treaty for cooperation in giving effect to any of the provisions of the Treaty.”

Suppose we pass on to Article VIII dealing on the Treaty area. It might perhaps be less controversial than the others. We would like to hear from the Delegate of the United Kingdom.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman,

do I understand you to say that we are going to Article VIII now?

The Chairman. Yes.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. May I respectfully suggest that Article VIII is so closely tied to Article IV that we must deal with Article IV before we pass to Article VIII? The definition of the area goes very closely with Article IV.

The Chairman. We have with the exception of the preamble and the declaration of principles, only two more articles to discuss—IV and VIII—so I think the suggestion of the Delegate of the United Kingdom is well taken. Since Article VIII is closely related to Article IV, we might now deal with Article IV.

I would like to hear remarks on this highly controversial article.

The Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, you referred to this article as controversial; and it is so. In fact, the controversial character of this article comes from the fact that the United States has proposed with some vigor in the working group party that it should be related to communist aggression, that is,⁵ to aggression generally. The United States recognizes that its situation in relation to this area is somewhat different from that of the other prospective members of the Treaty in that, as I pointed out in my opening remarks yesterday, the United States is the only one of the countries here which does not itself have a direct territorial concern in the area. Under those circumstances, it is not possible for the United States to say that any aggression occurring anywhere in this area is something which would endanger the peace and safety of the United States. Others might be able to say that, the United States cannot honestly say so. We can honestly say that communist aggression in this area endangers the peace and safety of the United States because we believe that the clutches of communism are such that whenever they increase their power and strength, that is an increase of power and strength which may ultimately be used against the United States. Therefore, the United States Delegation, the plenary Delegates of which include not only myself but Senator Smith and Senator Mansfield who represent as much authority as the two parties in the United States Senate in relation to this matter, we cannot say to take back to the Senate for advocation a statement that any controversy in this area affects the peace and safety of the United States. We can say it in relation to communist aggression because we believe that that aggression has world-wide implications. Now, recognizing as I do that the position of the United States is different because of its lack of any direct territorial position in the area, and in an effort to accommodate ourselves to the views of others, the United States is prepared to accept the deletion from Article IV of the word “Communist” on the understanding that the United States will incorporate a declaration on its part to this effect, at the time of its signature, and I would read the proposed declaration: “the Delegation of the United States of America in signing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to Communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.”

I think there are available texts of this understanding on which the United States is prepared to sign the Treaty on the assumption that the other countries prefer to eliminate the word “Communist” from Article IV.

The Chairman. Any other remarks? Any other views on this article?

The Delegate of the Philippines. The amendment that the Philippine Delegation has proposed to this article is so important, in its opinion, and at the same time, the Philippine Delegation is regardful of the importance attached to the language of this article and the other amendments that have been proposed by other delegations, that it seems that we must ask the indulgence of the Conference to have a recess of ten minutes so that the Philippine Delegation may consult among themselves. After all, it is almost eleven o’clock, and we have been meeting for about an hour and have approved two controversial articles, which, I think, is a good record for an hour, I therefore suggest we take a recess for ten minutes.

Delegate from Pakistan. I realize that it would be necessary and also very useful if an opportunity were afforded for the consideration of the observation made in the draft circulated by the Secretary of State of the United States with respect to the subject. But if sometime would be made available to us in the rest of the morning, if that would be feasible, to get Article VIII out of the way, and meet again in the afternoon after having considered the consequences that might flow from the view expressed by the United States Delegation.…

Delegate from the United States. Mr. Chairman, lest I might be misunderstood, the Honorable Delegate did not propose adjournment until this afternoon, but only a recess of ten minutes. I wonder if that suggestion for a recess for ten minutes might not be useful also to make available the protocol which the French Delegation, I understand, proposes in this connection so that the Delegates would consider both things.

Delegate of the United Kingdom. As I said, Article IV and Article VIII are very closely related to each other and if we are adjourning we have a suggestion for a redraft of Article VIII to be prepared immediately on the basis that the Conference accepts the suggestion introduced by the Delegate of the United States. It would be convenient if we could also circulate it so that we could consider that during the interval.

The Chairman. Then we would have to prolong the recess to about one-half hour.

The session is suspended for thirty minutes to resume at eleven thirty.

Resumption of the Session

The Chairman. The session is resumed.

Now we are going to discuss Article IV and the Chair is waiting for remarks.

The Delegate of the Philippines. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. The Delegate of the Philippines.

