790.5/5–2254: Telegram
The Under Secretary of State (Smith) to the Department of State
niact
Dulte 97. Eyes only Secretary. Re Teduls 93 and 98.1 Eden left early this morning for Paris and London before I had time to analyze or to speak to him regarding our JCS recommendations on the British text re five-power staff talks.
Since I received these comments in Tedul 93, you have probably seen Avis Gento 32 of 21 May2 reporting summary given him3 by Colonel Monckton, British military adviser. You will note that the British propose these talks be conducted at Chief of Staff level, Australia and New Zealand concurring. They intend to send to Washington the Army Chief of Staff, General Harding, with advisers of major general rank from the other three services. This automatically lifts talks above level of “five-power staff agency”.
You will also note the comprehensive items for discussion proposed by British delegation here to British Chiefs of Staff, which I assume will be adopted.
Under these circumstances, I am extremely reluctant to open up again the whole matter with Eden on the basis of our JCS comments, some of which I think are no longer pertinent, and most of which I think should be settled by these senior staff officers themselves when they first meet in Washington.
[Page 508]Department’s assumption that omission of informing Associated States from Eden’s memo4 is an oversight, is correct. He understands they will be informed. He also understands that the information which will be given by the several participants to their Asiatic proteges as to terms of reference will vary. His wording is that which he proposes to use to those nations that will be informed by Britain, and I told him that we would probably modify it to a certain extent in speaking to the countries whom we are to inform.
I have pushed this matter pretty hard with Eden because I believe that these talks were desirable to lay some of the dust which has been raised about disunity, and also because I believe that serious military technical discussions are imperative.
So far as joint participation in staff conversations are concerned, the first objective has already been accomplished by the press. The scope and effectiveness of the second will depend very largely on the ability of the soldiers to get down to serious business, and as we have quite enough points of friction here, I would hope to be relieved of the necessity of going again to Eden on this matter unless a real major issue arises.
Monckton informed us that Eden is very concerned about the leak to the British press of details regarding the five-power talks and that a thorough investigation is being made both at London and at Geneva to determine the source.
- Both dated May 20, pp. 493 and 501, respectively.↩
This Army telegram was received in the Department of State on May 28. It reads in part:
“Eden has concurred British Joint Chiefs Proposal to conduct Washington five-power talks at Chief of Staff level. Propose send Army chiefs. Accompanying will be advisors (major general rank) from three services. Australia and New Zealand concur.
“British del Geneva yesterday cabled British Joint Chiefs recommending following subjects be considered at Washington:
- “1. Military situation Indochina, making use of new information obtained by General Ely and team.
- “2. Courses of action in event no Indochina settlement is reached Geneva.
- “3. Courses of action in event settlement is reached Geneva.
“Consensus working level British delegate Geneva that discussion points 2 and 3 above should include consideration of: a. Immediate deterrents, b. Strengthening SEA countries against internal Communism, c. Strengthening SEA countries against external Communism.
“Monckton believes discussions should focus on Associated States, Thailand and Burma but not necessarily to exclusion of other SEA countries.
“British delegate Geneva believes it necessary to consider political as well as military factors during Washington talks. British representatives will have brief prepared by Eden as guide.” (790.5/5–2854)
↩- Vice Admiral Arthur C. Davis.↩
- See telegram Dulte 84, May 18, p. 488.↩