Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 1

851G.00–R/8–751: Telegram

The Minister at Saigon (Heath) to the Secretary of State

secret

Saigon, August 7, 1951—11 p. m.

335. For Merchant. Personal from [for] Bruce. No distribution.

1. Ecato 872 July 31¹ unfortunate in timing and theme. Prior to its interjection local STEM had swung around (see Legtel 279 of July 31 [August 1]²), as it was bound, in reason, eventually to do, towards recognition indispensability of genuine consultation with Fr on policy and info programs. STEMs knew attitude was supported by recent approach of Paris OSR and EGA to establish friendly understanding with Fr officials with regard to US econ objectives in IC (see Paris tel 779 of Aug 3 and mytel 129 of Aug 8 [Aug 6]).³

2. Emotionalism of charges in Ecato 872 against Fr “monopolistic position”, “special privileges”, “loss of possession outright colonial monopolies”, “obvious lack understanding basic reason why US recognized”, “interference and officiousness” is disturbing as possibly indicative anti-Fr prejudice and failure achieve balance in appraisal realities current critical IC solution. Coupled with demand for “magnifying field programs expedited by shirt-sleeve Amer operations” these charges wld seem also disclose automatic application formulas devised long ago in another situation. Thus for Fr read corrupt KMT Central Govt; for shirt-sleeve operations read JCRR programs, etc.

3. Fundamentally there are two ways in which ECA programs and objectives can be pursued IC. One is to pursue inflexible line with Fr at price misunderstanding and incessant dog-fight with them, and push ECA program through by tying it to other US projects here on “all or nothing” basis. Other way is attempt obtain Fr understanding in advance. Whether we wld proceed over Fr objections wld be matter for case by case determination, but Fr wld be given feeling their views important to US and wld invariably be solicited. Either these courses will probably succeed, so far as ECA concerned. Difference is that under former we wld be constantly quarreling with Fr, stimulating Viet officials play us off against each other, encouraging fence-sitters to remain inactive in hope of something better turning up. More importantly, under former method these quarrels and resultant ill-will wld not be confined merely to ECA but wld spill over and embroil or prejudice our other projects in milit and intelligence fields. It precisely here I believe Dept has great responsibility and shld not consider abdication policy-making function. However distressing to missionary econ enthusiasts, there are at least two present objectives here of higher importance than any particular ties economic form. First is to keep Fr fighting in IC (without real estate, economics returns to class room). Second is actual and potential use IC vis-à-vis Chi situation. Development of these objectives supremely matter furthering Fr-US confidence. Their conduct seems entirely responsibility of Dept.

4. I trust Dept notes current controversy solely question procedure. It is not now question as to choices between substantive projects. Nor will Leg offer gen rules in this field; each specific project shld be considered on own merits. We do of course hold opinion Fr reaction to any new project is one of basic factors requiring assessment.

5. In months ahead and for problems that will inevitably arise in mobilization, Nat Assembly formation, org of Fr Union polit institutions, elections and/or reorganization, Viet Govt, psychological warfare, and conduct IC war itself, there will be many occasions on which we will be compelled to differ with Fr. Our advice and counsel will be useful then as it has been in past. I believe we can exert our great influence with more telling effective work within framework of agreed principles and in atmosphere of confidence and coop. To this end our efforts shld be steadily directed.

6. I am concerned re ECA’s intention to bring “realities US position” to De Lattre’s understanding during his US visit.⁴ Rigidity of attitudes displayed reftel toward ECA formulas do not afford much assurance this confrontation will be helpful. I urge Dept to go over ECA’s proposed presentation with utmost care prior any such mtgs.

7. I am somewhat disturbed by fact that Ecato tel in ref mentions last para “shown Merchant”, which carries implication that polit analysis and operational policy instructions of Ecato reftel has some Dept approval. I suggest that proper instructions to STEM wld be point and brief ECA–State tel somewhat along fol lines:

“State and ECA approve Blum and Hochstetter recent efforts to establish a friendly informal consultative relation with the Fr in regard to present and future STEM operations. This understanding and consultation shld be steadily developed altho not of course to the point of abolishing the bilateral framework of arrangements with the Assoc States Govts. While Fr comments and suggestions will be given sympathetic hearing in view of basic responsibility and burden of Fr for protection IC, final decisions on STEM projects and operations must remain in Amer hands. The guiding policy of STEM operations in TC continues to be the strengthening of the Assoc States and their independence within the framework of the Fr Union”.⁵

Sent Dept 355; rptd info Paris 137.

Heath

1. Not printed.
2. In telegram 279, August 1, Minister Heath discussed recent efforts by Economic Cooperation Administration officials to improve relations with French authorities by providing assurances with respect to the scope and objectives of ECA activities (851G.00R/8–451).
3. Neither telegram 779 from Paris nor telegram 129 from Saigon to Paris, August 6, repeated to the Department of State as telegram 321, are printed.
4. See footnote 3, p. 480.
5. Telegram 202 to Saigon, August 10, read as follows: “Heath and Blum from Merchant and Griffin. Dept and ECA happy to note success Blum and Hochstetter efforts establish and maintain friendly, informal consultative relations with Fr re present and future STEM operations. While Fr comments and suggestions shld receive friendly hearing, established bilateral framework of relations with Assoc States shld be retained with final decisions on STEM projects and operations naturally remaining in US hands. As in the past the guiding policy of STEM operations in IC continues to be the strengthening of the Assoc States and their independence within the framework of Fr Union.” (851G.00R/8–1051)