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

132. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State¹

London, February 27, 1957—6 p.m.

4547. Deptel 5925.² SEATO. Embassy this morning approached Foreign Office (Tomlinson)³ as instructed reftel. Foreign Office had received cable from British Embassy Washington setting forth Department’s position along similar lines.

Position taken by UK at Council Reps Meeting February 26 based on Foreign Office fear that in anxiety to do something in a rush (i.e. before Council meeting at Canberra) Council Reps were being asked to acquiesce in a makeshift arrangement which would not prove adequate for task it designed accomplish and thus chance to put SEATO house in order might be permanently lost. HMG continues to feel that efficiency of SEATO must be enhanced and supports idea of Secy General, but it seriously doubts that terms of reference proposed by PWG would make Secy General more than a “glorified personal representative” of Council Reps. In Foreign Office view his duties as now defined do not warrant giving him title Secretary General. While Foreign Office realizes that appointment Secy General might provide much needed “window dressing” for Canberra meeting, it believes a far more important purpose of appointment is to improve coordination in SEATO. It does not wish jeopardize accomplishment this purpose by premature action in order provide appeal for Canberra meeting. However, according Tomlinson, Foreign Office maintains open mind and will have another look at problem in light of US views.

Foreign Office somewhat concerned that its instructions to Gage were interpreted as change of policy, and contends that its position on Secy General has not basically changed. Embassy was also somewhat surprised by use of phrase “unexpected shift” in reftel and “sudden reversal” in Bangkok’s 2516 since Foreign Office, though strongly favoring appointment Secy General in principle, had never given us impression it on verge agreeing to any specific appointment. In explanation Tomlinson expressed fear that British Reps Bangkok had previously exceeded their instructions.⁴

Barbour

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/2–2757. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Bangkok.
2. In telegram 5925, dated February 26, sent priority and repeated to Bangkok, the Department stated: “Request Embassy urgently approach Foreign Office re unexpected shift British position on SEATO Secretary General reported Bangkok’s 2516 to Department repeated London 18. Department would greatly regret abandonment Secretary General at this late stage for reasons indicated penultimate paragraph reftel and hopes British will reconsider their position.” (Ibid., 790.5/2–2657) The Embassy in Bangkok reported in telegram 2516, February 26, that Ambassador Gage, at a Council Representatives meeting that day, had opposed consideration at Canberra of the creation of a Secretary General. (Ibid., 396.1–CA/2–2657) Regarding U.S. support for creation of the post of SEATO Secretary General, see footnote 4, Document 144.
3. F.S. Tomlinson, Head of the South East Asia Department.
4. In telegram 2988 to Bangkok, March 2, sent also to the other SEATO capitals, the Department reported in part: “British Embassy informs us latest instructions to Bangkok on Secretary General propose that Council Reps recommend that Council approve in principle appointment of Secretary General to coordinate and supervise SEATO activities and request Council Reps to prepare terms of reference for position.” The Department expressed satisfaction with this formula in view of the difficulty of reconciling opinions on the terms of reference in the short period before the Canberra meeting. (Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/3–157)