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

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

Vientiane, May 31, 1957—6 p.m.

2026. In view Department’s much appreciated efforts obtain effective French backing for our view of dangers of RLG–PL coalition am submitting following delicate information by telegram:

Embtel 1998² called attention enigmatic reference in Souvanna’s speech 27th to reason for requesting by means tripartite notes guarantee of unity, integrity of Laos. I have following reasons to believe this was allusion to reported US plot to foster separatist movement and buffer state in south:

(1) French Military Attaché officially raised question with then Army Attaché in February (ARMA R–37–57³).

(2) More recently French adviser in talk with Embassy officer scoffed at latter’s denials and even grew irritated when Embassy officer persisted in saying it unthinkable that US engaged in any such plot with Boun Oum or Katay.

(3) More recently another report reached me that French earlier this year had allegedly conveyed information by Souvanna Phouma purportedly based on “documentary evidence in Paris” that US in back separatist movement in Southern Laos …

(4) …

As regards “documentary evidence” we believe it possible that after talks in Washington Katay carried with him through Paris papers relating to his request for support of program construction monuments, etc., in south. Possibly these documents reached French unbeknownst to him.

On 29th, before Assembly votes taken I asked Souvanna for audience today. I read enigmatic passage in his speech and asked him if he could explain background in private. He merely mentioned that every country had right to unity and it was useful for him to have this underwritten in “common declaration”. I then said that from French sources I had heard rumors of suspicions that US fostering separatist movement in south and that possibly this was reason for asking for tripartite notes (which it will be recalled was brainchild of French adviser Parizot⁴). Souvanna replied that there had in fact been incidents in the south, that these had been linked to separatism, and that through his services of information, which existed a bit everywhere, US had been linked with movement. I said that I wished that this had been brought to my attention so that I could have denied it directly. Souvanna replied that of course indications were not sufficiently precise or sure to raise such a question. I then said that I took this matter extremely seriously, so much so that if there were ever given by [me?] any evidence that I could consider genuine, I would offer my resignation at once to Washington as it was unthinkable that any such activity contrary to US policy could go on without my knowledge.

I deliberately took this means of challenging Prime Minister to produce evidence both because I wished to scotch story once and for all, and because I have had … reported French involvement in Lao Government suspicion of American complicity in separatist movement. In closing my remarks to Prime Minister I reiterated story preposterous because it was American policy to assist Laos in consolidating its independence and defending its liberty and not the reverse to partition and abandonment of heart of country. Souvanna replied that since I had told him he believed my assurance there was no American involvement in southern separatist movement. I do not know what repercussions will ensue if Souvanna reveals this to Parizot or to other French, but it should be noted that I did not accuse French to Souvanna of seeking prejudice him against US, although I consider burden of proof is on them demonstrate this not so. On other hand Souvanna admitted accuracy our information re reference in his speech of 27th.

Should Department consider raising this with French I should appreciate being consulted in view sensitivity of some of information involved.⁵

Parsons

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751J.13/5–3157. Secret; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Paris and London.
2. Dated May 28, not printed. (Ibid., 751J.13/5–2857)
3. Not found.
4. Governor Parizot was adviser to Souvanna Phouma and son-in-law of Petsarath.
5. In telegram 1499 to Vientiane, June 4, the Department noted that it had already denied to the French in Washington (see Document 440) any attempt to foster southern secession. Any further representation would imply French complicity in spreading the rumors. (Department of State, Central Files, 751J.13/5–3157)