Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXIII, Southeast Asia

38. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

Washington, March 14, 1963.

SUBJECT

• Voting Procedure in SEATO

PARTICIPANTS

• Mr. John Newhouse, Staff, Senate Foreign Relations Comm.
• Mr. John Czyzak, L/FE
• Mr. Carl Salans, L/FE

At Governor Harriman’s request, John Czyzak and Carl Salans this morning discussed the proposed SEATO voting formula (SEATO Doc SCR/62/D-158)¹ with Mr. John Newhouse of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations staff, who substituted for Mr. Carl Marcy, Chief of Staff, by reason of the latter’s preoccupation with other business of the Committee.

Mr. Czyzak recalled that on February 27, 1962 Governor Harriman had appeared before the Committee in connection with the then prospective issuance of the Rusk-Thanat communiqué (March 6, 1962).² At that time, Governor Harriman had indicated that there was considerable unhappiness in SEATO regarding voting procedures; that on the one hand Thailand wanted to abandon the rule of unanimity, which would require an amendment of the treaty; and that as a counter-proposal Australia had made a suggestion, which the United States could probably accept, that a SEATO member that did not want to vote affirmatively on a particular matter could abstain in which case that would not be considered a veto of the action.

Since early 1962, the SEATO parties had been discussing various proposals along the lines of the Australian formula; and they had now agreed on a formula which presumably would be finally adopted at the SEATO Council meeting in Paris, April 8–10, 1963. The formula provided that a “target date”, by which members should indicate their decision in regard to a particular proposal, could be set by an affirmative vote of five members. The proposal would be considered approved at the target date if by that time five members had voted affirmatively and no member had voted against. Members who had not positively voted for a proposal would not be bound by or required to participate in such SEATO action although they would be free to do so. Financial arrangements regarding SEATO action in which all members did not participate would be decided on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Czyzak indicated that the effect of the formula was to provide that abstentions would not be considered a veto. This in no way derogated from the unanimity principle and did not involve an amendment of the treaty.

Mr. Newhouse readily agreed with Mr. Czyzak’s analysis and said he thought the proposal was a good idea. He asked that a copy of the proposed voting formula be made available to the Committee for its records. Mr. Czyzak promised to send Mr. Newhouse such a copy.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, SEATO 8–5. Confidential. Drafted by Salans. The meeting was held at the New Senate Office Building.
1. As described below, this is a modification of the Australian proposal.
2. See footnote 2, Document 37. Harriman’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on “The Situation in Thailand” is printed in Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Historical Series), 1962, vol. XIV, Eighty-Seventh Congress, Second Session, pp. 217–244.