In response to your request, I have obtained from the State Department
various documents relating to the ICC
issue. Of these, the most important is a draft French agreement which
was tabled with our concurrence, articles supplementing this agreement
tabled by the U.S., an alternative Indian draft and comments by the
Department to Geneva on the Indian draft. I have summarized and compared
the French-U.S. and Indian drafts in the attached and included the State
comments. This attachment will, I believe, save you a good deal of time
in finding your way through the issues and in describing the area within
which negotiations must take place. I have arranged it topically, but
with some variation it follows the format of the French-U.S. draft.
The attachment does not answer, however, the basic questions you raised
as to (a) exact numbers of personnel, kinds of equipment, where they are
to be located, etc.; and (b) the U.S. fallback position on the several
issues involved. On the first, the Department of Defense has done a good
deal of detailed planning. I have just requested the DOD papers. It is
not planned to incorporate these details in the new agreement itself
except for a statement on the location of the most important operations
centers for the inspection teams (see Par. 5 of attached). However,
State did not seem very clear as to the means by which our views on
these subjects would be put forward. It might, I would suppose, be
useful to consider whether such specifics should be put forward at
Geneva as further bargaining counters. However, agreement on specifics
would not seem to me to make compromise possible on such basic
principles as full access, control of transport and communications
equipment, majority rule, etc. These principles obviously have broader
applications that cannot be satisfied by agreement on specifics.
When I first asked about a fallback position I was told that the French
draft (ex the supplementary U.S. articles?) was the minimum. When I
talked with Usher of State today,
however, he said that he had been working on the question of fallback
position over the weekend (presumably because of the President’s
expression of interest).
If the Indian draft does pretty well reflect the Communist position, the
attached comparison will illustrate something of the range within which
compromise will have to take place if agreement is to be reached (unless
we offer new points for bargaining purposes). Although I have made no
thorough effort to compare the Indian draft with the Geneva Accords of
1954 and although they differ in a number of obvious respects, my
general impression from reading the two is that the Indian draft would
establish an ICC that would have roughly
equivalent functions and authority. As the attached statement may
suggest, the Indian draft is rather obscure on some of the most
important points, partly because the several provisions having a bearing
on a particular subject are scattered.
I have summarized in this memo and the attachment all of the material I
received from State except for a general memo of explanation of the U.S.
position on the ICC submitted by State
to the White House last May,1 a Cambodian draft (thoroughly vague and
unsatisfactory) and
[Page 329]
State
comments upon it.2 The May statement is
principally valuable for the background it provides on the question of
membership of the ICC on which, because
of objection by all concerned, we have, as you know, retreated to the
1954 formula.3
[Attachment]
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF FRENCH AND U.S. DRAFT PROTOCOL ON CONTROL
WITH INDIAN DRAFT
(Note: The U.S. accepted the draft tabled by
the French but offered supplementary articles. State comments on the
Indian draft are from Fecon 309 of
July 27, 1961.)4
1. Composition of International
Control Commission
French Draft: Continues the commission created
by 1954 agreements (Art. 1).
Indian Draft: Same (Art. 2).
2. General Functions of ICC
French Draft: To supervise and control
implementation of the cease-fire agreement and the neutrality
declaration (Art. 1).
Indian Draft: On cease-fire: same (Art. 2). On
neutrality: preservation of neutrality, including exclusion of
outside interference, is concern of Laotian Government; ICC to assist in preservation of
neutrality, establishing necessary machinery in agreement with
Government of Laos and in accord with this agreement (Art. 6).
3. Relations with Government of
Laos: General
French Draft: Commission to act in close
cooperation with government (Art. 1). Government to ensure safety of
ICC and its inspection
[Page 330]
teams, in particular: (a)
including, at their request, placing of protective forces at their
disposal; (b) taking measures to enable them to travel quickly and
safely so they may perform duties more effectively; (c) granting all
privileges and immunities required for performance of duties (Art.
5).
Indian Draft: ICC to function in close cooperation with government as
in French draft (Art. 10). Would have government place protective
forces at disposal of ICC “if
required” (instead of, if requested); privileges and immunities
granted would be those “agreed”; no specific reference to measures
relating to travel, though this may be covered by general provision
relating to facilities for visits and inspections (see Par. 6 below)
(Art. 3).
