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 Fourth Plenary Session, Manila Conference

top secret
Document No. IV

Manila, September 7, 1954—2:50 p.m.

Resumption of the Session¹

The Chairman. The session is resumed.

Now we are going to resume our discussion on Article IV.

The Delegate of France.² Mr. Chairman, the position of the French Delegation in regard to Article IV as well as with regard to Articles III and V depends on the general feeling of the Conference about the draft article which we tabled. Before we are in a position to accept finally this article, we would like to know whether the Conference as a whole accepts our draft protocol, because only some of the Delegates have expressed their feeling in this respect, and we would wish to have the unanimous accord of the Committee. With this observation, we would make the following suggestions: Delete the word “Communist” in the first line of Article IV, then in the first paragraph of the same Article IV, delete the names of the states of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, and take into account the reservation made by the United States Delegate with regard to the Communist character of the aggression. As regards the comments which were made here this morning by Mr. Dulles, we are ready to accept that, and with these reservations and comments, we would ask the Chairman to put the question of the draft protocol article to the Committee.

The Chairman. Any more remarks?

The Delegate of New Zealand has some reservation on this Article IV. We would like to get this straightened out now.

The Delegate of New Zealand. We have considered Article IV and are prepared to accept it with the deletion of the word “Communist.” I will withdraw any reservation that I have about this.

The Chairman. About Cambodia and Laos?

The Delegate of New Zealand. I think we will accept the French proposal on that, as I indicated this morning.

The Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman, the Delegation of Thailand accepts the deletion of the word “Communist” and we accept the French protocol too, except for a little comma after “Cambodia.” I do not know whether that is correct because there are the words “the states of Cambodia, and Laos.” I think it will be better without a comma referring to the states of Cambodia and Laos and the free territories, etc.

The Delegate of Australia. I would just like to say, in respect to Article IV (1) and Article V, that I telegraphed back to my government one or two points on each of these matters. I do not anticipate anything as an agreement with respect to this stand, but I would ask if we might have the privilege of reserving our position during today and asking if it would be agreeable to the Conference to have a further and maybe a short closed session tomorrow morning before which time I should be able to tell you the attitude of my Government in respect to any matters that I have doubt in my mind.³

The Chairman. United States?

Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, we agree to the French proposal in the elimination of the word “Communist”, the substitution of a protocol as proposed with reference to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam in the French protocol, we believe [sic] and accept the elimination of the comma (,) in the protocol. On the latter part, if it would be generally acceptable and would in a way accommodate the views of the Honorable Delegate of Thailand, the United States would accept the words “and anxious as we are in that event to meet the common danger”. I think that makes a slight emphasis and in fact involves the acceptance of the part of the wordings which you suggest—”will in that event take appropriate action to meet the common danger”.

Would you prefer that first one?

Delegate of Thailand. I do.

Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning, we are all anxious to conclude a pact as soon as possible and to set up the organization as quickly as possible. Once set up, the organization can and will be built up and developed and I think that what we desire most of all is to get the organization started as rapidly as possible. I realize too the difficulty that the United States Government might have with its Senate if the words “in accordance with its constitutional processes” were deleted here. Although legally speaking, as I pointed out this morning, there is an adequate safeguard in Article IX. But, I, for one, would like to see the Treaty come into operation as rapidly as possible, and hence I would desire as rapid a ratification as possible of the Treaty. Under these circumstances, considering that there is an improvement in the wording which to me now constitutes a definite legal obligation to act, I accept the wording offered by the United States Delegation. There is thus one other word, I think, that one in the fourth line which says “or against any States or territory which the Parties, etc.” I think it should be “against any State or territory, etc…”⁴

Delegate of the United States. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that the singular is better: “any State or territory”.

Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, may we inquire how the article now reads?

The Chairman. We would ask the United States to read the article as it now stands.

Delegate of the United States. (Reading.) “Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the Treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.”

The Chairman. Is that clear to everybody now? Can we then say that as finally drafted this Article receives your acceptance or agreement? Of course, the Australian Delegation has asked for time until tomorrow morning to wait answers to his telegrams. We are going to have a closed session tomorrow morning anyway.

Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, is it to be understood that the protocol proposed by the French Delegation has been finally agreed upon—unanimously agreed upon?

The Chairman. We will ask the acceptance of the Conference first. Without any conclusive vote on this, because of the request of the Australian Delegation, we will at least consider that as drafted finally which is likely to be finally approved.

Now, how about the protocol proposed by the French?

Delegate of the Philippines. Are we to understand that consideration of the first paragraph of Article IV will be held in abeyance until tomorrow for the benefit of the reservation made by the Minister of Australia?

The Chairman. The final approval will have to be tomorrow morning.

Delegate of the Philippines. If that is the understanding, the Philippine Delegation would like to reserve its right to make a statement on this Article in a reservation tomorrow morning too, after we have heard the reply to the query of the Honorable Delegate of Australia, if that is agreeable to everybody.

The Chairman. How about this protocol now of France? The Chair would like to ask whether it is understood that the protocol is agreed upon.

Delegate from Australia. Mr. Chairman, the Australian Delegation, I think I can say quite firmly, accepts the French protocol. I would just like to ask: Do we approve it on the understanding that the Government of Laos, Cambodia and free Vietnam decided and have indicated to us that they have decided? Presumably, that is the effect.

The Chairman. I would rather have the French delegate answer that question.

The Delegate of France. (In French) (The following is the English translation:)

Mr. Chairman, in reply to this question put by the Australian delegate, may I say that in the course of several contacts I have [had] with the representatives of Laos, Cambodia, and the free state of Vietnam, these representatives expressed the wish and desire that their territories should be considered and provided for in the Treaty in accordance with the Geneva Conference.

The Delegate of the United States. The United States accepts the protocol with the punctuation which is suggested by the Delegate of Thailand, to put a comma (,) after Cambodia.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, the United Kingdom delegation also accepts the protocol. I wonder whether we should put something to the effect that the protocol comes into force simultaneously with the coming into force of the Treaty.

The Delegate of France. Agreed.

The Chairman. Anything more? (After a pause.) So is it understood that the French protocol is approved by every delegation? (Silence.) In that case, the Chair declares the French protocol, in connection with paragraph 1 of Article IV approved. Now we will go to paragraph 2.

The Delegate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, before we pass on, do I take it that there is no objection to the United States’ expressing its understanding as indicated, that as far as the United States is concerned the reference to Article I applies only to Communist aggression? I am not asking any other delegation for the support of that, but merely to have it understood that there is no objection to having that understanding in the document.

The Chairman. Is it understood by every delegation that the United States has a reservation to that effect, and is it agreed upon by everybody? (Silence.) That reservation is therefore approved.

Now, let us discuss paragraph 2 of the same Article. Does anybody propose the approval of this paragraph? Is there any objection to the approval of paragraph 2 of Article IV? (After a pause.) The Chair hears none. So paragraph 2 of Article IV is hereby declared approved. We now go to Article VIII.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to intervene, but there has been circulated by my delegation a suggested paragraph 3 to Article IV which I think is in the possession of other delegations and having regard to the obligations of parties members of the United Nations.

“It is understood that no action on the territory of any State designated by unanimous agreement under the first paragraph of this Article shall be taken except at the invitation or with the consent of that State.”

You might say that you already have your obligations in that regard under it as a result of your membership in the United Nations. But I suppose that the other Delegates will agree that there is a particular advantage in spelling out the actual position in this regard in connection with this particular Article of the proposed Treaty. It may well be that some neighboring countries to those who are Parties to the Treaty in Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific took the view that Article IV (1) in fact gave the Parties to the Treaty the power indicated in the text of the Treaty, that once a country has been designated, to act by way of moving to the territory of that country in order to resist aggression without the consent or without the invitation of the country into whose territory they are going, it seems to us very desirable that if any country once it has that apprehension it should be removed, but as I said by setting out with particularity in the traditional protocol, the determination of the Parties to the Treaty not to act in any way in violation of the United Nations’ obligation by committing what is known technically as secondary aggression, but only to go into the territory of a designated country by the invitation or with the consent of the country concerned. And it is with that purpose that this additional paragraph is laid before the Conference.