The Delegate of the Philippines. The Philippine Delegation, in its opening remarks, has made its stand on this article very clear. I believe that the stand of the Philippines may well be epitomized with: “One for all and all for one.” We feel that those of us who are, so to speak, or are likely to be, in the frontline in case of war, as shown in past experiences, must insist that when we are attacked, that attack shall be repelled by all and instantly, because, during these times when the atomic and hydrogen bombs and other weapons of that type will be likely used and, if we are to depend on constitutional processes, we may all be wiped out in this Archipelago before action is taken. Of course, we realize that, by the statement of the Honorable Secretary of State in connection with the bilateral treaty between the Philippines and the United States, we at least can depend on the United States for immediate and automatic action—but it is because we feel that what is good for us should also be good for the others, it is because we do not want to appear as safeguarding only our interests but that we are trying to safeguard the interests of all those in this area placed in the same situation as we are, that we feel we must insist on the type of the NATO Treaty for this Article IV. This is our position. It has been made clear in our opening statement and we feel that all the Honorable Delegates to this Conference are perfectly aware of our position. However, it may be well to ask the Secretary General to read the text of our proposed amendment to this Article IV as a reminder to the Honorable Delegates of the other nations.

The Secretary General. (Reading.) “The Philippine Delegation proposes the substitution of the following language to Article IV: ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Southeast Asia or Southwest Pacific shall be considered an attack against them all and, consequently, they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of their right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and collectively with the other Parties, such actions as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force to restore and maintain the security of the Southeast and Southwest Pacific area.’”

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, I beg to submit that, before discussion proceeds on the amendment proposed by the Philippine Delegation, perhaps we might agree, whatever our views are on the merits of the amendment, that in the second line of the proposed amendment, the following substitution shall be placed for the words “Southeast Asia or Southwest Pacific”, the words “Treaty area” should be placed. And in the last line for the words “Southeast Asia or Southwest Pacific” the words “Treaty area” shall be placed.

Delegate from the Philippines. The Philippine Delegation gladly accepts the proposed amendment to the amendment.

Delegate from the United States. Mr. Chairman, the amendment submitted by the Philippine Delegation raises the issues which have been, I think, magnified by misunderstanding, namely, the question of whether we should use here the so-called NATO formula or the so-called ANZUS foreign treaty formula. And the United States proposes the latter because of the fact that the former formula, the one obtained in the NATO, gives rise to constitutional debate in the United States Senate which we do not want to repeat particularly because the issue is quite unimportant from the standpoint of the other parties in the Treaty, but which may assume importance within the United States because of its historical background.

But in fact I believe that the form which is proposed here by the United States gives adequate protection to our associates in the Treaty to the extent that it is possible to do so by and under the Constitution of the United States. It is not, I believe, the thought of any one of us that we intend by this Treaty to abolish any avowed right in our Constitutions. The Treaty is made subject and in pursuance to constitutional processes. The fact is that we operate as sovereign and independent nations, and I do not think it is practical to be sovereign and independent nations for one purpose and at the same time abolish any of the distinctions between our countries which exist by reason of the fact that we do operate as sovereign and independent nations under our distinctive constitutions. We can, if it is sought to be desirable, merge all our countries into a single country, and in that way it automatically follows that an attack upon a country would be an attack upon all the other countries. Nevertheless, to produce that result, in fact, in the making of an independent sovereignty under the development of each of us as sovereign and independent nations—so long as that is the case, I think that we must recognize that there is some difference at least between an attack upon our nation and an attack on other nations, although because of the recognized interdependence which is created by a common threat, we are prepared to go very far in minimizing that difference and insuring the maximum possible degree of protection. Now, it seems we develop an illusion that under the NATO Treaty, the United States is bound to do automatic action by the phrase “an attack upon one is an attack upon all.” That is not the case at all.

