# Talk:Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

ATTENTION:
South Korea, South Vietnam, and Bangladesh were NEVER members of SEATO.
South Vietnam was excluded because of the Geneva Accords, although it along with Laos and Cambodia were designated "areas of interest".
South Korea was not IN Southeast Asia nor was it a global power that had interest in that region (DESPITE being an intervening power in the Vietnam War.)  
Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan in 1971.  Although Pakistan was a member, and thus technically the territory of Bangladesh was part of SEATO when it was part of Pakistan ("East Pakistan") Bangladesh *NEVER* joined SEATO.  

71.199.114.98 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes South Vietnam was. Can't you see the South Vietnam's flag? The yellow flag with 3 red stripes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbourn48 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 
Both of the photographs included with this article clearly show the presence of South Vietnam at the meetings!   South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were prohibited from joining any military alliance by the Geneva Accords.  However, protection of those countries was the main reason for SEATO, it being formed right after the Geneva Accords gave North Vietnam to the communists.  Therefore the protection of the alliance was extended to those countries without their having to join the alliance. Thus the spirit but not the letter of the Geneva Accords was violated -- remember that the US did not sign those accords. SEATO was Dulles' "work-around" that enabled Geneva signatories to get involved in the defence of SE Asia, and as the article notes it failed in that mission.  SEATO got involved in non-military activities because a main thrust of US cold war policy was to support economic development in countries that might be susceptible to communist revolution.  The reason for the alliance ceased to exist after 1975 with the fall of Saigon, so it died for lack of interest.  This information can be found in The Pentagon Papers, but my Kindle won't give me useful citations! TayRuong (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

need to adjust / edit graphic to show all members it is misleading.