Delegate of U.S. Mr. Chairman, the United States Delegation takes in general a desirable addition [sic]. I would, however, ask the Honorable Delegate of the United Kingdom whether he would not think it preferable merely by saying, it is understood. I make that suggestion because it happens that the prospective parties to the treaty are all members of the United Nations, but it is a possibility that certain nations of this area are not members of the United Nations and it is therefore not appropriate to have them referred to as Members of the United Nations. I have, for example, in mind Ceylon which is not a Member of the United Nations which might adhere to the treaty. Reference to the obligations of the Members of the United Nations are unnecessary in this paragraph.

Delegate of United Kingdom. I see the first point just raised by Mr. Dulles and I am prepared to accept his suggestion, to begin the paragraph with the words: “It is understood.”

The Chairman. How will this read?

Delegate of the United Kingdom. We prefer the first clause, the words having regard to the parties as Members of the United Nations would be omitted and it will begin reading like this: “It is understood that any state designated by unanimous agreement under the first paragraph of this Article, … except at the invitation or consent of that state.” We merely take out the first clause with reference to the United Nations.

The Chairman. May we hear from the Secretary General about paragraph 3, that is the provisional paragraph 3?

Secretary General. That is additional paragraph 3. It will begin, as amended by the United States Delegation, as follows: “It is understood that no action on the territory of the United States [sic] designated by unanimous agreement under the first paragraph of this Article shall be taken except at the invitation or with the consent of that state.”

Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, the first part of this Article says “that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the parties or against any state or territory which the parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate.” The United Kingdom Delegation will say what can be done on the consent of the territory or state. Some solution to that will have to be found.

Delegate of U.K. I suppose that the territory must be the territory of some state in some form and therefore it is understood that the action is in the territory of any designated state. It is in fact a sufficient protection to make this Article effective in the territory in the area.

Delegate of Thailand. Mr. Chairman. I have the same point as the Honorable Delegate of Pakistan regarding the territory, of course, usually a state, but I think that is defined in paragraph 1 saying “any state or territory” and, therefore, the draft here should conform to that. Couldn’t we say something like this: It is understood that no action in the territory of any state or any territory designated by unanimous agreement in the first paragraph of this Article should be taken, except at the invitation and with the consent of the government concerned because a territory designated must have a government.

Delegate of the U.K. Mr. Chairman, if there is any difficulty or any doubt in the minds of any delegates, I am prepared to accept the suggestion made by the Delegate of Thailand.

The Chairman. The amendment is worth serious consideration. May we have that circulated?

Delegate of the Philippines. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the consideration of the whole of Article IV is held in abeyance until tomorrow, we might just as well take this amendment tomorrow when we take up again Article IV so that we might see the copies of the latest amendments.

The Chairman. I think that is a good suggestion to give time for typing and distribution. We will take it up tomorrow.⁵ After all, we cannot have definite action…

The Chairman. … on this now? (Silence)

Now we will go to Article VIII. Any remarks?

The Delegate of the Philippines.

The Alternate Delegate of the Philippines. The Philippine delegation has an amendment to this article, and it is in the nature of a substitute amendment, and I would like to ask the Secretary General, who has a much better voice than I have, to read the amendment.

The Secretary General. The Philippine delegation has proposed the following substitute amendment to Article VIII:

“As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the area of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific within the territorial jurisdiction of the Parties. The Parties may by unanimous agreement amend this article to include within the treaty area the territory of states acceding to this Treaty or otherwise to change the treaty area.”

The Alternate Delegate of the Philippines. I believe the proposed substitution is quite clear and needs no explanation. It defines specifically and concretely what the treaty area includes, and it leaves no room for doubt whatever as to what must be regarded as part of the territories covered by the treaty area.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Pakistan.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, with all respect, the amendment proposed does not define what is within the area. It says, “As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the area of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific within the territorial jurisdiction of the Parties.” Now the area has to be either within Southeast Asia or within Southwest Pacific, and then, further, to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the parties, and it still needs the question of definition of what is the area of Southeast Asia.

