Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 236
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Commonwealth Affairs (Horsey)
Subject:
- Secretary’s Trip to London and Paris and Geneva Conference
Participants:
- Ambassador Spender, Australia
- Ambassador Munro, New Zealand
- Ambassador Heeney, Canada
- Acting Secretary Smith
- Mr. Merchant—EUR
- Mr. Horsey—BNA
The three Ambassadors came at the Acting Secretary’s invitation. The course of the discussions in London and Paris was described in detail.1
We had felt that, because of the deterioration in Indochina, there were essentially only two alternatives for the Indochina phase of the conference: disguised capitulation by the French or disguised capitulation by the Communists. It was therefore necessary to have an additional element of strength, such as the demonstration of a united will to take whatever action was necessary.
The Secretary felt that his trip had been successful in removing misunderstandings as to our purposes and in reaching substantial agreement. Both Governments had agreed in the communiqués to discuss collective arrangements here in Washington.
All three Ambassadors emphasized the importance which public opinion attached to a convincing demonstration of French intentions [Page 531] of granting real independence to the three Associated States. Ambassador Heeney said that this was particularly important in obtaining the support of those not directly involved. He also mentioned the importance of Indian reaction. The Acting Secretary called attention to Bidault’s emphasis on French public opinion. The satisfactory agreement with Laos was noted. As to Vietnam, the limitations imposed by the French constitution and by the continuation in office of local French officials with a colonial mentality were recognized. As to how Vietnam would be represented at Geneva, this had not been discussed in Paris. It was not in fact known whether the Vietnam Government wished to be represented formally, since their participation might lead to the presence of Ho. The Acting Secretary said he thought it would be an advantage to get Ho to the conference table.
In reply to a question by Ambassador Spender, Mr. Merchant said there had been no discussion in Paris on any specific French proposals for terms of settlement in Indochina, beyond what had been publicly put forward by Laniel some weeks ago.2 The Acting Secretary mentioned, however, that at the working level in Paris there were suggestions for a settlement along territorial lines. We did not feel that these offered a practicable solution.
On Korea, which the Acting Secretary said was after all the main purpose of the conference, there was discussion of our differences with the British on the seating arrangements.3 The Acting Secretary said that consideration was being given to the Australian Ambassador’s suggestion that Hammarskjold act as permanent Chairman of the Conference. Rhee had not yet agreed to attend and of course he had to be there as one of the principals. He was in the meanwhile asking increased military support. We were ourselves anxious to reduce our commitments in Korea and were proposing to offer certain forms of increased military support without, however, building Rhee up to the point where he could take independent action.
On the substance of the Korean phase, Eden had come to agree with our position, after it had been presented as a logical continuation of the UN unification process interrupted by the 1950 aggression. The various proposals for unification by some form of election were canvassed. The Acting Secretary stressed that we should not give away all of our bargaining position in preliminary negotiations between ourselves. The Communists always started from an extreme position [Page 532] and it was essential for us also to have a retreat position. The three Ambassadors expressed great appreciation to the Acting Secretary for the briefing which they had received.