Office of the Historian

111. Telegram From the Embassy in Vietnam to the Department of State1

Saigon, April 27, 1959—2 p.m.

2268. From Parsons. Reference Department telegram 1690 to Saigon.2

1.
My visit to Phnom Penh was conceived of as reason for revelation at this late date of representations made. Cambodians are on notice that visit is something in nature of special mission to deal with very subject coup plotting and Son Sann may well expect my talk with him have something new of substance. Conversely, if I have nothing but old line in new words it may smack of pleading to accept truth of statements which Cambodians seem not to have accepted fully.
2.
It had been my thought representations would be characterized as preventative in nature and made because we knew of travel and presence in Thailand and Vietnam of dissident elements and because we, of course, assumed they would seek to stir up situation and obtain help where they could. I regret if Baguio 243 indicated I would admit complicity of governments. That was certainly not my intention. Furthermore, I planned to link revelation of these representations with statements to Son Sann on effect intemperate Cambodian actions and statements had on neighbors who genuinely concerned by Communist [Page 310] menace. In discussing matter at Baguio we recognized danger publicity at some time and Ambassadors Durbrow and Johnson indicated they were willing accept risk.
3.
What Cambodians do, in all probability, know is that we were at least aware of the plotting that was going on. Their evidence on that score is probably still mounting. What Cambodians don’t know is that when we came to know about plots, we did in fact make efforts with TG and GVN to have such plots discouraged. Fact that we have never explicitly told Cambodia about our efforts may, therefore, serve to abet their suspicions as to our complicity.
4.
I fully appreciate definite drawbacks to reviving and reviewing sorry events of past which are best forgotten. However, the Cambodians have so far been in no mood to forget them and they are likely to be raised by Cambodians in my conversations with them. If question is raised by Cambodians, I still believe some discreetly worded revelations in context mentioned paragraph 2 above would help compose situation.
5.
Unless further instructed,4 I will be guided by briefing paper prepared before I left Washington, plus such other telegrams to Phnom Penh which may have been received during my travels.
6.
Durbrow concurs.
Durbrow
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751H.00/4–2759. Secret; Niact; Limit Distribution. Repeated niact to Phnom Penh and Bangkok.↩
  2. See footnote 3, Document 109.↩
  3. Document 109.↩
  4. In telegram 927 to Phnom Penh, April 27, the Department reiterated that even the most discreet mention of U.S. “preventative representations” in Thailand and Saigon would be a mistake. (Department of State, Central Files, 751H.00/4–2759; included in the microfiche supplement)↩