890.20/8–2440
Memorandum by Mr. Max W. Bishop, of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of State to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk)
Comment by me on the attached telegram to Manila1 may be extra-curricular in my present duties; but because it is highly important to the development of policy toward Asia I offer the following remarks for whatever they may be worth:
If I were in Romulo’s shoes and were to receive the attached message I would gather that the U.S. does not consider itself party to the region of which the Philippine Islands are a part; that the U.S. is sympathetic to a regional approach based on “indigenous incentive and momentum developed in countries concerned”; but that the U.S. wishes to remain aloof for two reasons:
- a.
- U.S. participation or even encouragement would result “in inverse proportion” in development of indigenous support for the proposed association and the U.S. being an “outside power” would only distract and mislead nations seeking to form an association; and
- b.
- U.S. participation might arouse false hopes for economic assistance beyond that presently contemplated.
It seems to me that the U.S. cannot, and indeed must not, avoid an active part in any Pacific or Asiatic association of nations or peoples primarily for two reasons:
- 1.
- The U.S. is the only nation capable of providing any sort of balance to the power and prestige of the U.S.S.R. in the Pacific and [Page 1192] in Asia; and because the security of the U.S. is involved we cannot remain aloof.
- 2.
- It would hardly be in our best interest, or that of the Asiatic peoples themselves, to have a solely Asiatic association develop. After all, the great political danger to be avoided is the sort of association which is best described by such terms as “Asia for the Asiatics” or the “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere”.
It seems to me that we should either oppose an association of nations and peoples in Asia and the Pacific or we should encourage and participate in such an association. The question of timing, the degree of participation and the manner of assertion of leadership and direction are all tactical matters to be handled in a manner best designed to accomplish our policy decisions and need not, if skillfully done, have the unfortunate repercussions suggested in the attached message.
The “Pan-American Union” would not be the powerful instrument for good that it is if it were the “Latin-American Union”. If a “Pacific Union” becomes an “Asiatic Association” either because we shirk our position of power and leadership or because they become convinced we have abandoned Asia through timidity or neglect, we, I believe, shall have lost a great opportunity and a step will be taken in separating Orient from Occident.
It seems to me that before we drift into a position we should decide either to oppose or to support a “Pacific Union” and should then develop a program of action and adopt an attitude based on that basic policy decision.
I need hardly add that for my money we should support and lead the Asiatics in their movement toward association with one another and with us. It need not cost us more than the Pan-American grouping costs us and could return as much or more.