Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 286
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Adviser to the United States Delegation (Bonsal)
Participants:
- M. Roux, Head of Far Eastern Section of French Foreign Office
- Ambassador Donald Heath, Special Adviser U.S. Delegation
- Philip W. Bonsal, Adviser U.S. Delegation
Subject:
- Bao Dai’s Statement of April 251
Ambassador Heath stated that the Secretary had read Bao Dai’s statement of April 25 with surprise and concern. The Secretary had been under the impression that Franco–Vietnamese relations were currently characterized by harmony and mutual confidence. The statement, although somewhat enigmatic, seemed to cast a shadow on what we had hoped was a happy state of affairs.
M. Roux replied that M. Bidault and his associates had also been much surprised by Bao Dai’s declaration of which they had had no previous knowledge. Roux stated that immediately after the tripartite conversations on April 24,2 Bidault had called together the representatives of the three Associated States and had given them a full statement regarding the position of the French Government in relation to Geneva. This statement had included a position on (a) the independence and integrity of the Associated States, (b) their possible participation in the conference and (c) opposition to the admission of the Viet Minh. The statement also set forth the French Government’s intention to maintain the closest possible contact with the representatives of the Associated States, the latter being invited to have such representatives available at Geneva. Reference was also made to the desire of the French Government to see if a cease–fire [Page 585] could be arranged along the lines of the Laniel proposal which would assure the security of friendly military forces and of civilian elements.
Ambassador Heath described the conversation with Bao Dai3 mentioning that the Secretary has stated his understanding that the French and Vietnamese delegates had reached agreement on the main political issues. Bao Dai confirmed this and said that he had expected that it would be possible to sign the two basic political accords (independence and association) prior to Geneva but that the French Government had preferred, for their own reasons, merely to initial these basic accords and to delay the final signing until the pending economic, cultural and military agreements had been concluded. Bao Dai stated that he had accepted this point of view although he would have preferred to have the formal signature of the political accords at this time.
M. Roux told us that the French proposal had been that a declaration covering agreement in principle should be issued at this time, that the basic accords should be initialed and made public and that work should continue on the subsidiary accords of a more technical character. (M. Roux pointed out that this whole subject is one on which the French Government may anticipate considerable parliamentary difficulties and that, although the determination of the government is firm as to principles involved, it believes that it will be in a better position to go before Parliament if it has the complete text of all the agreements in hand.) It appeared possible to M. Roux that on this matter there had been something less than perfect coordination between Bao Dai and his Foreign Minister who had been concluding the negotiation.
Ambassador Heath stated that the Secretary also inquired as to his attitude toward the Geneva Conference and Bao Dai had replied that he would, of course, accept the invitation, but if the Viet Minh were to be invited on equal status it would present a “delicate” problem to his government which did not recognize the Viet Minh as constituting a state. Bao Dai said he did not reject the idea that a peaceful solution might be found in Geneva although he appeared doubtful, and stated that, of course, Viet Nam could not accept any solution which would involve the partition of Viet Nam or the integrity of his government.
Ambassador Heath stated that the Secretary has been giving some thought to the desirability of having Ambassador Heath see Bao Dai on his behalf. The Ambassador stated that he wished M. Roux to be informed and to have an opportunity of making any comment which he might wish to make regarding his proposed interview. Roux appeared to react favorably, adding that he would discuss the matter [Page 586] with M. Bidault and let us know if the latter had any particular comments to make.
M. Roux expressed appreciation of Ambassador Heath’s call and of the many occasions on which the Ambassador has contributed to the improvement of Franco–Vietnamese relations. He added that he would recommend that M. Bidault hand a copy of the statement made to the Associated States representatives to the Secretary for his information.
(Later–same day—news was received that Bao Dai had left Paris for Cannes and the project for Ambassador Heath to call on him was dropped.)
Mr. Bonsal raised with Roux the additional information promised last week to the working group regarding certain aspects of the Laniel proposals for a cease fire in Indochina. Roux replied that this material as received from General Navarre is now being reviewed by the civil and military authorities in Paris and that it will presumably be brought here by Colonel Brebisson within the next day or two. Roux will let us know and will call a meeting of the tripartite working group as soon as possible.
- Statement released by Bao Dai’s cabinet on Apr. 25 which expressed dissatisfaction with the progress of French–Vietnamese treaty negotiations. See telegram 4103 from Paris, Apr. 27, 1954, in volume xiii.↩
- For documentation on these talks see the memorandum, Apr. 21–24, p. 550 and telegram Dulte 15 from Paris, Apr. 24, 1954, in volume xiii.↩
- For summary of this conversation between the Secretary and Bao Dai, see the memorandum of conversation by Ambassador Donald R. Heath, Apr. 24. 1954, in volume xiii.↩