That Treaty goes on to provide that we shall act under the Treaty in accordance with constitutional processes. I will read to you, if I may, the unanimous report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It says: During the hearings substantially the following questions were raised in view of the provisions of Article V: “An attack against one shall be considered an attack against all.” “Would the United States be obligated to react to an attack upon Copenhagen in the same way as an attack upon the city of New York?” In such event as an attack outside the United States would occur, would the United States react without making an absolute treaty? The answer to both of these questions is, No. An armed attack upon any State of the United States by its very nature would require immediate application of the resources of the nation. As to what action is necessary in the event of an attack outside the United States would of course require congressional sanction. So, Mr. Chairman, that is the authority and interpretation of the so-called NATO formula adopted by the Senate of the United States, and I think I speak with some personal knowledge of that because I was at that time a United States Senator and took part in the debate on the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, because of the fact that that formula raised doubts which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tried to settle by its report, and because some of the Senators were not satisfied with the validity of the report, there was very considerable debate, and if I may say, it is unwise to adopt from our standpoint a formula which would reopen that debate with consequences which no one can predict, when in fact the result which we all want can equally be achieved in my opinion by the formula proposed here which was acceptable to the Senate generally in the course of the North Atlantic Treaty debate at which time Senator Taft who was in the opposition said that he would have been entirely happy had this other formula been used.

Since then, the United States in treaties in all of which I had some parts in negotiating—the treaty with the Philippine Republic, the treaty with Australia and New Zealand, the treaty with Korea—have used this language which is derived from and is a quotation from the statement made by President Monroe when he announced some 138 years ago the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which was, that an attack or an invasion upon the Americas would be a threat to the peace and security of the United States, which we could not look upon with indifference. So that, Mr. Chairman, is the outstanding foreign policy declaration of the United States which has been carried and revered by our nation for 138 years, which has been effective, which has not been challenged. And today when we propose to repeat that language, we are proposing a formula which in the light of history is a formula which we believe is adapted to the needs of the situation and will effectively assure it insofar as it is compatible with our constitutional processes. To say that an attack elsewhere is a threat to the peace and security of the United States is to say that action is necessary. The consequences of that action under our constitutional processes are the responsibility of the President and the Congress.

In the event that the safety of the United States is imperiled, the President is empowered to act without regard to Congress, if the situation so requires. As you all know the declaration of war power resides only in Congress, and of course that power cannot in fact be prosecuted without the active support of Congress in the appropriation of the necessary funds. I wish to assure all of you gentlemen here that the formula proposed by the United States is not a weak formula; it is a strong formula. I do not know where the illusion develops that the NATO formula was somewhat stronger. In view of certain developments going on in Europe at the present time, I think it may be quite possible that it may prove that this formula, which is a different formula, which we use, and which we derive from President Monroe, may be a formula certainly as effective as that we used in the North Atlantic Treaty where developments are occurring which may result in the North Atlantic Treaty formula seeming not superior as in some minds it seems to be. In fact, I believe this formula proposed here is a sound one; it is understood by the American people throughout the many years of their history; it is the revered, honored, and known formula. And in proposing it here, Mr. Chairman, I am proposing that the United States should do the best it can to make clear its intention that the constitutional processes have to be implemented. But insofar as we can do so, to make it clear, in the event of a renewal of communist aggression in this area, and the United States’ peace and security is involved, it would act to meet the peril.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, Thailand, as stated in my opening speech, is now exposed to the danger of communist aggression and subversion. The government and people of my country therefore insist to have a strong pact as is possible. Now that applies primarily to the substance of the pact. But the question of wording is also very important from the psychological point of view insofar as the Republic and the people are concerned. It may be viewed to some understanding, some popular understanding, but to the people of my country NATO seems to be understood by them to be the model of a strong pact. And that is why in behalf of my delegation I wholeheartedly support the proposal of the Philippines. I would like to share the views of some other delegations. It will be noticed that the Thai delegation has submitted an amendment to the working group which also figures in the document now before us. Our proposal is to try as possible our best to get the NATO type of treaty. And so I will deal with our own amendment at a later stage when perhaps other delegates may now wish to state their views on the Philippine proposal.

The Delegate of Australia. Mr. Chairman, I listened with the greatest attention to what Mr. Dulles has just said. In this Conference we give a great deal of thought to this matter. We in Australia are not against the NATO type treaty but we do not believe that the other formula gives a greater degree of protection to any one in times of trouble than that contained in the ANZUS type of treaty and the American-Philippine type of bilateral treaty. Each of these treaties in certain different articles contains the phrase, “in accordance with their constitutional processes.” As I understand Mr. Dulles’ observation, that does not mean that in every circumstance the President is obliged to consult and take the view of Congress. As I understand it, that depends on the intensity, the reality, the immediacy of the aggression that is suffered. As I understand it, if the aggression is sudden and complete, and undaunted, then the President is free to invoke this treaty and do the things under it that would have been done. But in some cases that are less clear, the President is obliged to take the matter to Congress. So I am prepared, in behalf of the Australian delegation, to accept in toto, if I may say so, what the American Secretary of State has said, and we do not propose to press for any amendment to this Article IV, which would, in the minds of some of us, appear to give us greater and immediate protection.

