Office of the Historian

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

Vientiane, December 2, 1960—11 p.m.

1043. For Deputy Under Secy Merchant and Asst Secy Parsons. Ref: Deptels 5712 and 572.3 Regret Reftels, though I fully agree their [Page 987] analysis situation, do not answer questions presented Embtels 1005 and 1014.4

(1)
I recommended we tell Phoumi not cross Nam Ca Dinh at this juncture political negotiations and that CINCPAC instructions to Brownfield encourage Phoumi do so be rescinded. Reftels do not answer this. Since CINCPAC instruction still stands and conditions still such that Phoumi crossing would defeat chances peaceful solution I feel I must repeat my request.
(2)
My second question raised problem who on spot decides careful balance fluid political and military factors referred to Deptel 571? Reftels fail clarify this. I would like to know where I stand. At present I have responsibility but not authority, because someone else is giving orders of crucial importance to PEO reps in Laos through separate channels, without necessity my concurrence or even opportunity comment, e.g., whether it is good or bad from viewpoint US interest for Phoumi to cross Nam Ca Dinh. This seems to me question for Ambassador or Dept to decide and, if latter, decision to be carried out through Ambassador.

Please advise.

Brown
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751J.00/12–260. Secret; Niact; Eyes Only; No Distribution. Received at 2:08 p.m.↩
  2. Document 471.↩
  3. See footnote 3, supra.↩
  4. See footnote 4, supra.↩