Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume III, Vietnam, January–August 1963

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

Saigon, June 28, 1963, 3 p.m.

1246. Deptel 1271.² Session with President Diem yesterday evening lasted over two and one-half hours. I believe that he was reassured by reftel, of which I gave him text appropriate paragraphs, and by my statement that we would be using first three paragraphs as background for press. However, Diem made no direct comment on demarche and he parried all efforts to get him to speak frankly and directly about his reactions to recent pressures or, indeed, to talk about Buddhist problem at all, except in very superficial way. He did not touch on any of actions and plans mentioned by Thuan (Embtel 1243).³ I concluded that he did not want to allow me to link these actions with U.S. pressures.

Meeting was thus largely a monologue in which Diem covered the waterfront: Laos, military operations, the Chieu Hoi program, Strategic Hamlets, the Republican Youth, and the Women’s Solidarity Movement. Except on Laos (see separate telegram),⁴ there was nothing essentially new in any of this in terms of information. What was remarkable was the stress he laid on his plans to democratize the country from the bottom up and his very evident intent to impress on me his solidarity with the Nhus (I have never heard him refer to them so frequently).

Diem spoke at length and with passion and considerable eloquence about the fundamental social and political revolution being carried out in Viet-Nam through the Strategic Hamlet Program. The theme was essentially that of Nhu, and Diem in fact specifically acknowledged this. Apart from Strategic Hamlet Program itself, revolution depended upon two things. First, development and instruction of youth, who must be infused with an ideal and with ideas which would enable them to carry on meaningful democratic process. For this, the instrument was Republican Youth led by his brother. He spoke with emotion of courage and devotion these “unpaid” youth had already shown in defending their hamlets, in aiding fire victims, etc. Second essential was to carry out much the same instruction and indoctrination of women “who make up more than half the population”. Instrument here is Women’s Solidarity Movement led by Madame Nhu. He acknowledged that this organization had not made as much headway in provinces as Republican Youth and attributed this in part to fact that Madame Nhu has not been able to travel widely.

Diem said that process he described was moving very rapidly, that one could look forward to full democracy and liberty in two or three years. At that point government sponsored Republican Youth would give way to a mass political and social organization entirely independent of government.

Meanwhile, Diem said government was doing everything possible to stimulate democratic processes and personal liberty. Hamlet elections had been successful and elections would be extended rapidly upwards to province level. In Strategic Hamlet and Republican Youth courses major effort was being made to encourage free and critical discussion and airing of new ideas. On justice, provinces had already been directed to institute as rapidly as possible, and where security conditions permitted, a system of habeas corpus under which no person could be held for longer than 24 hours without a court order., (With only one judge for every three provinces, he said, this was difficult to manage.) Diem again gave Nhu much of credit for this directive.

Diem spoke with great enthusiasm about all this, remarking that Viet-Nam would soon be a model of democracy for all of Southeast Asia. He also dropped a broad hint that he and his Ministers could get job done faster if they could be protected from outside pressures which took up so much of their time—a clear reference to recent events.

Comment: This is plainly some sort of response to our pressures for action to restore public support for government. However, apart from absolutely clear declaration of solidarity with Nhus. I am not sure what to make of it. Specifically, I am not sure whether it is merely a defense of what Diem has been doing all along (it is that all right), or whether it is a forecast of some new and perhaps fairly spectacular steps along same lines.⁵ For example, public announcement of habeas corpus directive would fit latter category.

I suppose in this case as in others we shall have to find answer to our demarches in actions rather than direct replies. In this connection, I have just received indirect confirmation that Diem leaves for Hue tomorrow.

Trueheart

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 15-1 S VIET. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Received at 7:39 p.m.
2. Document 137.
3. Document 189.
4. Trueheart reported on Diem’s concern over developments in Laos in telegram 1245 from Saigon, June 28. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 LAOS)
5. A marginal notation on the source text at this point, in Wood’s hand, reads: “Doubtful.”