The Chairman. Just a question to Australia. The Draft as submitted from the Working Committee contains the words “communist aggression”, did I understand that when you said “in toto” it includes all as reported by the Working Committee?

Delegate of Australia. No, sir, I would be more precise in that we don’t believe the word “communist” should appear in the first line, for reasons commonly shared by a number of delegates that the word “communist” in Article IV is disagreeable to our delegation.

The Chairman. Any further remarks?

Delegate of United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, we have originally suggested in the preliminary discussions on this article that what has been called the greater formula might be properly distinguished from the formula now before us. It seems more convenient and more familiar in describing what we have in mind by bearing in mind the position which has been expressed by the Delegate of the United States. We came to the conclusion that the wording now incorporated in Article IV–1 was for the purpose of this treaty a preferable one. That there is, of course, from the text, the consideration that the United States has no extra-territorial footing in this area and that may not be strengthening the position, the constitutional procedure which the United States Government has to follow. We realize that for him to say that any aggression in the area that we are discussing would constitute a threat to the peace and security of the United States would be an extremely difficult or impossible position to adopt. We realize also that in the case of communist aggression, the other parties to the treaty would have the active support of the United States and surely we also should bear in mind that the most probable form of aggression in the area is, in fact, communist aggression. We thought for reasons which I need not expound now, and which is common to all delegations present, is the word “communist” [sic]. In the article, as originally drafted, “communist aggression” was undesirable. The United States has seen the difficulties with which the other countries, which took that view, will face and have now preferred the solution of that problem which, with the exclusion of the word “communist” and the introduction of the proposed reservation, would clear the defect which was confronting that delegation which did not like the appearance in the text of the word “communist” and under those circumstances, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, on Article IV–1, we should be prepared to accept that article with one reservation in its present form, omitting the word “communist” and at the same time recognizing the United States’ desire to attach the reservation to the treaty. When I say “reservation”, I assume that for our present purposes, the words beginning on the second line, Laos and Cambodia [and the territory] under the jurisdiction of the Free Vietnamese Government, would disappear and would reappear in the change of the draft which the Delegation of France has already announced its intention of laying before the Conference.

Delegate of Thailand. Is that the point mentioned by Lord Reading in his remarks that those two lines will have to go in lieu of the proposed agreement? I only want to seek clarification of that statement.

Delegate of New Zealand. Mr. Chairman, New Zealand’s reason, I think, has been given already. Besides, it is the word “communist” that should be left out of this Article. At the same time we understand clearly the United States’ position. We understand it clearly and we are quite satisfied with the suggestion that has been made by Mr. Dulles, the United States Secretary of State, in which he proposed the adding of the word “communist” to the treaty. We understand that generally speaking the United States administration commits its country, only according to its constitutional processes, and it seems to me the same question perhaps has been raised in the minds of some delegates as to whether in regard to communist aggression, the United States would still have to obtain the approval of the Senate. But as I understand it, communist aggression is regarded as a danger to the peace and security of the United States and, therefore, I suppose we might say in anticipation of the Senate to give its approval to that, so I take it, that it may be assumed that in case of communist aggression, the President of the United States or the Administration, whatever it is, would be free to act without giving the approval of the United States’ Senate. But, Sir, the removal of the word “communist” from the draft means that there are those, who do not make reservation, who will be bound to act according to their constitutional processes—what is the exact wording?—”action to meet the common danger in accordance with their constitutional processes.” In case of aggression which is not necessarily communist aggression and, for that reason, my Delegation wishes to consider Article IV, we have prepared to commit ourselves to the article in the amended form that has been suggested.

The Chairman. I would like to ask the Delegate of New Zealand if he would accept this Article IV as reported by the Working committee, except that referring to the inclusion of “communist”.

Delegate of New Zealand. I will give it a thorough consideration. The question involved is that it obliges us to take action to resist any aggression.

The Chairman. What is your view if you put the inclusion in the text, of Cambodia and Laos?

The Delegate of New Zealand. I agree with the sense of the proposed amendment.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Australia.

The Delegate of Australia. I was about to say that the Australian delegation is prepared to accept the proposal of the New Zealand delegation.

The Chairman. Any more remarks? (After a pause) I want to call the attention of the Conference that the Thai delegation has proposed an amendment to this. I would like to hear from the Thai delegation what it has to say about this amendment.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, two points have already been dealt with, namely, whether or not to delete the word “Communist” and also the mention of Cambodia, Laos and the Free Vietnamese Government. I will deal with them shortly.