ROK/South Korea should be colored in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.125.57.218 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Done. Also added more info to differentiate between founding members and non founding members, and those that stayed put until '77 and those that didn't.Paj.meister 12:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I found a source at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAseato.htm wiht some further information. I'll try and find a site with comprehensive information about membership later. Paj.meister 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started an infobox, hopefully something similar to that on NATO. Any contribution with more (often evasive) info is 0of course welcome! Paj.meister 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing a major rewrite of this article.  One thing I altered was the membership list: neither South Vietnam nor South Korea were ever members.  
Also, I am not certain why the Falklands Islands (located in the South Atlantic) were listed as a member of SEATO.  The Falklands are a political dependency of the United Kingdom, and does not have its own foreign policy.  
I used the 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica and several volumes of the World Almanac (1959-1977 as my basic sources.  
Also, at this point, the map is incorrect (re South Vietnam and South Korea.  I am not certain how to change it. 
I also changed the reference to the author of the containment policy from John Foster Dulles to George F. Kennan.  Since the original article correctly noted that the containment policy was an outgrowth of the Truman Doctrine, this was done in the Truman Administration (which included Kennan in the State Department Policy Planning Division); Dulles served as Secretary of State in the Eisenhower Administration.  
I will continue to do research for any additional information that should be inserted in this article.
Sorry, I hit the "send" button too quickly.  The above was written by NelsonLB 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Falklands was someone's idea of a joke. However: South Korea I'm not sure about, but I would be almost certain that South Vietnam was a member, I mean the establishment of North Vietnam was the main reason why SEATO was formed. Are you sure we aren't just listing founding members in the article and ignoring those who joined later? Regards, Grant65 | Talk 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me do some more checking on that!74.134.12.144 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the image, so it only has the founding members.Paj.meister 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Though perhaps a bit short, it does technically fulfill all the requirements of a B-class article, so congrats. And good work on the map! I'm really not sure how to handle task forces on these types of things, as the subject is far from centrally important to the history/politics of many member countries (UK, US) - if we had a SE Asian task force... LordAmeth 14:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While doing some earlier changes, I raised the issue of the membership of SEATO not including either South Korea or South Vietnam.  This assertion  was questioned by one of my learned colleagues.  Accordingly, as promised, I did some further research on this point over the last two weeks. 
The reference materials I consulted included the World Almanacs for 1958 (p. 774), 1960 (p. 826), 1965 (pp. 155 and 213), 1967 (p. 682), 1968 (p. 549), 1969 (pp. 316 and 573), 1972 (p. 593), and 1973(p. 631); the Reader's Digest Almanacs for 1967 (p. 904), 1968 (p.60), 1969 (p. 832), and 1971 (p. 312); the Information Please Almanacs for 1958 (p. 60), 1959 (p. 66), 1960 (p. 464 and map on pp 180-181), and 1970 (p. 559 and the map on 242-243); The 1961 American Peoples' Encyclopedia Yearbook for 1960 (p. 826); The Times [of London] Atlas of World History (published 1978) (p. 328); The American Annual for 1958 (pp. 713-714), and the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1966 (p. 693).  I also checked several websites, including the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica.   
(Let me explain that I collect old almanacs, so I had all of these in my basement.)
In every listing about SEATO in these materials the members of the organization listed were the original founding members: France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippine Islands, Australia, and New Zealand. In no listing was either South Korea or South Vietnam included as a member. In no listing was there any mention of any other country joining the original eight in the organization.   
Part of the confusion may be that South Korean troops did fight (pursuant to American diplomatic pressure and while being paid for and equipped by the American government)in Vietnam. However, they did so as an American ally, not because of any SEATO membership.  The Allied Forces (as they were called) in Vietnam did not fight under any kind of SEATO command.
South Vietnam was not a member of SEATO as a result of the 1954 Geneva Accords, which forbade it from joining any military alliances.  I do not have a good single citation on this, but I have seen this point referenced several times, and I will find a specific citation to it. 
I submit this to my colleagues as a documented substantiation of the membership list for SEATO, and accordingly will change the listing in the article.  I have a more technically gifted friend who is going to modify the map. Regards,NelsonLB 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Further research resulted in the determination that South Vietnam was prohibited from joining any military alliances (e.g., SEATO) by Article 19 of the Agreement to End Hostilities in Vietnam and Paragraph 5 of the Final Declaration, both of which emerged from the Geneva Conference of 1954. This is the reason that South Vietnam was not a member of SEATO, even though SEATO was created in response to the West's concern about the expansion of communism in southeast Asia.NelsonLB 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that South Vietnam was NOT a member.  However, BOTH of the photographs that accompany this article clearly show the Republic of Vietnam's flag, and the caption of one of them lists Ky as a participant.  This is crying out for an explanation!! TayRuong (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't John Foster Dulles the architect of SEATO? --Noypi380 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is fair to say that Secretary fo State John Foster Dulles (1953-1959)was the main architect of SEATO.  In the original article, Dulles was credited with being the architect of the "containment policy." This was actually started in the Truman Administration, with the intellectual basis created in 1946, the date of Kennan's famous "Long Telegram" from Moscow.  Do you think the article should mention that Dulles was the lead architect of SEATO (and in a way the architect of the application of the containment policy to southeast Asia)? NelsonLB 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dulles should be mentioned for that. :-) --Noypi380 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done this yet, because I am gathering some other material to add with it, but I will soon. NelsonLB 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have today switched a number of references to "collective security" to read "collective defence." The difference is often confused or overlooked by laymen and is mostly academic anyway, but we may as well be accurate. 

"collective defence" refers to an agreement by which 2 or more States agree to defend each other against agression by other party(ies) external to the agreement. NATO, SEATO, CSTO are all collective defence organizations since their primary goal is to prevent and resist aggression from a state outside the organization.
"collective security" is a security arrangement in which the members of the system agree to monitor each other; that is, all agree that all will resist aggression by any single member. Theoretically speaking such an arrangement would lead to the complete isolation of an aggressor. The League of Nations was the first Collective Security organization.
Dmhaglund 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

you must be joking, right?--88.217.59.90 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southeast Asia Treaty Organization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Stake my claim on this now, will aim to read and leave comments over the coming weekend... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Guoguo12--Talk--  21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Because of limited time at any one session, I'll take a couple of passes at this review....
Toolbox check

No dab links
No external link problems
Structure

Looks appropriate.
Supporting materials

All images appear appropriately licensed and captioned except the black-and-white conference one, which seems to use a deprecated licence tag -- this should be sorted out.
 Done Guoguo12--Talk--  19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The infobox images have alt text, but not the other images. While not strictly a requirement, be good to have consistency and put alt text on all images.
 Done Guoguo12--Talk--  19:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Referencing

Last sentence of Origins and structure should be cited.
 Done. I've replaced what was there before with something more clear and something I could reference. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ditto last sentence of first para, and entire second para, of Membership.
 Done. To be precise, I removed the second paragraph as per WP:OR, since I couldn't find any sources backing it up. Pakistan (and Britain, too, for that matter) was a part of CENTO, but CENTO was created after SEATO. The text was added in this edit about four years ago. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That's it for the first pass; checks on prose and coverage/accuracy to come later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates, satisfied all the above points are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Referencing (cont'd)