The Chairman. The Delegate of the Philippines.

The Delegate of the Philippines. If I may answer that. All the parties to this treaty will have their territorial jurisdiction within this general area of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific. Therefore, we really define here that the territories included are only those within the territorial jurisdiction of the member parties, except that the qualification that they must be in Southeast Asia or Southwest Pacific is merely a qualification of the size of the member parties to the Treaty.

The Chairman. The Delegate of Pakistan.

The Delegate of Pakistan. With all respect again, I should ask that we define what is the area of Southeast Asia. Then within that area, the territory which is within the jurisdiction of the parties to the Treaty will have been sufficiently defined.

The Delegate of the Philippines. Well, we are not trying to define that. We are just trying to specify that the parties to this Treaty are all in Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific, and it is the territories included within the territorial jurisdiction of these parties to the Treaty that are defined as the treaty area. However, if the Honorable Gentleman from Pakistan has any suggestion for improvement, we would be very glad to consider it. As far as we are concerned, we believe we understand very definitely that what is meant by this is that the treaty area covers all the territories within the territorial jurisdiction of the parties to this treaty.

Now, the other qualification is merely to designate the location of the parties to this treaty. However, we would be very glad to have any improving amendment so as to remove any possible doubt.

Delegate of Pakistan. Well, Mr. Chairman, we understand that there is a proposal by the United Kingdom Delegate which has been circulated. Could we read that also so that we could see what could be done to improve the definition?

Delegate of United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, we have circulated a proposal for the definition of Article VIII which I think, if I may respectfully state, deals with the point about the conference area more effectively than the proposal put forward on behalf of the Government of the Philippines, because that draft submitted by the Government of the Philippines leaves in the area the very important question of whether Pakistan, for instance, is in Southeast Asia. It deals with a country which is inside East Asia, the area of any other parties within East Asia, but it does not make it clear. Frankly, there might be considerable dispute as to whether Pakistan itself is at all within Southeast Asia, and to deal with such a situation, we put forward the amendment which stands in our name, that, “as used in this Treaty, the ‘Treaty area’ is the general area of Southeast Asia, including the entire territories of the Asian parties. …” Now, that is designed to put beyond any dispute the fact that the whole of Pakistan is within the treaty area, whether it can be normally regarded or not as part of Southeast Asia. That is our objective. It deals on [with?] the general area of Southwest Pacific, not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, which will go north of the Philippines and south of Hongkong. That is the object of our amendment, as our suggestion, and I think it does at least achieve the particular object to which I drew attention.

Alternate Delegate of the Philippines. It seems to me that the substance of the United Kingdom Delegate’s amendment is practically the same as our amendment, but if the Gentleman from Pakistan will tell us whether his doubts about what constitutes the general area of Southeast Asia is cured by this definition, we would be very glad to compromise in anyway possible, but it seems to me that this amendment of the United Kingdom still leaves open what the general area of Southeast Asia is.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, with reference to the observations just made by the Philippine delegate, I may with all respect indorse the following from the Marquess of Reading that is the definition proposed by the United Kingdom delegation, that is to say, “As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the ‘general area of Southeast Asia.’” Now, if we had stopped there, of course the same objection would apply to this as it would apply to the Philippine text. But it goes on to say, “including the entire territories of the Asian Parties …”, meaning the Asian parties to the treaty, wherever they may be attacked in the entire territory. So that any doubt with regard to the delimitation of Southeast Asia is thereby removed, and that, I understood, was the object.

Senator Delgado from the Philippines. That is the same as saying all the territories included in the territorial jurisdiction of the parties to the treaty are included in the treaty area.

The Delegate of Pakistan. With all respect, that is not what the Philippine amendment says. It says the treaty area is the area of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific. How about the area out of these two areas which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the parties? Supposing the parties have some area within these areas and some outside these areas, that within would be included and that outside would not be included. Whereas, the United Kingdom amendment makes it quite clear that the entire territories of the Asian parties, whether they are situated within the general area or not, are intended to be included.

