S.E.A.T.O. Not Acting In Vietnam

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31003, 8 March 1966, Page 12

S.E.A.T.O. Not Acting In Vietnam

(aV.Z. Press Association —Copyright) BANGKOK, March 6. Ever since the war in Vietnam became an international conflict, questions have been asked as to why the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (5.E.A.T.0.) is not committed there, the Associated Press reports.

When it was formed in 1954, S.E.A.T.O. was envisaged as the protector of this region against Communism. South Vietnam was designated a protocol member with rights to call for military assistance from the eight-nation alliance.

S.E.A.T.O.’s headquarters in Bangkok says South Vietnam has never invoked its rights. South Vietnamese leaders explain they do not want to “embarrass” S.E.A.T.O. with a request for military assistance.

Behind South Vietnam’s decision is an awareness that differences exist among S.E.A.T.O.’s members on policies toward China. A South Vietnamese request for military assistance would undoubtedly highlight these differences and possibly further harm an alliance which China has dubbed an ineffectual paper tiger. Containment Of China When S.E.A.T:O. was formed 12 years ago, containment of China was its target. . Since then two of its members—France and Pakistan—have strengthened their relations with Peking. South Vietnam in turn, approached individual S.E.A.T.O. members—the United States, Australia and New Zealand—for military assistance. Another member, the Philippines, soon may send troops to Vietnam. Aid from France, Pakistan and S.E.A.T.O.’s other members —Britain and Thailand — has been limited mostly to advisers, cultural, economic,

flood relief and medical contributions. Thailand has the additional role of allowing its strategic bases to be used by United States planes for raids into North Vietnam and against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos. There is a belief that the war in South Vietnam has shown that a multi-nation military alliance like S.E.A.T.O. can serve little purpose in a region where conflicts between various nations can crop up overnight. Bilateral Treaties This belief carries the corollary that bilateral treaties with the United States or another of the major world powers as one of the members, are the answer. Some critics of S.E.A.T.O. have said that even Thailand, the nation perhaps benefiting most from the alliance, indicated it did not consider the pact a sufficient guarantee of its security when it reached a bilateral defence agreement with the United States in 1962. Had South Vietnam decided to seek S.E.A.T.O.’s military assistance when the war began escalating, it is generally believed. S.E.A.T.O.’s members would not have reached a unanimous vote on intervention. There are indications that France and Pakistan may have abstained or opposed intervention. Awkward For U.K. For Britain, the vote would have been somewhat awkward. Britain and the Soviet Union are co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva conference which divided Vietnam after the Indo-China war. South-east Asia Treaty Organisation officials say that intervention could have been

decided on a majority vote, with dissenting members not bound to supplement the decision. Whatever the decision, it would have rested on the United States to make the largest commitment to the conflict.