04.04.2014 Views

0 - The Black Vault

0 - The Black Vault

0 - The Black Vault

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE BDM CORPORATION<br />

Vice Admiral A. C. Davis, Depity Assistant Secretary of<br />

Defense (International Security Affairs) and Chief Defense Department<br />

repr^esentative in the US delegation to the Manila Conference had the<br />

following to say at the conclusion of the proceedings:<br />

I believe the Manila Conference accomplished the objective<br />

expected of it from the United States point of view.<br />

In my judgment our Defense representation in the U.S, Delegation<br />

succeeded in its efforts to insure that the Treaty is<br />

cnnsistent in its military implications with the positions<br />

taken by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by this Department.<br />

23/<br />

In the final treaty the US, in effect, had made a<br />

statLment of its intent to counter further communist expansionist moves in<br />

Southeast Asia, but left vague the specifics of its probable response.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re was to be no ,nified command, no bases, and no contribution of combat<br />

troops to a standing army or group.<br />

2) SEATO Compared to NATO<br />

Although the other Mani ia conferees intended the SEATO<br />

pact to be similar to the NATO pact, the US was not prepared to pay the<br />

price of such a strong coalition. <strong>The</strong> US, with its NATO commitments<br />

already a sizeable biirden, was reluctant to commit itself to SEATO<br />

as it<br />

had to NATO. <strong>The</strong>refore, the conferees took pains with thL SEATO terminology,<br />

caiculating carefully the effect the pacx would have on their own<br />

domestic politics as well as on the communist-threatenod nations. It<br />

remains, however, that the SEATO treaty wording on the point of just what<br />

response would be made by the nmembers in the event of an armed attack was<br />

intentionally ambiguous.<br />

With respect to treaty institutions, both the NATO and<br />

SEATO treaties establisned councils for military and planning purposes. In<br />

the NATO treaty this council was authorized to set up "subsidiary bodies,"<br />

while in the SEATO Treaty such authorization was not given. This was a<br />

disappointment to several of the delegations at Manila., Initially, the<br />

Australians proposed that the conference set up a strong military organization,<br />

but they were persuaded by the US<br />

representatives to accept a<br />

7-l<br />

7--

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!