Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Indochina, Volume XIII, Part 2

751G.00/5–1054: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France¹

top secret
niact

Washington, May 10, 1954—9 p.m.

4017. Eyes only for Ambassador from Secretary.

1. Reur 4287,² Laniel raises two questions: (a) Whether we will send general officer to discuss regrouping of French forces in Indochina; and (b) under what conditions US might intervene in Indochina. This cable answers question (a). Will send answer to (b) tomorrow.³

2. If Assembly supports Cabinet in Indochina debate starting Tuesday,⁴ US will send general officer to Paris for discussion with Laniel, Pleven and Ely as requested. Tentatively expected to be Trapnell. All publicity should be avoided, if possible. To provide cover, if needed, his visit may be treated as related to preparation of military aid program for coming year. Officer will deal only with military aspects. You will handle all other aspects and will feel free to accompany him on his discussions.

3. You should make it perfectly clear to Laniel that our response to his request is due to our desire to be helpful and that general officer would give his best personal judgment on specific inquiries, but he will not in any way engage the responsibility of the US. In particular his participation in French discussions does not imply any future commitment to intervene.⁵

Dulles

1. Drafted by the Secretary of State. Repeated to Geneva as Tedul 53, for the eyes of Under Secretary Smith only.
2. Dated May 10, p. 1522.
3. See telegram 4023 to Paris, May 11, p. 1534.
4. May 11.
5. In telegram 4309 from Paris, May 11, Ambassador Dillon stated the following: “I informed Laniel this morning of answer to question (a) contained Deptel 4017. In this connection I stressed paragraph 3 of reference telegram and Laniel replied that he understood perfectly and that his immediate desire under question (a) was to obtaining the best possible military advice. He realizes fully that there is no implication of any future commitment and he is very grateful for prompt reply.” (751G.00/5–1154)