My delegation agrees with the term “Communist aggression”, but if the word “Communist” is omitted, we can well understand the desire of the United States delegation to make a reservation as to its understanding of the obligation in this respect. As regards the attitude of my delegation, we will have to consider the matter further, that is to say, I have to consult with the members of the delegation. Now as regards the mention of Cambodia, Laos and the Free Vietnamese Government, we accept the French Protocol. Now in regard to the amendments submitted by Thailand, I would in the first place repeat what I said yesterday about the position taken by the United States as regards the initiative of the United States itself. We in Thailand are very grateful for that initiative, and we have full confidence that the United States will take immediate action to come to our help if we should be attacked by the Communists.

As I was saying just now, what really matters is the substance but at the same time the wording is important from the psychological point of view as it appears to the peoples of this region. I realized at the same time the importance of the psychological factor in regard to the ratification by the United States Senate, and although I would prefer the Philippine form of the proposal, I realize that it would be most difficult when we tackle the practical problem of seeing effective results. I realize the difficulty and therefore I agree that we should keep the wording as near as possible to the latter type of treaty in order to facilitate or even enable approval by the United States Senate. My amendment is to the following effect. The present text reads: “and agrees that it would estimate the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes,” and my amendment is that this sentence should read as follows: “and agrees that it will, in that event, take appropriate action to meet the common danger.” Now, in substance it is the same as the present draft, and I will try to demonstrate that. In the first place, “would” is conditional, I think, and we could well say “will”, in that event. That will have the same meaning and substance, but at the same time, from the point of view of psychological effect, it will help clear, at any rate, in explaining to my people or the public of my country that it is a legal obligation, and indeed in here, I would like to mention that the draft now under our consideration, which is the United States draft, is already using legal language. For instance, it says “would endanger its own peace and safety” instead of “would be dangerous to its own peace and safety.” and also it says, “agrees that” instead of “declares that”, which is the wording in the ANZUS type. So already there is a decided improvement, in our opinion, and I think that a further improvement might be possible if we could say “it will, in that event,” instead of “it would.” Now, as to “act to meet the common danger,” I propose to say, “take appropriate action to meet the common danger.”

The meaning of the word “appropriate” is that each party still acts in accordance with its constitutional processes, and that is really stated in Article IX which says not only that the treaty should be ratified, but it says that its provisions be carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. And, therefore according to my formula, each party will still be acting in accordance with its constitutional processes. On the words “to take appropriate action”, the word appropriate” there is meant to convey that meaning. Now, if the words “in accordance with its constitutional processes” which are already in Article IX, and obviously it should be kept there, as in the case of NATO, if those words could be left out here in Article IV, I think that it would have a very good psychological effect not only on the people of my country but on the peoples of other countries in the region. Now, whether the psychological effect on the Senate would be very much adverse or not, I don’t know, but as we are fortunate enough to have two eminent senators here, perhaps when they understand the motive underlying my observations and the amendment we have submitted, perhaps, they would take that amendment with sympathetic consideration. Obviously, I have no wish to create any difficulty. We are here in order to find the greatest common factor of agreement and if I have put in the amendment, I can assure the conference that without meaning to embarrass the United States Government or the United States Senate in any way, the motive in my doing so is purely to reassure the peoples of this region and give them encouragement from the psychological point of view.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, it is already 12:35 p.m., so we will adjourn until this afternoon at 2:30 p.m., unless the conferees prefer another time. Is 2:30 p.m. all right for you? (Silence.) The Chair having heard no objection, the session is adjourned until 2:30 p.m.

(Time of adjournment—12:36 p.m.)

1. The Secretary General of the Conference was Raul S. Manglapus, Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines.
2. All ellipses in this document are in the source text.
3. During discussion of Article II at the Second Plenary Session, Lord Reading had stated: “We have raised a point on the use of the phrase ‘mutual aid’ in Article II. The purpose of this section [of Article II] depends rather on the ultimate form of Article III, and, therefore, I don’t want to discuss it at this moment.’ (Verbatim transcript of Second Plenary Session, Sept. 6. For other extracts from this transcript, see p. 852.)
4. The following passage may be a translation of La Chambre’s remarks.
5. On the source text, the typed words “that is,” have been crossed out and replaced with the words “rather than” in an unidentified handwriting.