Can't see where Dreisbach is cited. In such a case the book could appear in a Further reading section but not where it is now.
 Moved. It was there before I started working on the article, but now that all (or most) of the text can be attributed to other sources, it's probably not needed anymore. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Content and accuracy

I don't think there's any harm in writing the members nations as a sentence list in the Membership section, even though they can be found in the infobox. That way you could move the citation in the infobox to the main body of the aticle.
While we have an entire section on cultural effects (which is fine) there's no similiar military aspects section, even though it was a defence pact. Granted it appears to have been a bit of a toothless tiger, but Royal Australian Air Force fighters were based at Ubon under the terms of the treaty, to protect Thailand and intervene in Laos if necessary. Seato plans in 1960 also called for deployment of four squadrons of RAAF fighters and bombers to Thailand and South Vietnam to support the Australian Army in a 'worst case' scenario. In 1964, the US, Thailand and Australia set up a joint air defence system for Thailand through Seato. There were also contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Chinese forces intervening in SE Asia. Finally, the Australian government used Seato as part of its rationale for joining the Vietnam War. I can provide citations for all this but your other sources might yield a bit more on military deployments and plans under the treaty as well. If you can include a Military aspects section, I'd do so immediately before the Cultural effects section.
Prose

Seems quite satisfactory -- well done.
Summary

That's it for my review, aside from any discussion you'd like to have. Overall, seems a nice brief summation of the treaty, just a bit light military-wise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Any chance you could provide me with your sources? I hadn't found anything about the RAAF before in my other sources. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, all the RAAF references above may be found in the official history covering the period 1946–71, Going Solo, which the Air Power Development Centre has kindly made  available online recently -- it's PDF and you can just search for "Seato" to catch everything I've mentioned. The last bit about using the treaty as a rationale for committing troops to Vietnam comes from "South-East Asia Treaty Organization" in The Oxford Companion Australian Military History. Edited by Peter Dennis, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, Robin Prior and Jean Bou. Oxford University Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online at National Library of Australia (subscription required). Now, just remember my biases: I'm Australian and I write RAAF-related articles, so I don't want to overbalance the article in that direction, they're just a few examples of military aspects, some of might be used in conjunction with anything you have relating to other treaty members. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think I've included the more important bits—namely, the fact that SEATO was used as a gateway to greater involvement (U.S. and Australian) during Vietnam. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple of tweaks for presentation and content but essentially I think you've done a good job -- I just feel it's a bit better balanced now with the military section in there. One question, can I just confirm that American membership in SEATO provided the United States with a rationale for a large-scale U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia that other countries, such as Great Britain and key nations in Asia, would find acceptable is correct, and the last part shouldn't be "would not find acceptable"? It works fine if what they're finding acceptable is the US rationale, rather than the military intervention itself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done Ambiguous text fixed. What I meant was that the U.S. rationale was found acceptable, not the intervention. Guoguo12--Talk--  18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks mate, passing as GA -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and review! Guoguo12--Talk--  18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it pronounced? see-to? see-ahto? see-ayto? 11:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.195.241 (talk)  

It is pronounced; "sea-toe".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426162320/http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/pm_his.htm to http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/pm_his.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Even though the standing structures of the organization we're dissolved the mutual defence treaty itself remains in place and is still observed. The US as recently as last year still considers it the base of it's participation in Thai defence affairs, as even the sources currently in the article say. As it is now, the manilla pact is still considered in force by the US, Thailand, the Phillipines, France, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. They never claimed otherwise and specifically actually state the treaty is still in force for mutual defence even if the Seato organization is defunct. Do we make a separate page for the manilla pact or just another section?
~~badkarma12 —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 29 October 2017‎ (UTC)

A section at the bottom of this article would be fine, I think. Manila Pact already redirects here, and there's not that much content to be covered separately. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose we find a map in English, as this IS the English encyclopedia. So can we find a map in English as a replacement for the current one on the right? GermanGamer77 21:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In which building was its headquarters? Shogiru-r (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Korea was not a member, so the picture is unexplained. As the other user pointed out, the meaning of protocol state is also unexplained. Otto Askr (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)