Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume IV, Vietnam, August–December 1963

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

Saigon, December 11, 1963—7:30 p.m.

1142. CINCPAC for POLAD. Paris for Koren. Ref: Deptel 922.² Following summarizes major points of 1-1/2 hour meeting this morning with top GVN officials, including Generals Minh, Don, Kim, Dinh, Prime Minister Tho, Foreign Secretary Lam.

1. GVN leaders expressed deepest possible concern over unfortunate effects on war effort of a negotiated settlement before victory. This concern apparently brought to surface by New York Times editorial of December 8³ which was discussed in an AFP despatch captioned “The New York Times and the conference proposed by Prince Sihanouk” carried by Vietnam Press. They pointed out that apparent acceptance of proposal on neutrality conference on Cambodia and of Vietnam negotiation prior to victory by such influential journal as New York Times was having serious effect on morale Vietnamese engaged in anti-Communist struggle. While Generals mentioned specifically deleterious effect on morale of junior officers, quite clear that they equally shaken.

2. I read them pertinent sections reftel which reassured them considerably, but, while appreciating general tenor of telegram, Lam immediately saw loophole in wording of tel which implied we might go to conference under certain conditions. I reassured group that we had no intention of participating in a conference which would jeopardize US or GVN interests. I also said US at Paris would seek to persuade UK and France of conference dangers.

We also discussed US long-range policy toward Cambodia as well as GVN thinking about its own position vis-a-vis RKG. Details this discussion being reported other channels.⁴

At strong urging GVN leaders, I promised to try to get official public clarification our position re conference which would tend to refute New York Times version.

Fuller report follows.⁵

Comment: I definitely believe US should make public statement, either in Washington or Saigon, making it absolutely clear, without mentioning New York Times’ name, that we do not agree with the thought in the editorial.

Lodge

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 S VIET. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Paris, London, and CINCPAC.
2. Document 358.
3. See footnote 3, Document 358.
4. Not found.
5. Telegram 1143 from Saigon, December 11. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 S VIET)