Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Indochina, Volume XIII, Part 1

751J.00/4–1553

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Baker of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs

secret

[Washington,] April 15, 1953.

Subject:

• Reported Invasion of Laos by Vietminh Forces.

Participants:

• Ambassador Heath
• Mr. Bonsal, PSA
• Mr. Hoey, PSA
• Mr. McBride, WE
• Miss Bacon, FE¹
• Mr. Taylor, UNP²
• Mr. Stein, UNP³
• Mr. Baker, UNP

At the request of UNP a meeting was held this morning to discuss problems relating to the reported invasion of Laos by Vietminh Forces and the declaration issued by the Lao Government on April 14 which “solemnly calls to the attention of the United Nations and Free Peoples” the act of foreign interference and requests “formal condemnation of Viet Minh aggression.”⁴

The following conclusions were reached: (1) Inquiry should be made discreetly through the US Mission to the United Nations to determine whether the Laos Government declaration had been brought formally to the attention of the Secretariat; (2) The French Government should be consulted to determine its views with respect to referral of the question to the United Nations without suggesting such referral; (3) The Department of State should have in readiness a statement condemning the Vietminh invasion as further aggressive interference in the affairs of the Associated States of Indochina.

As to the question of possible referral to the United Nations it was agreed that the French attitude on this question should be a major factor in our decision. Mr. McBride reported that the French Embassy has not received any instructions on the Laos declaration. It was recalled that heretofore the French have not favored the “internationalization” of the Indochina situation by reference of the question to the United Nations.

It was agreed that the United Nations could give consideration to the question of Laos apart from the question of Indochina as a whole if that should prove to be politically desirable, inasmuch as the Laos situation represented an invasion by foreign forces not strictly comparable to the activities of the Vietminh within Vietnam even though the Vietminh there received assistance from outside the state. It was pointed out, however, that such a separation of the question of Laos from that of Vietnam would tend to categorize hostilities in Vietnam as a civil war contrary to repeated official statements that it represented aggressive interference by the Chinese Communists in the internal affairs of Vietnam.

In discussing the question of possible forms of UN action it was the consensus that the Security Council would be the appropriate organ to consider the question, and that given US and French support the seven votes required to place the question on the agenda would be forthcoming. In the absence of a rapidly developing military situation an appropriate form of Security Council action would be to seek further information through the Peace Observation Commission or a special fact finding group. Reference was made to the utility of such a commission in the somewhat comparable situation in Greece. In addition to some deterrent effect of the presence of such a commission on foreign assistance to the invaders, Mr. Stein pointed out that the factual data provided by such an investigation might serve as a basis for a Security Council resolution of condemnation of such foreign assistance. The terms of reference of a fact finding body could be restricted to a study of foreign assistance if that should be desirable. If condemnatory action by the Security Council were vetoed such findings of fact, it was pointed out, would tend to increase Asian support for possible action by the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution.

Ambassador Heath favored maximum exploitation of the political and psychological advantages of demonstrating Communist aggression in contrast to peaceful pretensions. Mr. Bonsal expressed doubts that any United Nations action short of a resounding vote for the French position would be useful in such exploitation. Miss Bacon pointed out that the Arab-Asian attitude toward France’s policies in Indochina and the Tunis-Morocco situation might be expected to influence the votes of many of those states.

In discussion of Ambassador Heath’s suggestion that the Department should issue a strong statement condemning the invasion as aggression, Mr. Stein pointed out the possibility that such a statement might encourage a demand from our domestic opinion or an initiative from some other UN member to refer the question to the United Nations. The connection between the Korean armistice negotiations and any formal condemnation of the invasion as Communist aggression was also pointed out by Miss Bacon and Mr. Stein. Mr. Taylor made the suggestion that to minimize these difficulties any Departmental statement referring to the aggression might place the latest act in the context of the whole problem of Communist interference in Indochina over the past seven years.

1. Ruth E. Bacon, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.
2. Paul B. Baylor, Officer in Charge, General Assembly Affairs.
3. Uric Stein, Acting Officer in Charge, Pacific Settlement Affairs.

4. A translation of the declaration issued by the Lao Government was transmitted to Washington in telegram 24 from Vientiane, Apr. 14, not printed. (751J.5/4–1453) The original French text was transmitted in despatch 49 of Apr. 20, which also contained the text of a similar appeal which the Government of Laos directed to the United States on Apr. 17. (751J.5/4–2053) The French text of the initial Laotian appeal is printed in L’Année Politique, 1953, p. 572.

   For a condensed translation of an additional note from the Government of Laos to the United States, delivered on May 4 (Press Release No. 242, May 5), see Department of State Bulletin, May 18, 1953, p. 709.