Office of the Historian

118. Telegram From the Secretary of State to the Embassy in Vietnam1

Washington, March 17, 1960—3:53 p.m.

1687. Joint Defense-State message. Ref A) Ottawa’s 590, 591; B) Ottawa’s 563;2 C) Deptel 1653;3 D) Saigon’s 2661.4 Ref A: As seen from Department favorable and sympathetic response to MAAG increase shown by GOI, GOC and UK most encouraging and represents net increase cooperativeness these governments in problems SEA area which we should maintain and encourage. To do so will require reasonable flexibility implementation time table MAAG increase. Believe it essential this context ICC have some time discuss and possibly resolve by majority vote (Articles 41, 42 Geneva Agreement/Viet-Nam5) this question prior actual commencement increase.

[Page 335]

Unless Saigon has serious objection suggest addressee posts discuss timing MAAG increase with their governments on or soon after March 21 along following lines:

We must, at same time remove TERM personnel from Viet-Nam by end 1960, maintain in Viet-Nam a training mission of size adequate to provide maximum support for GVN at time increased danger and, in order not cause difficulties for our friends on ICC, effectuate increase of MAAG by bringing additional personnel in small groups over period months (ref B). On other hand we hope ICC will have had time discuss and, hopefully resolve by majority vote, problem before we commence MAAG increase. We understand ICC may be able commence discussions early April.

Under these circumstances we feel we must suggest to GVN that it submit short, quiet note to ICC on March 31 to effect MAAG increases will start April 15 and MAAG will be gradually increased to 685 by end 1960. Original plan was to start increase April l.6

Saigon:

1.
Be sure GVN does not deliver Note March 21 (ref C).
2.
Ref D, when GVN submits Note March 31 Table Distribution and references to TERM to MAAG transfers should be omitted.
3.
Plan commence April 15 would leave over 8 months for transfers from TERM to MAAG, average monthly basis, to be completed by 31 December 1960.7

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751K.5–MSP/3–1660. Secret; Priority. Drafted by Wood, cleared with DOD/ISA, SOA, BNA, and SEA; approved by Steeves. Sent also priority to New Delhi and to Ottawa and London; repeated for information to CINCPAC for PolAd and to Manila priority for Durbrow and Parsons.↩
  2. In these telegrams, March 15, 15, and 2, the Embassy in Ottawa passed on Canadian Department of External Affairs reports indicating that the Government of India would be sympathetic to a gradual increase in the U.S. MAAG in Vietnam. The Canadians did not believe that the proposed Vietnamese note in telegram 1653 to Saigon, March 12 (see footnote 3 below) would be appropriate or helpful. (Ibid., 751K.5–MSP/3–1560, /3–1560, and /3–260, respectively)↩

  3. In telegram 1653 to Saigon, repeated by pouch to Ottawa, the Department of State made the following suggestion:

    “Thus Embassy may wish suggest GVN, on or about March 21, present short, low voltage Note to ICC along following lines:

    “In accordance with its Note of February 23 the GVN has asked the USG to commence increasing its MAAG contingent on April 1 and to continue the process until MAAG reaches a total of 685 at the end of 1960. The ICC will, of course, receive notification of all arrivals and departures and of any transfers from TERM to MAAG in the normal manner.

    “MAAG personnel will be assigned in accordance with the attached Table of Distribution (subject separate DOD message).” (Ibid., 751. K/5–MSP/3–160)

    ↩
  4. In telegram 2661, March 16, the Embassy in Saigon commented on the proposed note in telegram 1653 to Saigon and suggested that it be sent by the GVN to the ICC without reference to transfers of personnel from TERM to MAAG and without a table distribution of MAAG personnel. (Ibid., 751K.5/3–1960)↩

  5. Articles 41 and 42 of the Agreement of the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam, July 20, 1954, read as follows:

    • “41. The recommendations of the International Commission shall be adopted by majority vote, subject to the provisions contained in article 42. If the votes are divided the chairman’s vote shall be decisive.

      “The International Commission may formulate recommendations concerning amendments and additions which should be made to the provisions of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam, in order to ensure a more effective execution of that agreement. These recommendations shall be adopted unanimously.

    • “42. When dealing with questions concerning violations, or threats of violations, which might lead to a resumption of hostilities, namely:
      • “(a) Refusal by the armed forces of one party to effect the movements provided for in the regroupment plan;
      • “(b) Violation by the armed forces of one of the parties of the regrouping zones, territorial waters, or air space of the other party;

    “the decisions of the International Commission must be unanimous.” (Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. XVI, p. 1517)

    ↩
  6. Telegram DEF 973757 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to CINCPAC, dated March 11 and repeated to CHMAAG Vietnam, reads in part: “Beginning 1 April 1960, personnel arriving Viet-Nam will no longer be assigned to TERM. Have MAAG T/D 685 spaces prepared for submission by Government of Viet-Nam to ICC in accordance with instructions USEmb and all new arrivals assigned against this T/D or against the 51 administrative spaces authorized. Any shortages or understrength of personnel 1 April 1960 should be reflected in TERM. Personnel transfers necessary to phase TERM out by 31 Dec 1960 will be accomplished average monthly basis during period 1 April–30 November 1960.” (National Archives and Records Service, JCS Records, CCS 99, 9155.3/4060 (15 Feb 60))↩

  7. In telegram 2699 from Saigon, March 20, the Embassy concurred with the substance of paragraphs 2 and 3 in telegram 1687, but for tactical reasons favored a series of oral approaches by the United States to Canada, the United Kingdom, and India. (Department of State, Central Files, 751K.5–MSP/3–2060)

    The Department of State agreed with the oral approach, but countered that the GVN should make some official notification to the ICC about the MAAG increase on or about April 4. (Telegram 1712 to Saigon, March 21; ibid.)

    ↩