Office of the Historian

533. Telegram From the Embassy in Thailand to the Department of State1

Bangkok, September 17, 1959—6 p.m.

737. Reference: London’s 1431 to Department information Saigon to Bangkok 202 Believe US should refrain from advising UK Government oppose re possibility Cathay Pacific may transport Vietnamese refugees from Thailand to North Vietnam. To do so would be to place ourselves in position of blocking implementation Thai–DRV Red Cross repatriation agreement. US did not attempt dissuade Thai from reaching this agreement and took hands off attitude throughout negotiations primarily because we had no reasonable alternative to offer. Our opposition to CPA involvement in repatriation, particularly if successful, would be certain become known to Thai with undesirable effect on Thai–US relations.

Moreover, while there may be disadvantage for free world in having British carrier engaged in this activity (CA–2222, September 8),3 do not doubt Thai would be willing accept Soviet bloc carrier if none other available which would from our viewpoint be even less desirable. If and when repatriation refugees actually gets underway (according agreement supposed start next January) may be desirable suggest to Thai use of Thai Airways.4

UK Foreign Office impression correct transportation refugees by air limited to small number sick and aged.

Johnson
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 292.51G22/9–1759. Confidential. Repeated to London and Saigon.↩
  2. Telegram 1431 from London, September 15, reported on a discussion held by an Embassy officer with two officials of the British Foreign Office to express U.S. concern over the possible involvement of a British carrier, Cathay Pacific Airways (CPA), in transporting Vietnamese refugees from Thailand to North Vietnam. The British reaction was that the agreement was reasonable and had been concluded to alleviate what was considered to be a serious security threat in Thailand. (Ibid., 292.51G.22/9–1559).↩
  3. Not printed. (Ibid., 292.51G22/9–859)↩
  4. Telegram 734 to Bangkok, September 24, concurred with this suggestion. (Ibid., 292.51G22/9–1759)↩