159. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Posts1
1331. Moscow’s 2084 to Department.2 British Embassy here has informed us of January 19 conversation between British Ambassador Trevelyan and Soviet Deputy FonMin Lapin reported reftel. Embassy has also told us, on instructions, that FonOff considers that Soviet initiative in proposing action by Co-Chairmen on Laos represents important shift in Russian policy since summer of 1964 when Khrushchev indicated that USSR was abandoning Co-Chairman role. British went on to inquire whether we would agree with their taking advantage of Soviet initiative to probe Soviet intentions somewhat further.
If idea is acceptable to US, Trevelyan would be instructed—while refusing to join in transmission of proposed message on grounds outlined reftel—to welcome renewal of Soviet interest in Laos Co-Chairmanship and suggest initiation of informal Anglo-Russian conversations. [Page 321] Latter in British view would have dual purpose of (1) preparing report on future of ICC pursuant to Article 19 of 1962 Protocol,3 and (2) ascertaining whether or not any generally acceptable basis could be found for reconvening international conference on settlement of Laotian question. British would be agreeable have conversations take place between ambassadors in Vientiane, or in London or Moscow. Unless Russian response is wholly negative, matter could then be pursued during Gromyko visit to London in mid-March.
Finally, British point out that approach along above lines need not commit UK or other Western powers to any particular course of action. If Russian attitude either before or during conversations seemed unpromising, it would be possible to concentrate talks on future of ICC or let them lapse altogether.
We are informing British Embassy that we agree on desirability of probing Soviet intentions further. We suggest, however, that principal thrust of approach should be on question of preparing report on future of ICC, rather than on reconvening international conference, although we recognize that it may be necessary to hold out possibility of latter to interest Russians in further discussions. Possibility of conference is implicit in Article 19 of Geneva Protocol and we will urge British, if they feel it necessary to advert to conference, to relate it to requirement under Article 19 to consult with members of conference re ICC not later than July 1965. We have of course stressed that in going along with proposed approach to Soviets, we are in no way committed on question of US participation in new conference on Laos. Decision on this would depend not only on outcome of Anglo-Russian conversations but also on situation in SEA and on attitudes of RLG (and RTG and GVN).
Except for London, above should not be discussed with host governments. Approach should in general be treated with greatest discretion, as any indication of UK-USSR discussions on subject 14-nation conference could have adverse effects particularly in Vientiane.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27–14 LAOS. Confidential; Limdis. Drafted by Trueheart; cleared by Unger, William Bundy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Robert C. Creel, Director of Soviet Affairs David H. Henry, Salans, Thompson, and Director of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs J. Harold Shullaw; and approved by Rusk. Sent to Vientiane, Moscow, Paris, London, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, New Delhi, Saigon, Warsaw, and Hong Kong.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 158.↩
- Article 19 of the 1962 Protocol on the neutrality of Laos stated that the Co-Chairmen could, if the Royal Lao Government requested it, present a report with appropriate recommendations for the termination of the ICC for the consideration of members of the Conference. This must be done after consultation with the Royal Lao Government and the Commission. For text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, p. 1083.↩