Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Indochina, Volume XIII, Part 2

751G.5 MSP/11–1054: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Department of State

secret

Paris, November 10, 1954—7 p.m.

2011. Repeated information Saigon 284. Pass copy FOA. We had opportunity this morning talk briefly with Cheysson¹ about IC aspects Mendes’ trip Washington. Cheysson said they hoping have full and frank discussion IC matters while Washington (this reflected by fact that in addition Cheysson, Jacques Roux and Froment-Meurice will join delegation Washington). We gathered from conversation following are principal IC subjects French would like discuss Washington:

1) Although Cheysson was obviously reluctant to talk about anything except fact they wished discuss United States aid FEC and “tripartite aid committee”, we did manage draw out that Mendes and his IC advisers considering possibility proposing that Bao Dai delegate full powers imperial representative to reside at Saigon. Although Cheysson did not say so in so many words, we gained impression that this formula being currently considered because it would permit Diem remain PriMin. This presumably satisfying American desires retain him but at same time would place overall and real power at Saigon in hands of imperial delegate thus satisfying French desire eventually find alternate solution what they consider to be ineffective Diem govt. We said this corresponded to one of the current variants of what appeared to be a wide-scale press campaign favoring Buu Hoi’s assumption prominent political role Viet Nam. Cheysson (almost indignantly) stated he unaware any campaign being carried on in favor Buu Hoi at Paris, and said that while Buu Hoi might be man suggested for post imperial delegate Saigon, such a suggestion should properly emanate from Saigon and not Paris. We pointed out however that while such a suggestion might emanate from Saigon, since Buu Hoi longtime resident France and perhaps better known Paris than Saigon, it might well be that we in Paris would unavoidably be called upon to express our views in this regard. We then asked if Cheysson had read L’Express’ two-page spread on Buu Hoi and introductory comment. Cheysson changed subject by saying an imperial delegate Saigon need not necessarily be Buu Hoi and reiterating that any suggestion along these lines would probably originate Saigon. He did add that imperial delegate formula would permit getting rid of Bao Dai while retaining thread legitimacy and powers deriving from position chief of state Viet Nam.

Emb Comment: In view foregoing, we think it possible that some such suggestion as outlined above may be made during Mendes’ visit Washington and presented as formula for getting rid of Bao Dai while retaining advantages deriving from imperial and chief of state roles and at same time providing for strong central authority south Vietnam able to rally support disparate elements in effort counter Viet Minh inroads. We inclined to think, however, that by time Washington talks, and as we indicated Embtel 1928,² French may feel Buu Hoi campaign may have gone too far for American sensibilities as regards his apparent soft line toward north Viet Nam and Buu Loc, who currently linked Buu Hoi campaign, may then be advanced as more palatable alternate.

2) Cheysson preferred talk about United States aid. He said that while French satisfied Franco-American understanding had been reached regarding tripartite committees for coordination economic and technical assistance IC states, they concerned that nature this understanding not fully realized IC. He said this perhaps due to French in IC trying exceed terms September understanding Washington and perhaps also due unwillingness United States officials IC to go as far as terms understanding. For example, he said our Embassy Phnom Penh apparently unaware agreement establish tripartite committee that country. Cheysson reiterated that French fully agree United States aid be extended directly to governments three IC states and that United States exercise full control over use United States funds so extended; however, French desire tripartite committee framework within each country to insure effective coordination economic and technical assistance plans before individual country aid missions initiate implementation specific plans which presumably part coordinated plan for country as whole. Cheysson said they principally interested in making certain at Washington there no misunderstanding regarding French and United States definitions of basic Franco-American September understanding. “If there is, Mendes hopes to be so informed while Washington”. We limited our comments this regard to Secretary’s recent letter this subject.³

3) Cheysson said they would hope that Governor Stassen might be in a position to inform them regarding United States intentions regarding aid for Expeditionary Corps.

Dillon

1. Claude Cheysson was currently serving as Deputy Chef de Cabinet in Premier Mendès-France’s personal Cabinet, and as an adviser on foreign affairs.
2. Telegram 1928 from Paris, Nov. 5, reporting on an article by Buu Hoi in L’Express, is not printed. The telegram characterized the article as having a “strong neutralist tenor.” (751G.00/11–554)
3. See telegram 1565 to Paris, Oct. 29, p. 2193.