4. Authority of ICC and Its Inspection
Teams
French Draft: To have all authority for
investigation, inspection and verification necessary for performance
of duties, including authority to hear witnesses; unrestricted
access by land, sea and air to all parts of Laos; full freedom to
inspect all installations, units, organizations and activities which
might be of a military nature; and access to relevant documents
relating to civil and military aircraft, vehicles and river craft
(Art. 3).
Indian Draft:
ICC “will investigate by visiting
and inspecting or in other ways as appropriate such difficulties in
regard to the maintenance of the cease-fire as may arise.” (Art. 3).
ICC to “exercise vigilance” to
assist in preventing introduction or reintroduction of foreign
military personnel and military equipment whose introduction is
contrary to provisions of the agreement, establishing such machinery
as is necessary to this purpose in agreement with the Laotian
Government (Arts. 4 and 7).
(State Comment: Investigatory power of ICC seems limited to “maintenance of
cease-fire”. Is not clear whether reference to exercising vigilance
includes investigation. See also State comment under Par. 5 below.
Making establishment of ICC
machinery subject to RLG agreement would undermine effectiveness and
freedom of action of ICC.)
5. Composition and Location of
Inspection Teams
French Draft:
ICC to establish fixed and mobile
teams on which the three states on the ICC shall be equally represented; the absence of the
representative of one state shall not prevent ICC or teams from performing functions.
ICC to establish (and change if
need arises) sufficient number of operations centers to permit
efficient operation of the inspection system; in particular these to
be established at main points of entry and exit from the territory
(Art. 2).
Supplementary U.S. Draft: Initially the ICC shall establish operating centers
for its inspection teams at all major points of entry and
communications
[Page 331]
centers
throughout Laos. These places shall include:—————. All military
personnel and advisers, armaments, munitions and equipment will
enter and leave only at such places specified above as may be
designated by the ICC and then only
after prior notification and prior approval and under the
supervision of an inspection team. The ICC to withhold approval of movements inconsistent with
provisions of the agreement under its supervision and control (Art.
13). When the ICC has established
these operating centers and determined that it is able to operate
effectively throughout Laos it will so inform the Laotian Government
and members of the Conference. On the day after that notification,
the provisions with respect to elimination of foreign military, the
introduction of arms and equipment and movements of both will come
into effect (Art. 14).
Indian Draft: Apart from general authorization
to ICC to establish, in agreement
with Laotian Government, machinery to prevent illegal movement of
military personnel, equipment, etc. (see Par. 4 above), draft
contains no comparable provisions. Draft does specify (Art. 13) that
ICC personnel shall be
exclusively Canadian, Indian, Polish or Laotian nationals.
(State Comment:
ICC should have all authority for
investigation, inspection and verification necessary for performance
of their duties. Effective inspection can best be attained by
requiring free and immediate access (Par. 4 above), fixed and mobile
teams, commission and teams to function when any two members
present, and inspections at request of any member of ICC or inspection team (see Par. 7
below).)
6. Logistic and Other
Support
French Draft: Laotian Government to ensure
assistance is provided at all administrative and military levels
(Art. 1). ICC to have sufficient
logistic resources, including all means of transport and
communications required for effective performance of its duties; to
have free use of these and of facilities necessary for their
maintenance (Art. 4).
Indian Draft:
ICC and its teams will be “afforded”
facilities needed to carry out its inspections expeditiously and
effectively (Art. 3). The Government of Laos shall extend to the
ICC necessary facilities and
assistance (Art. 10). Administrative control of personnel and
equipment at the disposal of the ICC
rests, to the extent necessary for the purposes of the discharge of
its functions, in the ICC (Art.
14).
(State Comment: Art. 3 leaves open who will
“afford” ICC equipment. It appears
that RLG alone is to provide “necessary facilities and assistance”,
presumably including equipment. This is contrary to principle that
Commission should be permitted to accept equipment from any source.
Phrase in Art. 14 “to the extent necessary for such purposes”
[Page 332]
is possible source of
future disputes. Complete control by ICC is necessary for effective operation of the ICC.)
7. Initiation of Investigation and
Voting Provisions
French Draft: Shall be undertaken without
delay when requested by Laotian Government or by any member of the
ICC or any member of an
inspection team (Art. 6). Decisions relating to operations of the
commission or its teams and all procedural decisions shall be by
majority vote (Art. 7).
Indian Draft:
ICC shall undertake investigations
relating to maintenance of cease-fire upon receiving information or
reports from Laotian Government or other authorities designated for
the purpose, or at its own initiative and in agreement with Laotian
Government (Art. 3). No reference is made to investigations not
relating to cease-fire other than general references with respect to
“exercising vigilance” with respect to illegal introduction of
military personnel and equipment (see Par. 4 above). The ICC shall decide major questions by
agreement among its members (Art. 8).
