751G.00/11–1353: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Department of State
priority
1900. Repeated information Saigon 187. Early this morning government scored its second parliament [parliamentary] victory re IC within month, when Council Republic passed government-accepted [Page 863] resolution sponsored by RGR, independents, and peasants.1 Summary follows:
“It addresses homage of national recognition and its admiration to French Army and Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian contingents who defend in IC independence IC states and liberty its peoples.
“And gives official notice to government its statements”
Resolution adopted innocuous and largely meaningless since it merely puts government on notice of views expressed in debate ranging from Communist and Socialist call for negotiations IC with Ho Chi-Minh, to MRP and RPF demands for clarification governments IC and French Union policies. Priority consideration was given government-accepted resolution by vote 152 to 142, first paragraph of resolution thereafter being adopted by show hands (less Communists), and second paragraph by vote 160 to 99.
Debate was brief, uneventful, and anti-climactic in nature; questions posed, arguments advanced, and replies given representing largely repetition on reduced and less spectacular scale those expressed in recent Assembly debate IC, nor did debate exceed limits latter.
Debate was marked principally by Laniel’s statement government’s position IC, and is not considered represent any new departure IC policy present government. Laniel in uninspired but confident tones restated briefly theme expounded by him in speech Assembly October 27. Highlights his Council Republic speech follow:
Stated he had duty repeat in clear and categoric manner that French Government does not consider IC problem as necessarily calling for military solution. “No more than Americans in Korea, we will not demand unconditional surrender of adversary in order negotiate with him”, and “if an honorable solution was in sight, within local or international framework, France, as United States in Korea, would be happy welcome a diplomatic solution conflict.” Stated that no response had come from Ho since October 27 Assembly speech, and that it is necessary for those who desire immediate peace IC “to convince Ho’
Laniel pointed out, however, that will to seek peace ought not be misinterpreted, underlining oft-repeated theme government that to negotiate successfully, necessary to be strong. “More strength shown, better able increase chances diplomatic solution conflict”. Hence, pleased receive additional aid from United States. Latter represents Anglo-Saxon comprehension significance IC war, and placement conflict in true light in sense common defense free world. Also, will for peace ought not be misinterpreted by Indochinese. “If government agrees one day to study a constructive proposition for a pacific settlement, it will do it only with participation Associated States”.
[Page 864]Stated Saigon Congress incident in process settlement, and reiterated view that evolutionary process possible within present French constitutional provisions re French Union. However, echoing warning Associated States manifested Assembly debate, “if in months to come, Associated States do not throw all their strength in war which is more theirs today than ours; if they do not give proper inspiration (mystique) their troops; if they do not wish give financial support their armies, and if by an aberration, which I refuse to believe, secret intrigue, or public demagogery as they sterilize common defense effort, then France would consider itself freed its obligations and government would draw consequences and revise fundamentally its policy”.
Laniel concluded by paying glowing tribute Indochinese soldiers, and by reiterating what he had said in Assembly October 27 debate (Embassy despatch 1272 November 9)2 that “France is disposed to take any opportunity to negotiate, any opportunity to make peace, but if its hope is disappointed it will not fail in its duty”.3
- For the record of the discussion on Indochina which occurred in the Council of the Republic on the night of Nov. 12–13, including a statement by Premier Laniel, see France, Journal Officiel, Conseil de la République, 1953, Débats, pp. 1739–1767.↩
- Despatch 1272 from Paris, Nov. 9, transmitting information on the debate on Indochina in the National Assembly, is not printed. (751G.00/11–953)↩
-
On the morning of Nov. 13, the statement by Premier Laniel was discussed in the Secretary of State’s Staff Meeting. The summary of that discussion read as follows: “In a discussion concerning a statement by Laniel on French willingness to negotiations [negotiate] in Indo-China and not to press for an all-out victory, the Secretary stated that he did not feel too upset over this statement—that it was a matter of political reality in France that the French Government must say they were willing to negotiate. The Government recognized that it was not in a position to negotiate now but that no French Government could ask the French people to rule out an armistice in Indo-China while we had gone ahead with an armistice in Korea. The possibility of conflict over Laniel’s statement with that the Vice President had made at Saigon was felt by the Secretary to be the work of enterprising reporters.” (Secretary’s Staff Meetings, lot 63 D 75)
The statement by Vice President Nixon to which Secretary Dulles referred was presumably that delivered in Hanoi on Nov. 4 at a dinner held by Commissioner General Dejean. That address by the Vice President had included the following remarks: “I realize that there has been talk of negotiation with the aggressors. We all want peace, but I think that we all realize too that the aggressors have not asked for peace, they have not asked to negotiate, and we all also realize that under no circumstances could negotiations take place which would in effect place people who want to be free and independent in perpetual bondage.” The text of the speech was transmitted as enclosure 3 to despatch 195 from Saigon, Nov. 7. (033.1100 NI/11–753)
↩