Senator CAPEHART. Is it sort of like placing a stick on the shoulder of a fellow and daring somebody else to knock it off?

Mr. HARRIMAN. They have been constantly criticizing SEATO; the Red Chinese have taken every opportunity to denounce SEATO.

Senator CAPEHART. Isn't the psychological effect on Red China one of sort of inviting trouble? I do not know, I am just asking.

Mr. HARRIMAN. The fact that the Chinese have taken such exception to SEATO makes me believe that it really is an important instrument in stopping aggression.

AN ADVISORY DISCUSSION

Senator CAPEHART. Are you asking this committee to approve this?

Mr. HARRIMAN. No. The purpose of this discussion is to advise this committee as to what we are planning to do.

Senator CAPEHART. As to what you plan to do.

Mr. HARRIMAN. And to give the committee a chance to express their opinions. There is no need for the President to legally consult this committee, because this committee has already acted on this treaty. But it was thought as a matter of common courtesy and, particularly, the relationship which the President wants to maintain with this committee, to discuss it so that they will not have to read in the paper about what was involved.

THAILAND HAS YET TO AGREE

Senator CAPEHART. Have you definitely made up your mind to issue this?

Mr. HARRIMAN. This requires two people. Mr. Thant is arriving on Thursday and will be here over the weekend. Presumably this will be a matter of discussion with him on the part of the Secretary of State and the President. If he agrees, this communique will be issued by the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary of Thailand next Monday, a week.

Senator CAPEHART. I do not question the administration, but it seems to me as though-you say Thailand asked you to do this?

Mr. HARRIMAN. No. Thailand has asked for a change in the voting procedure of SEATO.

Senator CAPEHART. The voting procedure?

Mr. HARRIMAN. The voting procedure. It has asked-I do not know that this has become public as to the exact argument; it is generally known that there has been some discussion, but I do not think that this has been known.

Mr. CHAYES. No. It is not public at all. It has been discussed in the council meetings in Bangkok, and it has also been discussed among the SEATO governments. But I do not think there is anything beyond the rumor stage that has gotten out.

Mr. HARRIMAN. What they have asked for in the conferences is that instead of unanimous approval, SEATO should act on an affirmative vote of six of the eight members, three-quarters.

Senator CAPEHART. Act on what?

Mr. HARRIMAN. Act on any step which SEATO might be required to take under the treaty or might decide it wants to take.

A U.S. INITIATIVE

Senator CAPEHART. What relationship is there to that and our issuing a communique tomorrow or the next day?

Mr. HARRIMAN. Well, one would change the treaty procedure, as has been agreed to among its members. This communique would only relate to the interpretation that the United States has put, always put, as Secretary Dulles indicated to the committee be put, on this treaty when it came before this comittee.

Senator CAPEHART. Pardon me, I was not here when you first started.

Mr. HARRIMAN. Yes.

Senator CAPEHART. But my understanding is that you are thinking about issuing a communique in which you simply reiterate the language of the agreement.

Now, my question is, did Thailand ask you to do that?
Mr. HARRIMAN. No.

Senator CAPEHART. Well, then, why are you doing it?

Mr. HARRIMAN. They are quite concerned over SEATO as not being an effective body because of the unanimity provision. We are hopeful they will abandon that, since there is a difference of opinion, if we state publicly what we have stated privately, namely, that we consider that we are bound under the terms of the treaty to act unilaterally, even if the rest of the members of the treaty are not bound.

This is Article IV, Paragraph 1, which is the provision of the treaty that we are discussing.

CORRECTING A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION

Senator CAPEHART. What is more public than this treaty?

Mr. HARRIMAN. Nothing is more public than this treaty. But very frequently the discussion in the press-I think it has been in the press, Mr. Chayes-has been that SEATO has to act by unanimous agreement, and there is a general impression around that any one of the eight members can veto action.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, the general impression is that no one could help Thailand except by unanimous vote▬▬ Mr. HARRIMAN. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART [continuing]. Of the SEATO members.
Mr. HARRIMAN. That is correct, Senator.

Senator CAPEHART. And what you are saying to them is that even though the other members do not act, we will?

Mr. HARRIMAN. We are obligated to act individually or collectively. That is the interpretation which we have always placed, the interpretation which Mr. Dulles placed on it before this committee. Senator CAPEHART. In other words, under this treaty we are obligated to help Thailand or any other member of SEATO, even though the other members do nothing?

Mr. CHAYES. In case of aggression by armed attack; yes, sir. Senator CAPEHART. What you want to do here is to state, restate, to the world what the treaty has been previously agreed to-Mr. HARRIMAN. That is right, sir.

Mr. CHAYES. In other words, we want to say that the impression that has gotten around is a mistaken one; this general talk is not correct.

COMMUNIQUE WOULD RESOLVE ISSUE

Senator CAPEHART. You say Thailand has not asked this.

If they have not, why do it?

Senator SPARKMAN. Homer, the thing about it is this: They have asked for a modification of the unanimity rule.

Senator CAPEHART. And you cannot get that?

Senator SPARKMAN. To get that we would have to go through the whole process of modifying the treaty.

Mr. HARRIMAN. There is a very considerable difference of opinion. Thailand is the only one that wants to have a three-quarters rule. There has been one suggestion made by the Australians which I think we could accept, namely, that a country that did not want to vote affirmatively could abstain, in which case that would not be considered a veto of the action.

Senator SPARKMAN. Our thought is that a communique restating our position for the public might be acceptable as an alternative. Mr. HARRIMAN. Yes.

