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

98. Draft Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Vietnam¹

Washington, September 12, 1963.

Eyes only for Ambassador from Secretary. Following are some of my thoughts against the background of the voluminous and most helpful information coming from you and country team.

1. Although situation in Saigon is understandably intensive preoccupation of those who have been carrying such a heavy load for us under difficult and dangerous circumstances, this is not first time that the US Government has been confronted with far-reaching issues affecting vital interests in a country whose leadership stubbornly resists measures which we consider necessary to achieve desired results. One thinks of Chiang Kai-shek on the mainland, Syngman Rhee, Sihanouk, Nasser, Mossadegh and others.

2. Our central objective remains a secure and independent South Viet-Nam even though, at some future date, it may be possible to consider a free, independent and non-communist unified country. This central objective was what brought us into South Viet-Nam and its achievement is the condition for our leaving. No one would be happier than we to leave under that circumstance.

3. It seems to me that there are outer limits of policy within which we must therefore operate unless the situation forces us to break through those limits. One would be that we do not get out and turn South Viet-Nam over to the Viet-Cong. The other would be that we do not use large-scale forces to occupy the country and run it ourselves.

4. The key question is what has gone wrong to block or reverse the favorable developments of the first six months of this year when we were beginning to feel that a corner had been turned and that we could anticipate a successful conclusion. The central fact appears to be that the political solidarity of the Vietnamese, notably that of the elite and leadership groups, has disintegrated under the impact of the Buddhist problem, press policy, student and intellectual disaffection, and increasing fears and distrust within the leadership itself. This seriously negative development seems to be geared to brother and Madame Nhu and in the process the position of President Diem has been weakened politically at home, overseas, and more specifically with our Congress and public opinion. The two Nhus seem clearly to be at the heart of the problem both on the merits and symbolically at home and abroad.

5. I agree fully with your sense of urgency which I am inclined to measure in weeks rather than in days. It seems to me that at present we should concentrate on Diem himself to make him see that everything he has been working for for the past ten years is threatened with collapse and failure and that bold and far-sighted action on his part is urgently required in order to unite the country and get it back on a favorable course. This may require persistent talks with him in the days ahead in which we would insist that he listen for a change and break through the flood of words which he uses to avoid coming to grips with his real problems. The question of what type of pressures and when such pressures should be applied is the essence of the judgement which you will have to make on the spot. I am inclined to think that in the next immediate stage we should not threaten what we will not or cannot deliver and that we are not yet ready to cut off assistance which affects the war effort or which would inflict serious damage to the people as contrasted with the regime. You have unlimited information to make clear to him that real statesmanship from him is now required to reverse the collapse of his position at home, internationally and in the United States. Our next approach to him might well be, therefore, to review with him the record of his tenure of the Presidency, including the admittedly positive and courageous contributions he has made and appeal to his pride and patriotism to move toward success and not failure. This could introduce frank and firm discussion of what needs to be done including the baleful effect which the Nhus have been having on his country. Incidentally, we shall be sending you a separate message on Madame Nhu’s visit to the United States,² a visit which could well be disastrous for Viet-Nam and not merely an irritant for the US Government.

6. In sum, and reviewing some of our successes and failures in the past in dealing with similar difficult personalities, it seems to me that our real problem now is to come to grips with Diem and be prepared to exchange our full confidence and support for the actions which he must take, however difficult, if there is to be a chance for success. I mention confidence because, despite the fact that his position both originally and now has been made possible by persistent and costly American support, he has on several occasions over the past several years undoubtedly gotten the impression that we were trying to unhorse him. It may be that it will be impossible to succeed along this line but the alternatives are so far-reaching that the present effort seems to me to be worth the tedious and frustrating hours which will undoubtedly be required to get through to him and get him to carry out his own full responsibility.

1. Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Meetings and Memoranda Series, Meetings on Vietnam. Secret. Drafted by Rusk. In a telephone call to Hilsman, at 8:23 p.m., September 11, Rusk discussed the drafting of this telegram:

   “Sec said he would go home tonight and draft a fairly long discursive message to Lodge to give his own views on paper but H might go ahead on the letter idea. Sec would think that is the means by which we try to get this fellow on board there through persuasion without at this stage a lot of other things that go along with it. Sec replied it would be a presidential letter. H will be sending Lodge cable tonight and will call Sec tonight on WH phone.” (Department of State, Rusk Files: Lot 72 D 192, Telephone Conversations)

   Regarding the Presidential letter, see Document 115. The cable Hilsman mentioned is presumably telegram 391, Document 97. There is no record of another telephone conversation between Hilsman and Rusk on the night of September 11. The cable printed here was not sent; see Infra.

2. Apparent reference to telegram 405 to Saigon, September 13, in which the Department informed Lodge that “our feeling is that official approach to Diem on Madame Nhu’s possible activities in US not desirable at this time. Would appreciate your ideas on how Madame Nhu’s trip to US could be discouraged in a manner not attributable to official US action, for example, do you think there is any possibility that Asta could accomplish it?” (Department of State, Central Files, POL 1 S VIET-US)