751G.00/2–2454: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Achilles) to the Department of State
[Received 6: 08 p.m.]
3053. Repeated information Saigon 335. Jacquet said last night government had agreed to Assembly discussion Socialist interpellation on Nehru proposal cease fire Indochina1 in recognition fact that IC debate was inevitable for near future and better have it now than later. Interpellation discussion, which for all practical purposes constitutes debate, accordingly set for March 5 (Embtel 3038).2 Factors leading to government decision, according Jacquet, belief that preferable not hold debate too close to Geneva conference. Moreover, military news for moment relatively favorable and Pleven’s return immediately preceding debate offers good opportunity strong government statement (probably to be delivered by Pleven himself). Fact that debate will coincide with negotiations with Vietnam might also prove useful in emphasizing to Vietnamese continuing difficulties of government in maintaining present policy of full prosecution of war while leaving door open to “honorable” negotiations.
Jacquet deplored Nehru statement in increasing government’s difficulties. People and press will find it difficult understand why cease fire impossible although government will be obliged say so. Members Jacquet’s cabinet believe statement plays Viet Minh hand so effectively they question whether it was inspired.
Jacquet professes have advance indication Pleven’s report which will only become known after his arrival Paris and report to Prime Minister. Whatever it recommends will be of vital importance in future policies.
Jacquet did not dismiss possibility accuracy present Paris rumors that it will recommend review present policy formation native armies and question role Bao Dai. Certainly it will point out weaknesses Buu Loc Government.
Jacquet expressed great relief US decision not request change MAAG terms of reference on replacing Trapnell with O’Daniel. Any other decision would have led to insurmountable difficulties. To back [Page 1073] up this allegation he read sections of telegram from Navarre asserting inadmissibility enlargement O’Daniel functions in most explicit terms and draft of telegram which was to be sent in reply stating that government would not budge on question (telegram was not sent because of action on Department’s instruction contained Deptel 2910).3
Two things disturb Jacquet now. First, that public would misunderstand Nehru proposal as outlined above and secondly that hopes for Geneva would reach such height that descent following failure (as he anticipated) would lead to such public and parliamentary pressure that government would be obliged to accept catastrophic enemy terms. He cited as examples enemy occupation Tonkin or introduction Viet Minh Ministers Vietnamese Government, either of which would lead to eventual Communist control. He had been thinking of possibility Viet Minh would attempt negotiate directly at end of dry season and does not exclude it entirely.
Neither he nor government were worried about danger coming debate would present to government stability. Excluding Communists, no party would seek to overthrow or even unduly embarrass government on Indochina issue with Geneva on horizon. Trouble would come during or later.
In Jacquet’s opinion slight, if any, chance EDC will follow on IC debate before Geneva. There is not time and opponents will inject obstacles in order ascertain results Geneva before facing EDC. This good thing for IC question will therefore be considered on own merits. (Note: Here Jacquet wearing his hat of Gaullist opponent to EDC rather than that of Minister Laniel’s Government.)
- Speaking before the Indian Parliament on Feb. 22, Prime Minister Nehru proposed a cease-fire in Indochina prior to the Geneva Conference. For the statement by the Prime Minister, see India, Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, House of the People, Part II, 6th sess., vol. I, No. 6, cols. 415–416.↩
Telegram 3038 from Paris, Feb. 23, read as follows:
“Daniel Mayer (SFIO) proposed to Assembly this afternoon that hearing be granted to interpellation concerning Nehru suggestion for cease-fire in Indochina. Proposal backed by signatures 50 deputies. Without bringing matter to vote, government agreed on March 5, provided there is not general Indochina debate following Pleven’s return March 3. This is first indication government expects and presumably accepts Indochina debate next week.” (751G.00/2–2354)
↩- In telegram 2910 to Paris, Feb. 20, also sent to Saigon, Phnom Penh, and Vientiane, the Department of State indicated that Gen. John W. O’Daniel had been designated to be Chief of MAAG Indochina, with the rank of Major General, as a routine replacement for Maj. Gen. Thomas J. H. Trapnell. The appointment involved no change in the MAAG terms of reference. The Embassy at Paris was instructed to seek the approval of the French Government for the appointment. (711.5851G/2–2054) In telegram 3296 from Paris, Mar. 10, the Embassy reported that the approval of the French Government had been obtained. (711.5851G/3–1054)↩