Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, East Asia-Pacific Region; Cambodia; Laos, Volume XVI

56. Telegram From the Embassy in Thailand to the Department of State¹

Bangkok, February 17, 1960—3 p.m.

2322. (1) CR 16th finally agreed on formula (not to be recorded by CR) acceptable to New Zealand permitting MPO proceed wth Plan 5C. Formula proposed by UK and acquiesced in by me in interest of some forward movement on planning reads: “Although no decisions either formal or informal have been taken on identity appointed nation or nationality of commander, MPO is free to continue its planning on basis proposals which have been made.” This devious verbiage satisfied New Zealand Representative, who insisted his tight instructions would compel him record non-concurrence in any formal or informal CR decision. He emphasized however New Zealand had no objection to proceeding in MPO under UK formula. All members accepted UK formula but Pakistan and Thai Representatives emphasized necessity to deal less equivocally with 5C.

I deplore necessity for such indirectness and have deep misgivings as to its effect on estimate tough-minded Thais such as Thanat will make of UK, NZ readiness to support 5C. Still I agree with view expressed by several members that CR action represents some progress.

(2) In discussion covering (a) through (g) of paragraph 5, Annex A of SCR/59/D–203² following points made:

(a) Subject Thai insistence on prior agreement on cost sharing, all endorsed Thailand as appointed nation.

(b) With exception Pakistan, Philippines and Australians who without instructions, U.S. recommendations on command structure approved. Probably only Pakistan has substantive point to make.

(c) MPO has sent draft proposal³ on subject matter of agreement with RLG to Military Advisers for comment. On receipt it will be submitted to CR.

(d) I proposed that CR acting under instructions and on behalf of Council Members and governments would make contemplated situation assessments, national military authorities would be informed of CR decisions this regard by member governments.

(e) Though CR accepted in principle directive to SEATO force commander French proposed certain language modifications (additional to proposed amendment paragraph 9 re POLAD) which in fact for first time raise question of actual authority of appointed nation. French would substitute “transmit” for “issue” in paragraph 3 C of MS/147A/33/59⁴ and other changes effect of which would be to reduce authority appointed nation vis-à-vis Council Ministers and substantially make appointed nation role that of “post office” between Council Ministers and SEATO force commander.

(f) Australian Representative noting distinction between common and national costs too vague suggested MPO break down costs into major categories for CR discussion as broad lines division between common or national. After such division all but Philippines and Australia and possibly NZ can now agree to applying SEATO budget formula to common costs. My suggestion for common fund was favorably received subject to agreement on cost sharing formula. Other representatives seeking instructions.

(g) I opposed Thailand-supported necessity of status of forces agreement. It was agreed action would be deferred pending receipt of further information from MPO on need for such agreement.

(3) In brief discussion nationality POLAD I proposed Australian. Australia said nationality POLAD should be evaluated in context of decisions as to command structure.

(4) Request Department’s view on 2(d) and (e) including any further guidance with respect language concerning POLAD paragraph 9 directive to SEATO force commander.⁵ With respect French amendments it my recommendation we oppose reducing status of appointed nation to “post office” role. While broad political guidance must come from SEATO Council, neither Council nor Council Representatives able act quickly as well illustrated in present discussion 5C and appointed nation must have considerable measure of discretion and authority if its role is to be meaningful.

(5) Next CR meeting February 26.

Johnson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 379/2–1760. Top Secret. Also sent to CINCPAC for POLAD and repeated to Karachi, London, Paris, Canberra, Wellington, and Manila.
2. Not found.
3. Not found.
4. “Summary of MPO Plan 5C/59,” dated December 11, 1959. The sentence mentioned reads: “The Council has invited one of the Member Nations (the ‘Appointed Nation’) to be responsible on its behalf for the conduct of operations by the SEATO Force and to issue the Directive to the Commander, SEATO Force.” (Department of the Army, SEATO Subregistry (Microfilm) Files, Reel S–2–59)
5. In Annex B to the document cited in footnote 4 above, entitled “Proposed Directive to the Commander, SEATO Force,” paragraph 9 specified that although political direction would be furnished through the commander’s own government, he would also be provided with a political adviser for liaison with the SEATO Council and the Council Representatives. In telegram 2201 to Bangkok, February 25, the Department of State approved Johnson’s proposal concerning item 2(d), and implied that the role of the appointed nation should not be reduced to that of “post office.” (Department of State, Central Files, 379/2–1760; included in the microfiche supplement)