Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Geneva Conference, Volume XVI

396.1 GE/7–1954: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Delegation¹

top secretniact

Washington, July 20, 1954—9:39 a.m.

Tosec 579. From Secretary for Under Secretary. Re Secto 674.² Please inform Eden US Govt accepts formula set forth in reftel. You may also tell him that while we would prefer slight change in language in paragraph 2 of reftel, substituting “establishment of a collective defense etc.” for “conclusion of a collective defense agreement” (our reasons for this are set forth as penultimate paragraph of Tosec 572³), this is not sufficiently important to delay reaching agreement now.⁴

In your discretion you may tell Eden we think Baguio (Philippines) would be very suitable for the meeting, both because it is in area and is Asian.⁵

Dulles

1. Drafted by MacArthur.
2. Dated July 19, p. 1465.
3. Dated July 19, p. 1453.

4. The U.S. Delegation reported in telegram Secto 688, July 20: “Eden agrees to substitution of phrase ‘establishment of a collective defense’ in paragraph two of formula set forth in Secto 674.” (396.1 GE/7–2054)

   The Department of State in telegram Tosec 592, July 21, informed the U.S. Delegation that it had “been in consultation with British Embassy on question approaching French re further action SEA collective defense. Could you let us know to what extent you or Eden informed Mendes-France in Geneva about agreed US-UK formula, Secto 674 as amended by Tosec 579, so we can determine what if anything needs to be done with French.” (396.1 GE/7–1954) Under Secretary Smith replied in telegram Secto 723, July 22, that he “did not discuss specific US-UK formula with Mendes-France but last night at dinner I discussed subject in general terms and impressed on him urgency of our moving forward. Am uninformed whether Eden took occasion to mention formula to him but believe unlikely.” (396.1 GE/7–2254)

5. Under Secretary Smith reported in telegram Secto 688, July 20, that “day before yesterday I suggested to him Baguio as suitable place for meeting and have repeated suggestion today. He has not yet commented.” (396.1 GE/7–2054)

   In telegram Secto 713, July 21, the U.S. Delegation reported as follows: “Caccia said today that the UK thought the suggestion of Baguio as a meeting place was a good idea but a decision now would be premature. They thought that the place of meeting should not be named in the invitations but should be selected after it is finally known what nations have accepted, as this might well be taken into consideration in the final selection of the meeting place.” (Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 261)