Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. A. 1.djvu/23

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 TOP SECRET – Sensitive  {|style="width: 100%" cellpadding="5"
 * width="50%"|
 * width="50%"|
 * -valign="top"
 * any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council.
 * measures under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations
 * -valign="top"
 * Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
 * -valign="top"
 * It is understood that no action on the territory of any state designated by unanimous agreement or on any territory so designated shall be taken except at the invitation or with the consent of the government concerned.
 * }
 * It is understood that no action on the territory of any state designated by unanimous agreement or on any territory so designated shall be taken except at the invitation or with the consent of the government concerned.
 * }
 * }

As the American delegation at Manila noted, the SEATO Article IV was in line with the wording used in the U.S., Philippine, Korean, and ANZUS pacts. The issue of precommitment to react to armed attack was side-stepped:

"Secretary Dulles pointed out during the conference that the wording of the North Atlantic Treaty, which speaks of an attack on one as an attack on all, nevertheless provides that the Parties will act in accordance with their constitutional processes. He persuaded the Conference that the final agreed wording of Article IV would be better received by the Senate, should tend to minimize debate, and would facilitate ratification by the United. States."

The SEATO Treaty wording is thus intentionally ambiguous on the point of just what response would be made by the members in the event of an armed attack. Such an attack against one of the SEATO members would be viewed as a "common danger" rather than as an "attack on all." Where the NATO Treaty notes that action taken "forthwith" might include the "use of armed force," the SEATO Treaty states merely that "common danger" would be "met" in accordance with "constitutional processes." SEATO also makes the provision that no action shall be taken on the territory of any threatened state without the consent of that state, a qualification necessary to reassure small-country members that their independence was not threatened by neocolonialism or other domination, and recognition of one of the most significant differences in the environment of the two treaty organizations.

In some respects, nevertheless, Article IV of the SEATO Treaty is broader than its NATO counterparts. The nature of the threat is loosely Rh