751G.00/7–2354
Memorandum of Conversation, by Paul J. Sturm of the Office of Philippine and Southeast Asian Affairs
Subject:
- International Control Commission for Indochina1
Participants:
- Mr. Heeney, Ambassador of Canada, Washington
- Mr. James J. McCardle, Second Secretary, Canadian Embassy
- The Deputy Under Secretary
- Mr. Paul J. Sturm, PSA
Ambassador Heeney said that the Canadian Government first learned of its invitation to join the International Control Commission on Indochina from the newpapers. The formal invitation from the Conference Chairman was received yesterday after the Cabinet meeting. The position now is that the Canadian Government is deliberating and [Page 1875] formal disposition is to accept the invitation as a duty but without enthusiasm. The Government foresees difficulties of all sorts, political and physical. It will be obliged to deploy manpower from its small pool in an area where it has neither interest nor experts.
All these considerations are giving the Canadians pause and the Government wishes assurance that it is acting in a cause in which it is interested and with the general approbation of the United States. Mr. Murphy said that we were delighted that the Canadians have been invited to be members of the Commission but the U.S. would never have wished such a burden on the Canadian Government. Ambassador Heeney said that his government had hoped that the U.S. would feel it advantageous that the Canadians were participating and that he would communicate Mr. Murphy’s affirmative reply to the Minister of External Affairs.
Ambassador Heeney went on to say that the Government’s final decision would be made on either July 24 or July 26. The article by Raymond Daniell on page 1 of today’s New York Times is very accurate except that it exaggerates Canada’s hesitancy to take part in the International Commission. … Mr. Murphy replied that the U.S. has confidence in the Canadian Ambassador and his government and believes that such a private arrangement would work out to mutual advantage. Ambassador Heeney said that Canada expects to receive criticism all around on the score of its performance in Indochina.
Mr. Murphy said that the Commission would have the advantage of India’s experience in supervising the Korean armistice. Ambassador Heeney said that he wondered if any of the Indians who had served in Korea would be assigned to the Commission. He added that he expects India will accept the invitation.
Ambassador Heeney said that he fully understood the great difficulty of the U.S. position with regard to the Indochina armistice and that he wished to express his appreciation of the Secretary’s skill in handling the problem and of the Under Secretary’s performance at Geneva, both of which have been helpful to the general settlement. The Ambassador asked Mr. Murphy if he could clarify the U.S. relation to the operation of the Geneva agreements. He has noted that the Commission is responsible to the Conference members. Would the U.S. consider itself as retaining an interest in this respect owing to its having been present at Geneva? Mr. Murphy replied that it was not possible to make an answer yet to this question. We are looking into all aspects of the problem but our position has not yet been established.
The Ambassador went on to say that the Canadian Government would be glad to have the ideas of the U.S. government on how the Commission might most usefully operate since the U.S. has had much relevant experience. Mr. Murphy replied that this is a very important [Page 1876] question and that we will have it in mind. He added that it will be interesting to see how the voting procedure stipulated by the agreements will work out in practice.
The Ambassador asked for certain material information on Indochina and was told that PSA would be glad to make available post reports and like information. The Ambassador said that he would call upon the Secretary as soon as the Canadian Government’s decision had been made and that he would like to hear the Under Secretary’s impressions while they are still fresh. The Ambassador said that he had no idea who was responsible for naming Canada to the Commission and suggested that it might have been Krishna Menon.
In conclusion, Ambassador Heeney asked Mr. Murphy, quite off the record, if Canada “could get away with refusing membership on the Commission.” Mr. Murphy replied that since Canada had not been consulted it could certainly “get away” with refusing but whether it would be in the free world’s interest for it to do so was another question. Ambassador Heeney left Mr. Murphy with the impression that Canada would accept membership but with great reluctance and at considerable sacrifice.
Ambassador Heeney was given copies of the three cease-fire agreements.2
- Regarding the organization and functions of the International Control Commission in Vietnam during 1954, see British Cmd. 9461, Vietnam No. 1 (1955): First and Second Interim Reports of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam.↩
- Reference is to the cease-fire agreements on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; for texts, see vol. xvi, pp. 1505, 1521, and 1531.↩