Office of the Historian

116. Telegram From the Embassy in Laos to the Department of State1

Vientiane, August 28, 1956—9 p.m.

325. Souvanna reported in FBIS as declaring in Peking press conference August 25 that Laos would not accept the so-called protection of SEATO. “We cannot subscribe to the SEATO because its provisions concerning us were decided without our participation. [Page 237] Moreover, it is not in accordance with the Geneva agreements that we shall join this organization”.2

Would appear Souvanna overlooked Sebald’s remarks of June 26 setting record straight on SEATO consultations, as well as his own reply to Sebald admitting we were probably right as he was only hazily filled in on what had transpired re consultations (Embassy telegram 16493).

This is obviously one of things we shall be asking Prime Minister to clarify and/or amplify on his return. For moment prefer not to comment or suggest course of action.4

Parsons
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/8–2856. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Bangkok, Saigon, London, Paris, Ottawa, New Delhi, and Phnom Penh.↩
  2. In telegram 334 from Vientiane, August 30, Parsons reported a conversation with British Ambassador Holliday in which the latter passed on information received from the British Embassy in Peking. According to that Embassy, the statement that Laos would not accept the protection of SEATO was not Souvanna’s, but represented editorializing on the part of the Chinese. Souvanna’s statement was merely directed to the question of joining SEATO, not to that of accepting its protection. (Ibid., 790.5/8–3056)↩
  3. See footnote 3, Document 109.↩
  4. In telegram 359 from Vientiane, September 4, Parsons reported in part that Souvanna had told him on September 3 that Radio Peking had been incorrect in alleging that he had renounced the protection of the SEATO protocol. “As regards August 1954 record on how Laos came to be covered by SEATO protocol, he claims RLG records differ from ours. He says we broached subject, that RLG did not ask to be covered and merely said when asked that no objection seen to offer of SEATO coverage.” (Department of State, Central Files, 651J.93/9–456)

    For the Departments response to early reports of Souvanna’s statements, see Document 377.

    ↩