Office of the Historian

175. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Thailand1

Washington, December 4, 1957—6:35 p.m.

1478. SEATO. Subject Vientiane’s comments Laos now appears be subject in which SEATO should take strong interest.

In recent past US has avoided subject in SEATO forum. Until RLG–PL agreements ratified topic of obvious delicacy and discussions could have been embarrassing to US. Certainly our experiences with subject in 1955 were not reassuring. Moreover French attitude at least was not always parallel to our position. In context formal organization this could only have been confusing to Thai and Philippines particularly.

Laos now however has formally embarked on dangerous policy of coalition government although it professes ability to cope with PL elements within official ranks. Consequently SEATO now is faced with situation in protocol state which could lead directly to threat to Thailand and other protocol states. To avoid discussing Lao problem now might reflect on frankness of US as well as give impression SEATO not firm in principles for which it stands. Clearly organization must not appear unconcerned with coalition government in which Communists or Communist sympathizers included as one component. Thai in particular might well be puzzled by failure discuss this development.

We do not at this time envisage any communiqué emerging from this discussion and in fact believe such development would be damaging as would force RLG take open position against SEATO “interference in local affairs”. Leaks to Souvanna re private discussion within SEATO might however have beneficial effect.

If Vientiane concurs we shall prepare statement you may make in Council Reps meeting December 9.2

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/12–457. Secret; Priority. Drafted by Zimmerman in FE and approved by Jones. Sent also priority to Vientiane.↩
  2. The Department, in telegram 1503 to Bangkok, December 6, and the Embassy in Laos in telegram 266 to Bangkok, December 8 (repeated to the Department as 960), each submitted draft statements for Bishop’s use. Both were along the lines that the changed situation in Laos was leading the United States to consider whether continued aid to Laos was appropriate. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.51J/12–657 and 790.5/12–857, respectively)

    In telegram 1722 from Bangkok, December 12, the Embassy stated in part that at a meeting of the Council Representatives, the U.S. spokesman (unidentified) said it was premature to discuss the Laotian situation in detail and then made a statement based closely on the suggestions in telegrams 1503 and 266. (Ibid., 790.5/12–1257)

    ↩