Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume I, Vietnam, 1961

218. Memorandum of a Conversation, The White House¹

Washington, November 7, 1961, 10–10:32 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• The President
• Secretary of State
• Ambassador J.K. Galbraith, U.S. Ambassador to India
• Mr. Walt Rostow, Special Assistant to the President
• Assistant Secretary of State Phillips
• Talbot
• Prime Minister Nehru
• Foreign Secretary Desai
• Ambassador B.K. Nehru, Indian Ambassador to U.S.

[Here follows discussion of the Berlin situation and Soviet foreign policy.]

Turning to another subject, the President acknowledged the importance India places in its geographic situation in relation to its foreign policy. He also recalled that the United States had been neutralist for a long time. Nevertheless he wanted to say that we would like India to oppose us on issues when we were wrong and to support us on those occasions when we might be right. The Prime Minister welcomed the opportunity afforded by this comment to explain the Indian approach to international issues. Indians naturally seek to act on the merit of each matter, the Prime Minister said, but he attaches importance to the manner of approach as well. He wants to create the feeling that India wants to be friendly and wants to cooperate with other nations even though it does not necessarily agree with each of them on a particular point. It is not a question of finding a midway position between the United States and the Soviet Union; that would have no meaning, really. The worst of the cold war is that it makes everyone rigid in mind and in spirit and so it becomes difficult for either side to deal with the other side. If the way to war is obstructed, then a feeling will come that matters can be dealt with in other ways, and the approach becomes easier.

The President described the foreign policy of the United States as, of course, to support countries with democratic systems, but even more basically to support national sovereignty. Sometimes this means, unhappily, that we support governments not fully supported by their own people. Yet it is not always easy to withdraw. In some places we believe that if we should withdraw communism might take over by subversion. This is the problem that faces us; we don’t object when communists take over by electoral means as Jagan did in British Guiana.

The Prime Minister asked why communism has an appeal to many people. Mainly, he felt, it develops in poor and underdeveloped countries. The President pointed out that in many areas communism takes over by force and subversion. The Prime Minister agreed that no one would view with approval terroristic tactics, adding, however, that military actions bring unfortunate results. The very act of meeting a situation militarily may make it worse. For example, with the help of United States forces a situation may be cleared but it is very likely that the position of the leaders then becomes weaker because of their dependence on an outside power. Thus the problem is not settled.

President Kennedy explained that we are faced with a situation in which we are making efforts to settle the Laos problem but at the same time there are serious attacks on South Vietnam, some of them via Laos. If these should succeed, it would look as if by our willingness to negotiate on Laos we had lost both Laos and Vietnam. That would discredit our efforts and make it impossible for us to negotiate on other issues, including Berlin.

Ambassador Galbraith interjected that several members of this Administration have had the view that truly neutral countries offer opportunities for us to help economically to build them up. If in Laos or in any other country neutralism becomes merely a stage which precedes a communist takeover then the whole concept of neutralism will become a stench in the nostrils. The question is what India and other countries can do about this.

Agreeing that there is a question of what to do, Prime Minister Nehru observed that the whole idea in the Geneva Conference of 1954 was to create international commissions to meet this situation. To some extent it has been the failure to live up to these commitments that has led to later difficulties. If the commissions had not been there he was convinced that trouble would have come much sooner in Vietnam. In Laos, indeed, trouble did come after the commission was closed down. These things don’t always happen according to plans or our decision. We can affect them sometimes but not always. The Prime Minister said he realized the position of the United States is difficult because the United States is tied up in many matters from which it is difficult to come out.

On Laos the President said that the United States will try to persuade the three Princes to come together promptly, in this month of November. But, he added, we don’t want our efforts in Laos to end in a collapse in South Vietnam.

[Here follows discussion of nuclear testing, the Kashmir question, Indo-Pakistani relations, Ghana, and Yugoslavia.]

1. Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 65 D 366, CF 1990. Secret. Drafted by Talbot and approved in the Office of the Secretary on November 26 and in the White House on December 4. (Kennedy Library, JFK Appointment Books) For Galbraith’s account of the conversation, see Ambassador’s Journal, p. 248.