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

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

Washington, July 21, 1955—7:23 p.m.

241. British Embassy on instructions has informed us Foreign Office believes Council Representatives communiqué published July 18² is sufficient, particularly taken in conjunction Prince Wan press conference. Foreign Office therefore wishes no further communiqué concerning SEACDT discussion no matter how issued. Latter phrase interpreted mean no communiqué whether by eight representatives or by Thai alone if reference SEACDT made.

Reasons are: 1) Any further communiqué would be linked visit Lao Crown Prince.³ (Requested explanation failed make this point clear, but apparently British consider SEACDT communiqué would be arrogation Lao powers.) 2) While British do not go so far as French in considering Representatives’ terms reference do not permit mention political matters in communiqué, they nevertheless believe political statement this case “inappropriate and provocative” in light Lao Government communiqué. Such statement would give Communists handle attack SEACDT as interfering internal affairs sovereign government. 3) Mere fact of announcement, no matter how worded, would irritate ICC and impede settlement. Resumption political negotiations Vientiane additionally cited. End summary.

Our object is let Communists know Manila Pact powers concerned about Laos and remind them Laos protected by SEACDT. We continue believe second communiqué is best means achieving this aim, and think British should be reminded their fall-back position if Thai persisted in raising matter at Bangkok meeting (Deptel 152 to Bangkok⁴) was to insure resultant statement included three points which current draft contains in substance.

We submit following draft substitute as 1) probably acceptable British French Australians; 2) concealing from Communists dissension among eight signatories on effective line action; 3) avoiding offending Lao Government by deploring only Pathets by name; 4) eliminating “finding” against Viet Minh.⁵

“In connection with reports to the effect that attacks have been made by lawless elements against forces of the Royal Lao Army, the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty Council Representatives during their last meeting exchanged information and views regarding this situation at the request of the Thai Government in accordance with their function of consultation on matters relating to the security of the Treaty area.

The Representatives noted that the Geneva settlement recognized the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of Laos.

They declared their full agreement with the attitude of the International Commission for Supervision and Control Over the Implementation of the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Laos, which on June 15 expressed to the Prime Minister of Laos its support for the Lao Government’s full authority over the northern provinces. They recognized that action by the International Commission offers the best immediate chance of a settlement of this dispute and felt sure that the International Commission would persevere in its efforts to this end.”

Recommend Paris London Canberra inform Foreign Offices we feel strongly second communiqué needed in order develop Manila Pact prestige, particularly among small states of Southeast Asia, and present revised draft as our compromise proposal.

Peurifoy requested attempt secure Council Representatives concurrence new draft.

Hoover

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 790.5/7–2155. Secret. Drafted in PSA and approved by Robertson. Also sent niact to London, Paris, and Canberra; repeated to Geneva for the Secretary and to Manila, Wellington, Karachi, Vientiane, Saigon, and Phnom Penh.
2. According to telegram 159 from Bangkok, July 18, the pertinent section of this communiqué reads: “At the request of the Thai representative, the Council representatives exchanged information and views about the recent fighting which took place near Mouang Peun (Laos)”. Ambassador Peurifoy stated that he neither approved nor objected to this communiqué. (Ibid., 790.5/7–1855)

   The communiqué was issued following the Council meeting held that day. At the meeting, participants failed to agree on a draft communiqué embodying the Department’s views. Text of the draft and a summary of discussion at the meeting are in telegram 158 from Bangkok, July 19, not printed. (Ibid., 790.5/7–1955)

3. Crown Prince Savang Vatthana.
4. Document 61.
5. Reference is to the following section of the draft mentioned in footnote 2 above:

   “They deplored Viet Minh interference Laotian affairs through support and direction Pathet Lao defiance of the Laotian Government which has included Pathet Lao armed attack against Laotian National Army garrisons legally stationed in the two northern provinces. These attacks are contrary to the terms of Geneva agreement, which should be firmly upheld.”