790.5/8–1152
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Allison) to the Secretary of State
Subject:
- Appointment with Ambassador Romulo
I understand you are to see Ambassador Romulo at 10:30 Tuesday, the 12th. The Ambassador asked me to lunch today and the [Page 205] following is a résumé of what he told me and will be the basis for what he wishes to say to you tomorrow.
The Ambassador referred to the statement made by President Quirino1 during the course of the ANZUS Conference and told me that he had dictated it over the phone to Quirino at the latter’s request. Quirino had apparently been disturbed by the opposition complaints in Manila and had telephoned Romulo on what it was all about, apparently not fully appreciating exactly what the ANZUS Meeting was. Romulo says that he set the President right and convinced him that the Council Meeting in Honolulu was perfectly normal and natural consequence of the Treaty which had been signed at San Francisco. He reminded Quirino that the Philippine-United States Mutual Defense Treaty had been signed previously in Washington in the presence of President Truman and that in fact the ANZUS Treaty merely brought Australia and New Zealand up to equality in relations with the United States to those between the United States and the Philippines.
Romulo went on to state that in his opinion it was unfortunate that the ANZUS Meeting could not have been held quietly in Washington as this would have obviated considerable misunderstanding among the Orient nations. He went on then to refer to the editorial in Sunday’s New York Times2 and to its account of the reasons why the Asiatic nations were not present in Honolulu. He referred particularly to the suggestion in the Times editorial that there might be some sort of “general consultative Pacific body”. This body would to some extent take the place of the now defunct Far Eastern Commission and would be a channel for interchange of information and opinion on matters affecting the whole Pacific area. Romulo expanded on this idea, saying that he thought it would have great merit and could not do any harm. According to his idea, such a council or commission would have no military functions whatsoever nor would it be in any way a policymaking body. It would be solely for the exchange of ideas with regard to general Pacific affairs, cultural matters, broad economic and social matters, and the like and would be set up at not more than an advisory level. The Ambassador believes that if something along this line could be done and if Asiatic nations such as the Philippines and Japan, which to my surprise he specifically mentioned, could be brought in it would go far toward reassuring the Asiatic nations that they were not being excluded. It would also have the virtue, through having no military functions, of making it possible to [Page 206] bring in such nations as Burma and Indonesia who undoubtedly would not participate in anything of a military or security nature.
I believe that this idea has merit and is at least worth exploring. In fact I had had somewhat the same idea when I read the Times article and prior to my luncheon with Ambassador Romulo I had requested a member of my staff to look into the matter and give me some ideas.3 I suggest that you may wish to tell Ambassador Romulo that while we can make absolutely no commitment at this time to any form of organization, nevertheless we would be receptive to any further concrete suggestions he might wish to make, and that we would give them serious consideration.4
- In this statement, as reported by the New York Times of Aug. 5, the President had emphasized the possibility of future expansion of the ANZUS Security Treaty.↩
- “Making Pacific Policy”, Aug. 10.↩
Apparently Charlton Ogburn, Jr., Regional Planning Adviser in the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs. In a memorandum of Aug. 19 to Allison on the subject of Pacific association, Ogburn stated:
“It would seem to me that the most practical and promising approach to the formation of a ‘general consultative Pacific body’ would be for us to engage in more extensive consultation through existing diplomatic channels with the Asian-Pacific nations. To create a consultative body, it is first necessary, I believe, to have the habit of consultation. (An organization does not create similarity of interests and points of view; the reverse is the case.) The debate on an Asian-Pacific association appears to me to concern itself too much with the shadow or show of consultation and not with the fact of consultation. I have been arguing for several years that we ought to take the Asian governments much more into our confidence and our councils than we have done and give them a larger voice in the decisions we make which must affect their fate, even to the extent of adopting courses of action which, while against our judgment, are strongly endorsed by them. This would be genuine consultation and would require no special apparatus.” (790.5/8–1152)
↩- The conversation held between Acheson and Romulo on Aug. 12 is summarized in telegram 617 to Manila, Sept. 4, not printed here. (796.5 MSP/9–252)↩