Subversion Now Main Concern Of SEATO

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27874, 24 January 1956, Page 13

Subversion Now Main Concern Of SEATO

(Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, January 23.

Reviewing the first year of the South-east Asian Treaty Organisation and the meeting in Melbourne of the organisation’s military advisers, the weekly “Economist” says there appear to be no urgent situations requiring collective military action within the area covered by the treaty and suggests that at the moment subversion has replaced military security as SEATO’s central concern.

“The only region in the Far East that still presents elements of general military danger is Formosa, which is explicitly excluded from the SEATO area,” it says. “The other danger spots continue to be—as they have never ceased to be since the end of the IndoChina war—Laos and Vietnam. Neither of these countries is a member of SEATO. but both are sheltered under its protective mantle. Military attack upon either would presumably be regarded as a case for collective action by SEATO. even if the attack came from within the countries concerned.

“Whether through awareness of this attitude or through other causes, Communist policy in Asia no longer

appears to favour military action: subversion in all its aspects has thus replaced military security as the central concern of SEATO,” says the “Economist.” “This, however, faces the signatories with an unpleasant dilemma: subversion by its very nature is an internal matter: at what point does it begim to constitute aggression and therefore justify outside intervention? “So far, no satisfactory way out of the dilemma has been discovered: the farthest its members are prepared to go is in making it clear that a country whose government appeals to SEATO because its survival is threatened by subversion shall be entitled .to help if tbe circumstances warrant it. The flaw in the argument is that any intervention that resulted from such an appeal might come too late to prevent the overthrow of a government. The danger would then be that intervention might lead to a general war. In these circumstances the deliberations of the sub-committee on countersubversion are of particular importance.” The “Economist” says SEATO’s first year shows “a modest record” and adds that it has proved a comfort io its three Asian members, particularly to the most exposed of them, Siam, “which regards the organisation as a safeguard that justifies in some measure its policy of total alignment with the West

“Additionally, SEATO. with the backing of American military power and the provision of facilities for military co-operation, is certainly a deterrent against military adventures by the Communist armies of Asia. It has not removed the threat of subversion and may be inadequate to deal with it, but if SEATO did not exist, the military threat would be greater and the threat of subversion no less than before the treaty was signed,” it says. The “New York Times,” commenting on the Melbourne meeting, says SEATO is to get its military “teeth.” but it needed the other sort as well. There had been a relatively high degree of unanimity at the four-day meeting of the military representatives of the eight SEATO nations and this was important, the newspaper added. The fresh “teeth” now announced for SEATO consisted primarily in a unanimity of planning. “Meanwhile,” it said, “it should be remembered that the military phase of this defensive alliance is only a part of its scope.” The next large meeting in Bangkok was expected to be devoted in part to i a consideration of how to meet more effectively the threat of subversion. Beyond that there was the pledge of mutual economic assistance and cultural co-operation. “SEATO will be stronger when it can attract others of the threatened Asian States,” the newspaper said. “Military commitments alone will not constitute this attraction. The alliance is to get its military ‘teeth.’ It needs the other sort as well,” it added.