751G.00/10–2754: Telegram
The Ambassador in Vietnam (Heath) to the Department of State
[Received October 28—4:48 a.m.]
1611. Repeated information Paris 537. I had long talk with Frederic-Dupont here with French Parliamentary Mission who was named Minister of Associated States toward end of Laniel–Bidault regime and attended several sessions of Geneva conference.
[Page 2191]Frederic-Dupont criticized results of Geneva conference. He asserted that on June 10 Viet Minh delegation had approached him and had offered better solution in that they had agreed to internationalization of port of Haiphong and had indicated they would accept line of demarcation north of 17th parallel and that they would not insist on national elections.
Insistence on national elections was worst feature of armistice since population above 17th parallel was greater than that below and even if South Vietnam voted 100 percent against Viet Minh, latter would win election.
Further both Mendes-France in debate in Assembly and La Chambre in hearing before Parliamentary Commission had stated flatly to him that French policy was to insist on these elections and to abide by their results. La Chambre had stated in committee that if Viet Minh Government received majority of only one vote France would accept result and let Viet Minh take over all Vietnam.
I remarked that the armistice and its national election provision were not binding on South Vietnam which was not signatory of Geneva accord. Furthermore, we were not a signatory and had made specific reservation that nationwide elections would be acceptable only under supervision of United Nations.
Frederic-Dupont said we should do everything to get publicity for our attitude and interpretation on election issue. In short time he had been here he had found one of greatest obstacles to any real commitment to cause of free Vietnam and support of Diem government was general belief here that nationwide elections would be held in 1956 and would be lost to Viet Minh. Furthermore, there should be repeated and widely publicized official statements that United States intended to see that free Vietnam would remain free. Frankly, he said Vietnamese people looked to United States and not to French Expeditionary Corps to protect them.
Regarding Diem government, he said it was certainly not efficient one, but he thought our attitude in supporting it was right because there was no acceptable successor in sight. Latter’s reputation for honesty was valuable asset.