Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 1

Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 432

United States Minutes of Meeting of the Manila Pact Working Group¹

confidential

[Washington,] December 6, 1954—3 p.m.

Participants

• US
• C—Mr. MacArthur
• FE—Mr. Sebald
• Defense—Mr. Sullivan
• PSA—Mr. Young
• BNA—Mr. Horsey
• SOA—Mr. Thacher
• C—Mr. Galloway
• Australia—Mr. F.J. Blakeney
• France—M. Pierre Millet
• New Zealand—Mr. G. R. Laking
• Pakistan—Amb. Syed Amjad Ali
• Philippines—Captain Albert
• Thailand—Minister Devakul
• United Kingdom—Sir Robert Scott

[Here follows discussion concerning the date of the proposed meeting of Manila Pact Foreign Ministers. See footnote 5 below.]

Discussion of the U.S. Military Advisers’ Paper²

Copies of a U.S. working paper on the Military Advisers were distributed at the meeting. Mr. MacArthur suggested that consideration of this paper be deferred until representatives had time to study it and refer it to their governments. However, he asked Mr. Sullivan to make a preliminary explanation and answer any questions. Mr. Sullivan explained that the paper represented U.S. views on appropriate terms of reference for the Military Advisers to the Manila Council. Referring to the paragraphs in the U.S. paper on procedures and organizational arrangements, he stated that the U.S. believed it should be up to the Military Advisers to make their own recommendations on these questions. As a means of liaison between the Military Advisers, the U.S. was thinking in terms of an arrangement whereby the Military Advisers would designate liaison officers in one of the Treaty area capitals. In answer to Ambassador Ali’s questions the U.S. representatives explained that the U.S. would like to have such an informal liaison arrangement in one of the two Asian capitals nearest to the area of concern, namely, Bangkok or Manila. In answer to a U.K. question, Mr. Sullivan said that the U.S. paper was not designed to exclude the possibility of a permanent military organization such as a small military secretariat. However, he said that consideration of this would be a matter for the Military Advisers themselves.

Discussion of Paper on Council Procedures

Mr. MacArthur asked for comments on the U.S. working paper on Council procedures³ which had been distributed prior to the meeting.

Regularity of Meetings—The Philippine representative suggested some minor rewording of the U.S. paper to emphasize that the Council would meet once each year and more often when deemed necessary by the members. He also suggested a regular meeting time for the Council each year. Mr. MacArthur explained the schedule difficulty of setting a regular time and suggested that at each Council meeting the Ministers would set a general date for the next Ministerial meeting.

Place of Meetings—Mr. Laking said New Zealand specifically supported the concept of peripatetic Council meetings without a fixed location. Sir Robert suggested that the U.S. paper be worded to preclude Council meetings outside the Treaty area. This suggestion received general support by all representatives, but Mr. MacArthur commented that the paper should not totally exclude the possibility of meetings outside the Treaty area. For example, he stated that if all the Manila Pact Foreign Ministers were attending a UN meeting in New York they might wish to hold a Council meeting in the U.S. There was general agreement that ad hoc meetings outside the Treaty area should not be excluded by the Council procedures paper.

Liaison and Permanent Headquarters—The New Zealand and Pakistan representatives pointed out that if Manila or Bangkok were chosen as the liaison center for the Council this would present a problem since neither country was represented in those capitals. Sir Robert stated that although it might not be possible at this time to agree on the establishment of a permanent headquarters for the Council, the U.K. did not wish to exclude this possibility. As to the location of a liaison center and eventually a headquarters, the U.K. strongly recommended Singapore. To support this view Sir Robert mentioned that Singapore was extremely central to the Treaty area, that it had highly developed facilities for meetings and finally, that Malaya was the last area in Southeast Asia where open insurrection was still occurring and where Communists were still being killed. Mr. Blakeney also supported Singapore as the site for an eventual permanent headquarters of the Council. Ambassador Ali stated that the location of a permanent headquarters was so important that it should be left to the Ministers for decision. Mr. MacArthur agreed this might be necessary but stated that nonetheless it would be useful for the Working Group to discuss this question.

Council Secretariat—Mr. Blakeney commented that while his Government found the U.S. organizational suggestions broadly acceptable as a first step Australia believed it might be necessary to have a small permanent secretariat. Mr. MacArthur replied that the U.S. was opposed to the establishment of machinery for the sake of machinery and would object to an international secretariat with a common budget and similar difficulties. However, he believed the U.S. would have an open mind on a small secretariat in the designated liaison center to which the member governments would contribute services.

At the conclusion of the discussion the U.S. promised to circulate a redraft of the paper on Council procedures prior to the next meeting. The U.K. tabled a working paper on an agenda for the first Ministerial meeting⁴ and the Working Group was then adjourned until Friday, December 10, 2:30 p.m., Room 5106, New State.⁵

1. Drafted on Dec. 8 by Gleysteen who is not listed among the participants. Nicholas G. Thacher of SOA was Acting Officer in Charge of Afghanistan-Pakistan Affairs.
2. See telegram 288, infra.
3. Possibly that attached to MacArthur’s memorandum to the Secretary dated Nov. 30, p. 1000.
4. Not printed. (790.5/12–654)

5. A portion of the unsigned notes of the Secretary’s staff meeting the morning of Dec. 7 follows:

   “Mr. MacArthur said that the members of the Manila Pact Working Group had agreed yesterday to recommend to their governments that there be a meeting of the Manila Pact Foreign Ministers in Bangkok on February 14. It is hoped that the replies can be in by Friday, December 10, in order to issue a press release by Monday, December 13. Mr. MacArthur said that the Working Group had also considered an organizational paper and a military paper and that there was considerable pressure for some sort of small military secretariat. In response to the Secretary’s question, Mr. MacArthur said that the anti-subversion paper was not quite ready yet for consideration by the full Working Group.” (Secretary’s Staff Meetings, lot 63 D 75, SM N-286)