751G.55/9–1650: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Legation at Saigon 1
278. Infotel Sept 14.2 Fol is summary of results informal conversations IC between US and Fr staff NY and tripartite conversations Sept 14: At Acheson’s invitation Schuman opened conversations by canvassing history of Fr effort IC since Sept 1946. Turning to suggestion of Nat Armies Schuman described his Govt as particularly eager that this project advance in spite of occasional apparent indifferences of some Fr functionaries in IC. Obstacles to successful development Nat armies: (1) Shortage of officers, many of whom do not wish to leave Armies Fr Union (2) Lack money which France hopes US will provide, (3) Uncertain prospect of Chi invasion against which contingency Schuman made formal request for direct US tactical air assistance should invasion eventuate.3 Schuman then emphasized [Page 881] importance of earliest possible tripartite military conversations on high level. He concluded by saying that he realized that the volume and timing of US assistance in IC depended upon the military situation elsewhere at any given time; that he also realized that it was impossible for the US to make any firm commitment of US forces at this moment.
Mr. Bevin said he had nothing to add.
Acheson said that the US considered the development of military power in IC both native and Fr, as of high importance; that the US had accorded its assistance programs to IC high priority; that US proposed to increase its military assistance program; that US needed further details of the Fr program for the development of National Armies upon which details his staff and that of Mr. Schuman’s were now working. (Note: Dept officers and Wallner preparing list of questions answers to which will be necessary to final high level decision in Wash as to extent and character US final participation in National Armies project. Info supplied by Fr delegation at NY inadequate.) Acheson said it was US desire to contribute to National Armies project through provision of end-use items; that we did not wish to contribute money for local use.
Acheson said US cld not promise tactical air support in event Chi invasion.
Acheson said US wished to commence tripartite high level military conversations on IC soonest; that these shld take place Far East where lessons of Korean campaign shld be taken into account.
Schuman expressed thanks, said Secy’s remarks strengthened their hopes and bolstered their potential position. Expressed hope that improvement Korean situation wld result increased US assistance IC. (Mr. Bevin made no comment.)
- Repeated to Paris as 1364, London as 1434, Djakarta as 275, and Bangkok as 257.↩
- The reference information telegram is not printed. The record of the fourth Acheson–Bevin–Schuman meeting, September 14, and the record of a preliminary staff discussion on Indochina and Southeast Asia on August 30 and Doc. 8 (D–6a) on Southeast Asia, September 1 (prepared by a tripartite drafting group), are scheduled for publication in volume iii.↩
- The question of United States tactical air support arose in connection with a French request that the United States undertake to commit a carrier should the Communist Chinese enter Indochina. This request was presumably first delivered at the tripartite preparatory discussion of August 30, although the record of that meeting contains no specific reference to a carrier but only to undefined measures of United States assistance requested by the French for the eventuality of a Chinese attack. In a memorandum of his conversation with Pierre Millet, Counselor of the French Embassy, September 7, G. McMurtrie Godley of the Office of Western European Affairs stated the following: “When Mr. Millet called this afternoon he emphasized that at the preparatory talks last week Mr. Daridan was not referring to a MAP carrier for use in Far Eastern waters but rather appealing for a United States commitment of an American carrier with American personnel to supply tactical air support to the French in Indochina were the Chinese communists to cross the Tonkin border.” (751G.5/9–750)↩