Office of the Historian

751G.00/4–1853: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy at Saigon1

top secret
Washington, April 30, 1953—6:23 p.m.

2094. Saigon despatch 4512 indicates high Vietnamese and French authorities are aware extensive trafficking with enemy by Denis Freres and other French firms and adds fact this trafficking will presumably shortly be made public American press. Department profoundly disturbed and nauseated at existence this traffic which in words reference despatch “is known to high officials of the French Government but is winked at”.

Department desires Embassy Saigon take this up highest French and Vietnamese levels and urge, in interest of support for enterprise in which we are all engaged, publication news this traffic coincide with news of vigorous, effective and drastic measures by French and Vietnamese authorities stop same.3 Ambassador Heath concurs.

Dept desires Embassy Paris make similar approach Letourneau.4

In addition further facts desired re tonnage and types of material trucked between Haiphong and Hanoi, names of firms involved, etc.

Dulles
  1. Drafted by Philip W. Bonsal, Director of PSA. Also sent to Paris as telegram 5453 and repeated to Hanoi as telegram 822.↩
  2. Despatch 451 from Saigon, Apr. 18, 1953, which reported allegations of illicit trade with the enemy, is not printed. (751G.001/4–1853)↩
  3. In telegram 704 from Hanoi, May 4, Consul Sturm reported having raised the issue with Lamarque, the Cabinet Director for the French Commissioner in North Vietnam. Lamarque expressed the view that French firms themselves were innocent of trafficking with the Viet Minh, although corrupt employees might be guilty. He stated that in any event, the amount of goods involved was trifling. Sturm told the Department that in his own view, it was unlikely that large French firms would risk dealing with the enemy for small additional profits. (451G.00234/5–453)↩
  4. In telegram 5759 from Paris, May 2, Ambassador Dillon reported that he had approached Minister Letourneau, who had said that he was unaware of such traffic, but would look into the matter immediately with a view to taking appropriate measures. (751G.00/5–253)↩