Office of the Historian

451. Telegram From the Embassy in Laos to the Department of State1

Vientiane, November 11, 1960—8 p.m.

907. Addressees pass interested agencies. Re Deptels 500 and 4662 and message 11 Nov through other channels.3 Agree Bountheng coup may provide opportunity expedite progress toward objectives Reftels.

Key figure in legal transition to new government is King. As recognized in all reftels, it is he who must call Souvanna to Luang Prabang, and he who must act if new govt is to be formed. So far he had been unwilling do so and Khamphan Panya is reported to have said today King will not act until Souvanna resigns. It is my view that Souvanna is not thinking of resigning as yet and would need to be pushed by King.

However, situation now presents possibility King could be induced act at least to call principals together to find solution. Phoui is in Luang Prabang as are Bounpone and Sourit. We have report Phoumi may be coming Nov 12. In any event Phoumi now much more likely come if asked by King since forces loyal to Phoumi control city. Hence King runs little risk rebuff if he invites Phoumi now. Believe Souvanna will go Luang Prabang if invited by King and offered safe conduct. Such meeting would be quicker and more reliable method working out solution than negotiations contemplated Embtel 3854 and Deptel 501.5

Important early solution be found before troubles break out between Pathet Lao and FAL and/or between Phoumi/Phouma forces.

[Page 953]

Therefore am asking my representative Luang Prabang, unless otherwise instructed by Dept by 0900 Vientiane time 12 Nov, to consult with Phoui soonest to ascertain his views desirability such conference and best way inducing King call meeting of three principals to work out solution. Unless Phoui sees objection we will urge him do his best get King arrange such meeting.

Brown
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751J.00/11–1160. Secret; Niact; Eyes Only. Repeated to Bangkok, Saigon, Phnom Penh, Paris, London, and CINCPAC for POLAD. Received at 9:02 a.m.↩
  2. Documents 448 and 440, respectively.↩
  3. Not further identified.↩
  4. The reference is in error. Apparently it should be to telegram 895, November 9; see footnote 2, Document 449.↩
  5. Document 449.↩