Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, East Asian Security; Cambodia; Laos, Volume XXI

126. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Gray) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson¹

Washington, February 4, 1957.

Dear Mr. Robertson: At the ANZUS Council meeting² you will recall that Mr. MacArthur raised the matter of the request from the SEATO Military Advisers to their Ministers for clearance to proceed with a study of the threat to the SEATO area under conditions of global war. It was feared that this might lead some of the Asian SEATO members to insist that SEATO engage in global military planning.

It was agreed at this meeting that the U.S., Australian and New Zealand Military Advisers, with the promised support of the UK Adviser, would endeavor to have this matter deleted from the Military Advisers Report prior to the SEATO Council consideration of the Report. Air Marshal McCauley suggested that this might be accomplished by an agreement among the Military Advisers that the threat to the SEATO area under conditions of global war would be no greater than the threat under conditions of a war limited to the SEATO area, and that therefore such a study was not required.

The entire matter has been subjected to a thorough review within the Department of Defense and coordinated with the Department of State. During this review there was borne in mind that a Baghdad Pact study, “Defense of the Pact Area in Global War”, had been completed.³ It is considered that it is to the advantage of the U.S. to avoid the SEATO study if it can be done without seriously undermining the confidence of the Asian members to the Treaty. A proposal that planning for defense for a war limited to the treaty area would be adequate for defense in a global war is deemed appropriate and reasonable. Such a course would appear a diplomatic means of disposing of this study and would still offer a route for graceful retirement should the Asian members indicate strongly held opposition.

In the face of any such opposition which will not admit an agreement to abandon this study, the Department of Defense would interpose no objections to the undertaking of a study for the defense of the Treaty Area under conditions of general war provided that:

a. The study is limited to broad general terms.

b. Agreement can be reached regarding assumptions on the effects of Soviet nuclear weapons.

c. Agreement can be reached on assumptions regarding the plans and forces of free world nations and defense organization outside the treaty area, and that such assumptions be employed in planning in lieu of seeking disclosure of such information from the nations and organizations concerned.⁴

Sincerely yours,

Gordon Gray

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/2–457. Top Secret.
2. For the minutes of the ANZUS Council Meeting, see Document 122.
3. The report is not printed.
4. In his February 14 reply, Robertson wrote: “The Department of State sees no objection to such a ‘fall back’ position. It is our understanding that your letter and this reply will form the basis for instructions to the United States Military Adviser regarding this item of the agenda of the Canberra meeting of the SEATO Military Advisers and would also reflect the position which the United States Delegate at the Canberra Council Meeting would take in case this matter is raised there.” (Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/2–457)