IMMEDIATE CONCERN IS LAOS, NOT CHINA

Senator CAPEHART. Do you have any reason to believe, does Thailand have any reason to believe, that Red China may attack them in the near future?

Mr. HARRIMAN. No, there is no immediate threat. What gives Thailand concern, immediate concern, is these discussions over a peaceful settlement of the dispute in Laos through the formation of a government of national unity. They are quite concerned over whether that will be successful or whether Laos will fall under Communist sway, in which event they would feel that they would be quite threatened.

ASSISTANCE TO THAILAND

Senator CAPEHART. Is it our intention to step up our military help to Thailand immediately?

Mr. HARRIMAN. There has been no intention of-the military program has not been submitted to the Congress yet. I do not think there is any material change in the request for military assistance to them.

Senator CAPEHART. But orders have already gone out to help Thailand economically, to step up the economic help?

Mr. HARRIMAN. We have asked for a certain increase for assistance, particularly in northern Thailand, which is somewhat backward.

Senator CAPEHART. I see orders have gone out to lending agencies to step up to economic aid to Thailand.

Mr. HARRIMAN. There is a modest increase requested for certain particular projects, particularly in the northwestern part of the country, which is backward, where the agriculture is not too good, and where there has been some Communist activity, which has not

grown to any importance. This is really an attempt to assist Thailand before the danger becomes great.

COMMUNIQUE MIGHT BE HARMFUL

Senator CAPEHART. Unless there is something that I do not see or understand, I would think that the communique might do more harm than good.

Mr. HARRIMAN. Would do more harm than good?

Senator CAPEHART. Yes, unless you have some information that I do not have. I think the communique might do more harm than good.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I am afraid I do not understand what harm it could do. I can only see good coming from a communique; I can only see the reassurance of the people of Thailand in explaning to them the obligations we now have.

We will have to restate those obligations occasionally, and I do not see any possible damage that could come-

Senator CAPEHART. Let me base that conclusions—
Mr. HARRIMAN [continuing]. From restating a fact.

ANTAGONIZING CHINA

Senator CAPEHART. Let me give you my reasons for it; they may not be sound. I think I read in the paper where Red China was threatening us on the ground that we were aggressors in this part of the world, in South Vietnam and this part of the world.

Now, if we immediately issue this communique, isn't it going to further antagonize them? That is the only reason I said what I did. Mr. HARRIMAN. Well, Senator, I am not sure that we can further antagonize Red China. I cannot imagine how it is possible for us to antagonize Red China further.

I have never had the opportunity to go to Red China-I tried to go 3 years ago-but all my acquaintances who have been there say that the radio, 24 hours in the cars and in the streets, blasts out about American imperialism, the danger of American attack, so I cannot quite understand how that could be stepped up.

LIKE NATO, SEATO IS CALLED AGGRESSIVE

Senator CAPEHART. Well, I do not know, but it normally would be that it I were in an argument with another person, my reaction, if I were having a little fight with you-and maybe I am wrongMr. HARRIMAN. Perhaps I have been in a position to have more opportunity to know about it, but I know they have been attacking this SEATO treaty ever since it was entered into. They called it an aggressor; we folks consider it entirely differently, but they have called it an aggressor organization, just like the Kremlin has called NATO.

We have never resisted underlining the importance which we think that NATO is in our common security. Just because Mr. Khrushchev happens to say that he considers it an offensive organization, I do not think we have ever hesitated, the President or any member of this committee has been hesitant, in making a

speech and pointing out how important we think NATO is to our security, and why we think it is a deterrent to aggression.

I am sure you have made speeches to that effect. I know I have, and I have not noticed that that had any adverse effect. Possibly it has.

WHY OVERLOOK CUBA, SUPPORT OTHER DICTATORS?

Senator CAPEHART. Just a thought is all. Of course, I do not quite understand our willingness to stop communism in Thailand, 10,000 miles away, and our unwillingness to stop it in Cuba. That is an old question; it has been argued back and forth, and I know both sides of the argument.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I am not here to discuss Cuba.

Senator CAPEHART. I know you are not.

Mr. HARRIMAN. I do not know that Cuba has any-with respect to other parts of the world, what is decided to be done in other parts of the world, has anything to do with Cuba's importance. But I would like to underline the importance that I feel personally, and the importance that I feel Southeast Asia bears to our security.

Senator CAPEHART. Another thing I do not quite understand is our apparent hatred for dictators, and yet here we go to bed with one and cuddle him, and now say that we are going to help him, and we are going to stand by him. I think we are getting ourselves into a very inconsistent position in the world.

APPRECIATION FOR MEETING

Senator GORE. At any rate, Mr. Secretary, I want to express my own appreciation for your willingness and the President's willingness to come and advise us so fully and patiently and in great detail on this problem.

Senator CAPEHART. I want to do the same thing. I thought the purpose of the meeting was to have an open discussion where one can speak his thoughts.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is exactly right.

Mr. HARRIMAN. It is very helpful.

Senator CAPEHART. I think it is good of you to do it.

FURTHER DISCUSSION OFFERED

Mr. HARRIMAN. Senator, if you are willing to stake your time against mine, I would like nothing better than to have the privilege of joining with you at luncheon and arguing with you the importance of this area to our security. I think it is very important to

us.

Senator CAPEHART. I am not questioning it at all; I am not questioning that at all, but it seems as though these things, we enter into, when they do not work out, and we have what looks like at the moment as failure after failure-maybe not failure, but the situation gets worse and worse-then it seems to me that we ought to at least think about it.

I would love to have lunch with you.