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

62. Telegram From the Department of State to the Legation in Laos¹

Washington, July 16, 1955.

38. British Embassy this morning read us Lao Government communiqué issued July 16. Substance was: Lao Government astonished learn from “wireless” Manila Pact representatives Bangkok would consider activity “so-called Pathet Lao”. In first place, Government stated, Pathet Lao internal matter within sole competence Royal Government to settle within framework Geneva Agreement and in accordance procedure provided therein. Secondly if Lao Government believed its security “too dangerously threatened”, it would be for it to take in full sovereignty measures judged necessary insure territorial integrity.

Vientiane please confirm.²

If statement in fact made, seems clear French and/or British successfully exerted strong pressure Lao Government anticipated Department telegram 153 to Bangkok repeated Paris Tosec 5 Manila 166 Wellington 8 Canberra 11 Karachi 94 London 241 Vientiane 31 Saigon 152 Phnom Penh 46.³ British Embassy representative here said, however, he frankly had no indication British Minister Vientiane⁴ had taken such action and that communiqué posed problems also for British now that Manila Pact discussion Laos public knowledge.

Thais had informed Lao Legation Bangkok of intention raise Pathet threat in SEACDT meeting, but it probably true Vientiane itself not at time communiqué issued officially informed by Thais. Nevertheless Lao Government must have learned of SEACDT interest from Western representatives Vientiane.⁵

If asked, we shall tell press 1) we were aware Thais had planned raise this matter at July 18 meeting Council Representatives; 2) in our view aggressive action Pathets constitutes threat to peace and security of area and as such is proper matter for discussion by Council Representatives; 3) Council Representatives not action body; 4) in any event no action would be taken under Manila Pact with respect Laos except at specific request Lao Government.

We shall point out that paragraph 3 of Article 4 of Treaty specifically provides “that no action on territory of any state designated by unanimous agreement under paragraph 1 of this Article or on any territory so designated shall be taken except at invitation or with consent of government concerned.”⁶

Hoover

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/7–1655. Confidential; Niact. Drafted in PSA and approved by Robertson. Repeated priority to Geneva for the Secretary, and priority to Bangkok, Paris, Manila, Wellington, Canberra, Karachi, London, Saigon, and Phnom Penh.
2. In telegram 59 from Vientiane, July 17, the Legation confirmed that the Lao Government had issued the communiqué after first learning of the matter from a radio broadcast. “Prime Minister [Katay] was irritated and had drafted communiqué of which [Foreign Minister] Phoui did not have copy.” (Ibid., Central Files, 790.5/7–1755)
3. This telegram, dated July 14, discussed British and potential French opposition to consideration of the Laotian situation by the Council representatives, and concluded: “In order head off probable British French pressure Lao Government to veto Thai proposal, request Peurifoy insure Thai have already informed Lao of intention raise matter with Manila Pact representative.” (Ibid., 790.5/7–1455)
4. Lord Talbot de Malahide.
5. In telegram 60 from Vientiane, July 17, repeated to Bangkok, Saigon, Paris, and Phnom Penh, the Legation stated in part: “While Talbot may have conceivably played some role (he was apparently the only foreign representative who received a copy of communiqué) it appears initiative of communiqué was Katay’s.” (Ibid., 790.5/7–1755)
6. In telegram 60, cited in footnote 5 above, the Legation also reported: “Re point one of US position, we asked whether Katay would object to resolution first deploring Viet Minh action in support of PL, which alone is preventing settlement PL issue. Katay confirmed he would, and said he had no objection to points two and three. Later he said if such resolution comes out on meeting he would make favorable comment on it. (He had understood resolution already passed; we informed him meeting was July 18.)”

   In telegram 189 to Bangkok, July 17, sent also to Vientiane and repeated to Geneva for the Secretary and to Paris, London, Karachi, Manila, Wellington, Canberra, Saigon, and Phnom Penh, the Department concurred in this suggestion, and stated that the U.S. position set forth in telegram 152, supra, should be revised accordingly. (Ibid., 790.5/7–1755)