Senator Delgado of the Philippines. Would that objection be cured if we remove from the Philippine amendment the words “of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific”, and leave merely “the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the parties”?

The Delegate of Pakistan. That would include the United States also.

Senator Delgado of the Philippines. That would include the territorial jurisdiction of the parties. The Delegate of Pakistan. I have no objection.

The Delegate of Australia. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I heard the delegate of Pakistan aright, but I would like to say that the verbiage in the United Kingdom delegation proposal meant that any territory of an Asian party included in the treaty anywhere in the world are [is] included if they have territories outside the Southeast Asian area. I would have thought, sir—I am referring to the British draft—I would have believed that the implication at least in the British draft is that the territories of the Asian parties must be in Southeast Asia. It would seem to me that is unsaid, but that is implied after the word “Asian parties”, the fact being that the entire territories of the Asian parties must be in the general area of Southeast Asia. I think, perhaps, after the delegate of Pakistan inquired quite legitimately, that if a territory is not in the Southeast Asian area, I would assume that that territory would not be included in the guaranty of this treaty.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Well, we are thinking of that, and if the definition proposed by the United Kingdom would leave that matter still in doubt, I would say that the definition should run somewhat as follows: “As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the general area of Southeast Asia, including the entire territories of the Asian Parties, whether situated within or without Southeast Asia, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude.”

The Chairman. Why not take away …

The Delegate of Pakistan. Or, perhaps, the general area of South and Southeast Asia, including the entire territories of the Asian parties.

The Delegate of Australia. That, I think, is more preferable. Otherwise, our obligation becomes very widespread potentially very widespread.

The Delegate of the United States. May I speak a moment on this problem. I would think that the United Kingdom text would pretty well meet the case with, perhaps, the addition of the word “also” before the word “including” to meet the possible doubt that is raised by the honorable delegate of Australia. My question about the Philippine proposal, among other things, is it limits the area to the territorial jurisdiction of the parties. That would mean, for example, if there is an attack upon the French forces, let us say, in any portion of Vietnam, that would not be covered because that would not be within the territorial jurisdiction of the parties. Furthermore, it means that if there is an attack on aircraft or naval craft on the high seas or in the international air, of one of the parties, that would not be covered because it would not be an attack in the territory of the parties. Therefore, it seems that the more general language of the United Kingdom proposal is preferable to the one which would tie us down to the territories of the parties, let us say, thereby excluding an attack upon which might quite legally be in the territory which is not one of the parties, or which may be on the high seas or in the international air.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, I would accept that suggested amendment just made by the head of the United States delegation, which is the insertion of the word “also”, which would allay any fear that the Australian delegate may have, and make it quite clear, and I hope that it might also meet the difficulty of the Pakistan delegation in a shorter and more concise way. So far as I am concerned, I am personally prepared to accept the word “also” being inserted before the word “including”. Rather, I would say this “including also the entire territories of the Asian parties.” That would be placing it after, rather than before.

The Delegate from the Philippines. How would that read now?

The Secretary General. (Reading.) “As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the general area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of the Asian Parties, and the general area of the Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees, 30 minutes north latitude.”

The Delegate from Australia. I am assuming that all the territories and the trust territories of Australia, that is, in the eastern half of New Guinea, plus the other territories in the treaty area are included under the Southwest Pacific.

The Chairman. There is no question about that.

The Delegate of Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to accept the amendment suggested by the United States Delegation and which is acceptable to the United Kingdom Delegation, that is to say, that the word “also” may be added after “including” in the second line of the United Kingdom proposal.

The Chairman. I just want to inquire here: If I am not mistaken, there are some territories of a non-Asian party north of 21 degrees, 30 minutes. What happens when some trouble arises in this area?

The Delegate of the United States. Well, I am afraid, as far as the United States is concerned, we think they would try to take care of themselves.

