Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Far East, Volume VI

851G.00/3–347: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

secret

Paris, March 3, 1947—7 p.m.

956. Department’s telegram 789, of February 28, 1947.⁶¹ Marius Moutet, Minister Overseas France, informs us that Vietnam appeal of February 20 to French people and French President has never been officially received by Government in Paris. However, both Minister and his son, Gustave Moutet, Chief of Cabinet, seemed completely familiar with text of appeal which they said had been received in Paris “through Reuters”.

Moutet termed the appeal “a small step forward” in that it omitted previous demand for return to military status quo ante. However, he regretted comminatory tone of appeal, terming it “psychological warfare”, and deplored that Vietnam, if it wishes to negotiate with French Government, does not do so through official channels instead of merely diffusing it through radio and newspaper channels.

Moutet stressed sincere desire of French Government to negotiate but in view necessity to “save face” in the Far East and in view of way in which French were “caught napping and nearly evicted on December 19”, he is obliged, he says, to take precautions against a second Vietnam “trap” and must insist on certain security guarantees before real negotiations start. While not attempting to deny partial responsibility of “certain French officials in Indo-China”, Socialist Moutet alleges high indignation over Vietnam duplicity and mentioned that the French Government security demands would include the retention of certain number of military bases in Vietnam territory as well as on “some kind of control” over the Vietnam Army. The Overseas Minister reacted unfavorably to Vietminh demand for “unity” in last sentence of Ho’s appeal, as meaning insistence on obtaining Cochin-China. Moutet strongly defended position that France was protector of Cochin-Chinese people and would not turn them over against their will to a “ruthless Communist dictatorship”. He observed that this last Ho “message” might be brought by “a political party” in the Assembly during the debate on Indo-China scheduled for March 6.

In view of fact that both Bidault and Moutet have (I think sincerely) denied receiving letter in question, Department may wish to inquire of O’Sullivan the basis for his belief that letter was actually delivered to the French.⁶²

Caffery

61. See footnote 60, p. 74.
62. The Department in its telegram 24, March 6, noon, to Hanoi (38 to Saigon) asked for information in this regard and repeated 956 from Paris (851G.00/3–347). Vice Consul O’Sullivan reported in telegram 87, March 12, 10 a.m., from Hanoi, that Ho’s letter was received by the British Consul through the International Red Cross representative who had seen the Vietnamese on February 21; the letter was then given to French authorities for transmission to Paris (851G.00/3–1247). Vice Consul O’Sullivan reported in telegram 100, March 23, 5 p.m., that French refusal to allow the Consuls to contact Vietnamese authorities in regard to the question of hostages might be explained on the ground that the French “did not wish to receive peace proposal authenticity of which Consuls might be in position to confirm”. (851G.00/3–2347)