206. Memorandum From the Counselor and Chairman of the Policy Planning Council (Rostow) to the Secretary of State1
SUBJECT
- The Viet Minh in Laos and the Harriman Mission2
I wish to call your attention to the situation in Laos and its relation to Governor Harriman’s mission.
Very substantial Viet Minh units are now in Laos, positioned to protect the infiltration corridor to South Vietnam. We now also have, for the first time, firm evidence, capable of diplomatic and public presentation, that the Viet Minh have violated the Geneva Accord of 1962 by introducing men (trained political agents) through Laos into South Vietnam after the October deadline.
Although equivalent, firm surfaceable evidence does not yet exist on military units, no one believes that such infiltration has been reduced since October 1962. It may run at a rate of 4-500 per month. To judge the burden imposed on the war effort in South Vietnam one must multiply this figure by about 15. It is evidently Ho’s policy to sop up the improved performance in South Vietnam by this cheap device awaiting either a break on the political situation in Saigon or US discouragement with our effort there. South Vietnam has always been Ho’s primary immediate objective in Laos rather than the control of the Mekong Valley.
It is evidently bad practice to connive at the violation of a solemn agreement by the Communists. I believe the time has come to call them on this; and the appropriate occasion is the Harriman mission, since he negotiated for us at Geneva and personally received the Pushkin assurances that Moscow would assume responsibility for stopping the use of Laos as an infiltration route into South Vietnam.
[Page 455]Both on principle and in terms of American politics I believe it would be unwise for us to permit a mood of detente to develop with Moscow until this matter is settled. American soldiers are committed in substantial numbers in South Vietnam and we are taking casualties.
(Incidentally, I would say the same about the continued presence of Soviet forces in Cuba. A detente will haunt us until the Soviet forces are substantially removed from Cuba.)
I propose, therefore, that Governor Harriman inform Moscow:
- 1.
- We. have firm evidence that the Viet Minh are violating the Geneva Accords by their continued presence in Laos and infiltration of South Vietnam.
- 2.
- Vital interests of the United States, symbolized by the presence of our forces in South Vietnam and our commitment to Thailand, are endangered by this fact.
- 3.
- Unless Viet Minh troops are withdrawn and infiltration ceases we shall shortly have to take compensatory action against North Vietnam.
- 4.
- In view of responsibilities formally assumed by Moscow at Geneva we request them promptly to bring about Viet Minh compliance with the Accord of 1962.
I would only add this: if we are to have a showdown with Ho (and, implicitly, Mao) on this matter, we should bring it about before the Chinese Communists blow a nuclear device. Such a symbolic capability would not alter the basic military equation in the Far East, but it could complicate the task of holding our alliances firm in the face of US action, introducing elements of a nuclear confrontation not now present.
- Source: Department of State,S/P Files: Lot 70 D 199, Laos. Secret. Also sent to Harriman, Johnson, and Hilsman. A note on the source text indicates that Secretary Rusk saw the memorandum.↩
- The Harriman mission involved joint U.S.-U.K. negotiations with the Soviet Union on a nuclear test ban treaty. The negotiations began in Moscow on July 15 and culminated in agreement on the text of a treaty on July 25. In his discussions with Soviet leaders during the course of these negotiations, Harriman, who led the U.S. delegation, touched on U.S. concern over developments in Laos and asked Premier Khrushchev to attempt to restrain North Vietnamese activity in Laos. Harriman did not, however, address the issue of Laos as an infiltration corridor into South Vietnam. Documentation on Harriman’s negotiations in Moscow is Ibid., Conference Files: Lot 66 D 110, CF 2284-2286.↩