Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, East Asian Security; Cambodia; Laos, Volume XXI

203. Telegram From the Embassy in Cambodia to the Department of State¹

Phnom Penh, June 13, 1955—11 a.m.

1195. At “informal” meeting of delegation chiefs of ICC June 11, Indian chairman and Polish representative determined by two-to-one majority that US-Cambodian MDA agreement is in conflict with Geneva Agreement on four counts (specified further below). Polish representative unsupported in his claim that it also conflicts on two additional counts. Canadian Commissioner who disagreed with finding on all counts was overruled and discussion turned to question of what ICC should do.

Three alternatives were suggested:

(a) Protest against agreement to Cambodian Government and formal report to Geneva powers that it contravenes their accord;

(b) Request for formal amendment of MDA agreement eliminating or interpreting the objectionable passages;

(c) Request for written statement from Cambodian and US Government interpreting those passages.

Polish Commissioner would accept only first two alternatives while Indian chairman seemed to favor second or third. Canadian, who had been overruled on substance, did not express himself on procedure. Next meetings will take up each count separately to determine in detail in what way it contravenes Geneva and what would have to be done to make it right. Then formal meeting will decide steps which ICC should take.

All three Commissioners agreed at June 11 meeting that Cambodia has right to solicit aid from any foreign country. Moreover, they agreed that ICC “cannot object to Cambodia’s affiliation with any bloc, be it Communist, neutral or free world if it is only expressed as a policy. But if an affiliation with any bloc implies a military alliance contrary to terms of Geneva Agreement, we must object.” …

The four incriminated passages in MDA agreement and ICC interpretation of them are as follows:

(1) Inclusion of phrase “subject to requirements and limitations of any US legislation” in second paragraph of agreement.² This, in view of Commission majority, binds Cambodia to US legislation and particularly the Mutual Security Act. (Comment: Sentence refers to what US, not to what Cambodia will do. There is no mention of Mutual Security Act.)

(2) Reference to “contribution to defensive strength of the free world” in footnote to second paragraph.³ In view of Commission majority, this puts Cambodia firmly in a bloc and can be taken to imply a military alliance with that bloc.

Comment: Footnote quotes language of 1951 agreement whose continued validity is merely confirmed. It implies no commitment to any specific “bloc” although it may express a policy. Paragraph to which footnote belongs is itself by way of preamble and does not involve commitments.

(3) Paragraph 9, which commits Cambodia to furnish US and other countries “assistance to increase capacity for individual or collective defense or to facilitate their effective participation in collective security system contemplated in the UN Charter” goes beyond role assigned to Cambodia by Geneva.

Comment: This paragraph says Cambodia will furnish “by mutual agreement” such equipment, materials, services or other assistance “as may be mutually agreed upon” and is consequently not a firm obligation placed upon Cambodia. If Commission holds that it implies possible importation into Cambodia of equipment or supplies in excess of her own defensive requirements, it has authority and facilities to check such excessive importation and to prevent it if it should be attempted.

(4) Stipulation in paragraph 2, Annex A that Cambodia is to exempt from customs duties “equipment and materials in transit for other countries receiving military aid from US” implies commitment that Cambodia must authorize such transit in peace or war and thus beyond role assigned Cambodia under Geneva.

Comment: Language referring to customs cannot be reasonably construed as obligation to permit transit; although Cambodia is free to authorize such transit if it desires.

Points on which Polish member was overruled were (a) that paragraph 7 and Annex B⁴ allow Cambodia to be used as place to store arms in excess of its needs and thus as supply base (b) that paragraphs 1 and 2 and paragraph 1 Annex A give MAAG “control over Cambodian Army.”⁵

June 11 meeting dealt only with item (2) above. At this rate, commission will take another week before it comes to definite conclusion, which should give us time to make representations with GOI. Since we have no official knowledge of ICC proceedings, reference in any démarche at New Delhi can only be made to indications which we have received from Cambodian Government regarding certain misgivings concerning MDA agreement voiced by commission and which we wish to assuage. Believe Department should authorize such a démarche and hope Embassy New Delhi has meanwhile received copy of despatch 431⁶ giving text MDA agreement.

McClintock

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751H.5–MSP/6–1355. Secret; Priority. Repeated to New Delhi, Paris, Saigon, and Vientiane.
2. In this paragraph the U.S. Government agreed, under certain conditions, “to furnish direct military assistance to the Kingdom of Cambodia, including the assignment of personnel charged by mutual agreement with performing any other advisory and non-combatant services, for the purpose of implementing the Cambodian defense program.” (6 UST 996–997))
3. This paragraph in the footnote reads as follows:

   “(c) make, consistent with its political and economic stability, the full contribution permitted by its manpower, resources, facilities, and general economic condition to the development and maintenance of its own defensive strength and the defensive strength of the free world;”

4. Paragraph 7 obligated Cambodia to return equipment no longer needed to the United States following procedures envisaged in Annex B. These procedures in Annex B included resumption of title by the United States of equipment for transfer to third countries.
5. Paragraph 1 stated that MAAG personnel would operate as part of the Embassy. Paragraph 1 of Annex A dealt with standard diplomatic immunities for U.S. MAAG personnel in Cambodia and reciprocity to Cambodian personnel performing analogous duties in Washington.
6. Dated May 18, not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 751H.5–MSP/5–1855)