751G.5/12–2252: Telegram
The Ambassador at Saigon (Heath) to the Department of State
1264. Rptd info Paris 193, Hanoi unn. Emb strongly approves New York Times editorial “NATO and Indochina” of Dec 19, believing it presents excellent summary IC significance in international struggle against Communism.
Emb also agrees essential theme Alsop Brothers1 article, “war that must be won”, appearing Washington Post Dec 19, that two more Fr divisions and increased Amer aid wld tip balance in favor Franco-Vietnamese side. Mytel 1248 of Dec 20 shows desirability despatch additional divisions, at temporary expense Fr NATO effort.
However, Emb takes exception to Alsops statement that, as part alleged Eisenhower program to turn tide decisively against Viet Minh, Fr are to make “unequivocal offer independence to IC within specific time limit” and reach pol settlement giving IC “stable, independent” govt. Suggest Dept may wish contact Alsops informally to point out Vietnam granted Sovereign status by basic accords with Fr March 8, 1949, recognized as independent state by 33 nations, and wld today be member UN but for inevitable Soviet veto.
There are many intelligent supporters of plan ask Fr make deadline statement on withdrawal Fr expeditionary force at end hostilities, in order try bring moderate “attentistes” down off fence, but this far cry from offer “independence” which Vietnamese have actually possessed for three and one half years. Fr retain supreme mil command and such functions as considered necessary to successfully conduct war, and also have extensive economic privileges under terms France-Vietnamese agreements, which, however do not detract from fundamental fact independence by criteria international law. That Fr has no idea moving backwards is evidenced by Fr official statements, a test being that of Letourneau in current Fr National Assembly debate to effect there no question an attempt “reconstitute disguised protectorate”. (See Paris 3602, Dec 20 to Dept.)2
[Page 329]Alsops wld do well to read New York Times editorial appearing simultaneously their article for clear declaration that what is being defended in Vietnam is not Fr colonial rule but chance of Vietnamese people be free. It extremely important that journalists with wide following of Alsops know true state affairs IC.3
- Joseph and Stewart Alsop, author-journalists.↩
- Telegram 3602 from Paris, Dec. 20, not printed, reported on the debate which occurred in the National Assembly on the evening of Dec. 19 regarding the military budget for Indochina. (751.21/12–2052) That session is described in telegram 3653 from Paris, Dec. 24, p. 330.↩
-
On Dec. 29, Charlton Ogburn, Regional Planning Adviser in the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, addressed a memorandum to Assistant Secretary John M. Allison, titled “Propaganda in Reporting.” The memorandum read in part as follows:
“In times of ideological conflict, government officials are subject to more than ordinary pressure to conform in their expression of views to what is acceptable. Expressions of opinion that could be considered heretical are likely to be sedulously avoided. Thus, at the very time when it stands in greatest need of objective reporting by its officials, a government is likely to be propagandized with fashionable opinions. The consequences are apt to be serious. Accordingly, I believe we ought to be on the alert to resist such tendencies in ourselves. In the circumstances of today, these tendencies are certain to be present.”
One example cited by Ogburn in support of his argument was the following:
“Ambassador Heath, in Saigon’s Telegram No. 1264 of December 22, takes the Alsops to task for ascribing to the new Administration an intention to demand that France make an ‘unequivocal offer of independence to Indochina with a specific time limit.’ He asserts that Vietnam achieved independence under the Accords of March 8, 1949. That is not true, and Ambassador Heath must know it is not true. It may be sound policy for us to act publicly as if it were true, but that is quite different from asserting it among ourselves under a confidential classification.” (751G.5/12–2252)
↩