Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume II, Vietnam, 1962

153. Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Vietnam Affairs, Agency for International Development (Stoneman)¹

Washington, April 10, 1962.

SUBJECT

• Inter-Agency Meeting on Vietnam Civic Action Problems—April 10, 1962

The attendees are listed on the attached sheet.²

Mr. Stoneman explained that he had asked Mr. Wood, Deputy Director of the Vietnam Task Force, to be co-chairman of this meeting, which had grown far beyond what had originally been intended, namely, an informal discussion between himself and a few DOD officials on the current status and problems of civic action in Vietnam.

It was recognized at the outset that the questions being discussed at this meeting were dependent more on action by the GVN and U.S. Missions co-ordination in Saigon than on Washington action. It was also pointed out that recent cables such as Embtels 1166 and 1171³ were already sent to elicit information from the field which appears necessary to enable Washington to more effectively support field endeavors in civic action.

The meeting agenda consisted essentially of the following series of questions with an attempt to formulate lines of action for dealing with them:

1. What is the relationship among civic action (which by definition is performed by military forces), rural development (as supported by AID), and other programs supported by USIA … ? Mr. Stoneman proposed that the principal focus of action be on how to help the GVN to gain and hold the allegiance of the rural population throughout Vietnam without respect to bureaucratic considerations as to whether it is technically civic action being done by military types, or rural development being done by civilians being supported by AID, USIA or CIA. It was emphasized that the sweep of action which is necessary to make the pacification program a success in Vietnam requires that help to the villages be a continuum and not unduly segmented because of agency and funding categories. It was proposed that in all planning and staff work with respect to this problem, the focus be on continuous attention to the villages and that, to this end, the phrase “Civic Action (military)—Rural Development” be employed. It is hoped that this approach will help assure that there are not gaps between various agency functions, and that in Washington staff work attention will be focused on the total spectrum of what is being done for the rural population, rather than on individual agencyʼs program.

2. What is the co-ordinating mechanism in being, and what new might be needed, with respect to military-civil activities (a) within the Vietnamese government, (b) within U.S. agencies in Vietnam, and (c) within U.S. agencies in Washington? Some discussion revolved around the fact that the Ministry of Civic Action of the Vietnamese Government is in fact concerned with civilian-type assistance to the villagers. It was also pointed out that by virtue of their superior organization and staffing, the Vietnamese military have more capability than the civil agencies for civic action-type work.

With respect to co-ordination of U.S. agencies in Saigon, it was suggested by some that this was quite effective, but there remains an uneasy feeling that there seemed to be several unexplained gaps in information and the flow of work that might indicate that more effective co-ordination is yet to be desired. There was discussion as to whether a single director should be appointed to preside over all U.S. agenciesʼ efforts within any particular field, such as medical services.

With respect to co-ordination in Washington, Mr. Stoneman (with Mr. Woodʼs concurrence) suggested that closer and more regular interagency co-ordination might be fruitful, but that in lieu of any more standing committees, this need be met by adding a regular civic action agenda item to the weekly meetings of the Vietnam Task Force. Among other things, this would frequently bring civic action specialists into the TF/VN forum. Emphasis would be more on solving problems than on formal reports.

3. Considerable discussion revolved around whether a problem in fact remained with respect to the reported inability to use MAP funds for certain types of civilian aid such as medicines to be dispensed to civilians by VN military civic action teams, and as to whether there were AID procedural blocks to the fullest of AID support of military civic action activities. It was widely agreed that what is needed is a completely integrated approach to the basic problem of pacification in Vietnam, and that there needs to be complete flexibility with respect to cross-servicing between the U.S. military and civilian agencies with the primary criteria being (a) what is the need, (b) who can best meet it within the time-frame involved. Specific questions regarding such things as cross-servicing on medical supplies and on personnel are to be vigorously explored among various agency staff members present.

1. Source: Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files: Lot 66 D 193, 8. GVN, 1962, Information & Civic Action. Confidential. Stoneman prepared the memorandum on April 18.
2. Not printed.
3. Document 144 and footnote 3 thereto.