790.00/5–1254: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Department of State
[Received May 13—1:22 a.m.]
4340. Repeated information Geneva 224, Saigon 517. Chargé Vietnamese High Commissariat called at his request 12:30 today to express grave concern over interpretation generally being accorded to Secretary’s comments to press May 11 and to ask exact text to discuss further with Bao Dai and Buu Loc (who arrived Paris last evening). Chargé was visibly shaken. To begin, he stated, they had received information from reliable source that Cabinet in extraordinary session last evening had agreed negotiate settlement Indochina conflict “at any price”. However, he stated, implications Secretary’s statements May 11 as portrayed press concerned them more. Chargé stated US only hope Vietnamese and they now seriously afraid we preparing go along with French in accepting negotiated solution with Viet Minh rather than participate intensification war effort. He added impact Secretary’s statements coming on top fall Dien-Bien-Phu and French Assembly developments was almost tantamount last straw. Not only would this, if implications true, he added, undermine Vietnamese effort continue war Vietnam in terms scramble mend fences Viet Minh in view strengthened position latter, but it would leave Vietnamese delegation Geneva in untenable position. Chargé posed rhetorical question how could Vietnamese make effective statement this afternoon at Geneva in view these developments?
[Page 1544]Chargé was given copy partial text Secretary’s press conference contained Deptel 4034, May 111 and was cautioned against accepting speculative press versions thereof, Embassy officer stressing he sure Under Secretary had already had occasion Geneva to enlighten Vietnamese delegation this regard and place press versions Secretary’s statements in proper context.
- Telegram 4034 to Paris, May 11, containing a partial verbatim text of the Secretary’s press conference of that day, is not printed. (790.00/5–1154) Regarding the press conference, see footnote 6, supra.↩