The Delegate of the Philippines. In order to accelerate the agreement and although this amendment of the United Kingdom is really more comprehensive than we had intended by our amendment, the Philippines will be prepared to compromise on this agreement with the additional amendment suggested by the United States Delegation.

The Chairman. Well, any more remarks on this? As completely or partly put into form, this article will now read: “As used in this Treaty, the ‘treaty area’ is the original area of Southeast Asia, including also the entire territories of Asian parties and the general area of Southwest Pacific not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees, 30 minutes north latitude,” with the understanding, of course, that if that is accepted, that any territory of any party here, non-Asian party, farther north 21 degrees, will have to be taken care of by the party concerned. Is that understood, Mr. Reading?

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. It is understood.

The Chairman. Is it understood that those territories farther north of 21 degrees will take of themselves?

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. That is understood by me.

The Chairman. Are you ready to vote on this, as finally formulated? Those who have objections will say so because I will announce its approval. (After a pause.) There being no more objections, the Chair declares that Article VIII, as finally formulated, is hereby approved.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom. In my copy of the draft, there is another sentence which reads: “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this article as to include the territory of states acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the Treaty area.”

The Delegate of the Philippines. That has been agreed upon before we took up the first part.

The Chairman. Let us clarify that. Is that agreed upon by everybody? The second sentence here: “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, amend this article to include within the Treaty area the territory of states acceding to this Treaty in accordance with Article VII or otherwise to change the Treaty area.”

If there are no objections, the Chair declares the whole Article VIII approved.

[Here follows discussion of a final Article XI (dealing with textual authenticity) and an article proposed by the Philippine Government.]⁶

1. Apparently an incorrect designation. No transcript or other indication of a previous sitting of the Fourth Plenary Session has been found in Department of State files.
2. The following passage may be a translation of La Chambre’s remarks.
3. During the Fifth Session, held the morning of Sept. 8, Casey announced that his delegation accepted the text of Article IV, paragraph 1, and the text of Article V. (Verbatim transcript of Fifth Plenary Session, Manila Conference; Conference files, lot D 627, CF 356)
4. All ellipses in this document are in the source text.

5. Final substantive language of this paragraph was suggested by the Thai Delegation during the Fifth Session, as follows:

   “It is understood that no action on the territory of any State designated by unanimous agreement under the first paragraph of this Article or on any territory so designated shall be taken except at the invitation or with the consent of the government concerned.” (Verbatim transcript of Fifth Plenary Session)

6. In telegram Secto 17 from Manila, Sept.7, the delegation summarized the part of the session devoted to the Philippine proposal as follows: “The Philippine Government proposed new Article IX as follows:

   “‘The parties recognize and will uphold the principle of self-determination and the right of the peoples in the area of southeast Asia and southwest Pacific to self-government or independence in accordance with the procedures provided therefore in the Charter of the United Nations’. This article supported by Pakistan and Thailand. Opposed by Australia, New Zealand, France and the UK largely on basis redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and in any case should be in preamble if this language used at all. Australia agreed with abstract principle but protested that proposed article provided for right of self-government immediately and stated that natives of New Guinea and Papua not yet ripe for self-government; expressed fear possible subversion of natives on basis that article. UK, France, New Zealand all in agreement any language this nature should be in preamble. Wished to consider further and discuss again at later stage.

   “Secretary stated he was impressed by fact that as matter of logic it would be redundant to express again what is expressed in the UN Charter and will presumably be proposed in the basic charter, however, cold logic cannot be sole guide in situation shot through with emotions, distortions and misrepresentations. Asian members of conference feel it very important to set forth this principle and to say it even if repetitiously. It appears only argument against agreement on this article is repetition and the fact that it is repetitive ought not to be controlling. We would be disposed to give very sympathetic hearing to Asian viewpoint.

   “Delgado speaking for Philippines cited United States-Philippine relations. He said Philippines agreeable to any safeguard UK, New Zealand, Australia, France felt necessary; would not insist on any specific wording.

   “Tentative plans finish substantive work tomorrow morning.” (396.1 MA/9–754)