Office of the Historian

248. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson to the Ambassador in Cambodia (McClintock)1

Washington, August 21, 1956.

Dear Rob: I very much appreciated your long and thoughtful letter of August 1, together with its attachment.2 It contained a great deal of useful information, both new and supplementary to that which you had already reported. I will comment on only two questions on the two problems discussed in your incoming letter.

With regard to the aid program, it seems that the main pressure for cutting off aid to Cambodia at the present time is coming from the Pentagon not from Congress or American public opinion. It is possible that the Pentagon believes aid funds now going to Cambodia could be used somewhere else. As you have recently been informed by a telegram, the entire question of the military aid program to Cambodia has been referred for study to the Strategic Planning Committee of the JCS. It is difficult for us to follow this study as it goes on, for there is resistance to any guidance being given during this study. However we will attempt to continue to secure consideration of all pertinent papers and certainly will take an active part in any final consideration of the aid program.

I was called before the Zablocki Committee3 to discuss the Cambodian aid program along with other matters. The request from the Subcommittee for such a discussion followed immediately after the Sihanouk visit to Moscow, and especially after the joint communiqué was published in Moscow and press reports of Sihanouk’s effusive speech and toasts at the Kremlin reception.

In summary, I explained to the Subcommittee that our aid program to Cambodia was in our own national interest and was designed to serve no other purpose. I stated that I did not believe Sihanouk had gone so far that continued aid would not be in our national interest. I pointed out that some of the things Nehru does and says are not at all pleasant but we are continuing to give aid to India, not Mr. Nehru. Likewise, Cambodia is bigger than Sihanouk. I did add that in case there were substantial cuts in the aid program, we would have to place our money on the best bets and in such a case, Cambodia might be left out. I believe, however, the cuts were not deep enough to eliminate Cambodia and at present we are planning to continue aid to Cambodia. The purpose of this aid will still be to assist Cambodia to remain independent; it is not a token of our liking for Sihanouk.

Therefore, I cannot agree with Admiral Radford when he states that U.S. assistance to Cambodia will probably cease because Congress will not put up with Sihanouk any longer. We are planning aid for Cambodia in 1957, as evidenced by our recent telegrams from here and by discussions which you have held with Dr. Moyer in Phnom Penh. We anticipate a cut in aid to Cambodia but as you have indicated in your telegrams you share our view that such a cut is both possible and desirable.

Therefore, I believe you are correct in assuming that there will be no radical change in our policy in Cambodia at this time.

With warm regards,

Sincerely yours,

Walter S. Robertson4
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751H.00/8–156. Top Secret; Official–Informal. Drafted by Price on August 17 and cleared by Young.↩
  2. Document 244.↩
  3. The Far East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Clement J. Zablocki (D.–Wisc), chairman.↩
  4. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