(State Comment: Investigations cannot be
undertaken without RLG’s consent, thus making ICC freedom of access subject to RLG
agreement. Voting formula seems less satisfactory than in 1954
agreement amounting to unanimity rule for “major questions” without
indicating how members decide which questions are major ones.)
8. Reporting by Inspection Teams
and by the ICC
French Draft: The inspection teams will report
regularly, and, where urgent measures are required, immediately, to
the ICC. The ICC will send the Conference a regular quarterly report
and special reports (including suggestions as to measures to be
taken) in case of urgency. Where members of the ICC or of a team cannot agree, majority
and minority or three separate reports shall be submitted (Art. 8).
The Laotian Government and the ICC
may at any time propose to members of the Conference arrangements
they consider necessary to adapt the activities and resources of the
ICC to the situation (Art. 9).
As long as the ICC exists, heads of
the diplomatic missions to (country) of those states which are
members of the Conference shall meet at least twice a year (or by
majority agreement, at the request of one head of mission) to
consider ICC reports (which will be
circulated directly to them) and proposals by the ICC or the Laotian Government for
changes in arrangements pursuant to Art. 9 (Art. 10).
Indian Draft: The ICC will report to the Co-Chairmen as and when
necessary and in any case whenever it investigates an incident or
takes other important steps. The Co-Chairmen will circulate ICC reports to members of the
Conference (Art. 9). The Co-Chairmen shall, at the end
[Page 333]
of three years or earlier
if requested by the Laotian Government, report to members of the
Conference on the question of substantial modifications in (as well
as termination of) the operations of the ICC (Art. 12). The draft contains no arrangement for
regular or special meetings of Conference representatives.
(State Comment: Regular reports should be
required and minority reports authorized. Transmission through the
Co-Chairmen offers possibilities for delay; they should at least be
required to circulate them immediately.)
9. Withdrawal of Foreign Military
Personnel and Advisers
Supplementary U.S. Draft: Military personnel
and advisers, other than those whose presence is consistent with the
1954 agreement [the French]5 shall be withdrawn as soon as possible
and in no case later than _____ days after the notification by the
ICC of its establishment of
operating centers and of its ability to operate effectively
throughout Laos (Art. 16).
Indian Draft: All foreign military and
para-military personnel and units to be withdrawn immediately under
the supervision of the ICC; in any
case withdrawal shall be completed within _____ days of entry into
force of the agreement (Art. 4). Retention of French personnel for
training of security forces may be mutually agreed between
governments of France and Laos. The French cannot delegate its
responsibilities to any other authority than the Laotian Government
and may not recruit any personnel other than French or Laotian for
this purpose (Art. 5).
(State Comment: Immediate withdrawal of
foreign forces without provision similar to U.S. draft for ICC determination that it can operate
effectively throughout Laos is unsatisfactory. Prohibition on
delegation of French authority too restrictive; it would even
prevent delegation to neutrals which might in future be
desirable.)
10. Introduction of Arms and
Equipment
Supplementary U.S. Draft: No arms or equipment inconsistent with the
Laotian Government’s declaration on the organization of its national
army shall be introduced (Art. 18).
Indian Draft: Introduction of arms and war
material generally, except as required for the defense and security
forces of Laos, is contrary to the agreement (Art. 7).
11. ICC Costs
French Draft: Shall be borne as follows: _____
(Note: Proposed U.S. formula, not
included in text of draft agreement would have U.S., USSR,
[Page 334]
Communist China, France and U.K. share equally in meeting 80 percent
of costs, providing that our share for the year ending June 30,
1962, shall not be more than $2 million. Other 20 percent to be
borne by the nine other members of the Conference.)
Indian Draft: To be allocated on the basis of
the principles governing contributions to expenses of the UN.
(State Comment: Would mean U.S. share would be
approximately one-third.)
12. Termination of the ICC
French Draft: To remain in being until members
of Conference agree it can be terminated and in any case until July
31, 1964. The Co-Chairmen shall report to the Conference by that
date on the question.
Indian Draft: The Co-Chairmen to report on the
question at end of three years, or earlier if requested by Laotian
Government.
Provisions of Supplementary U.S.
Draft Not Included in Indian Draft
The parties to the cease-fire shall simultaneously inform the ICC within thirty days of the location,
organization, strength and equipment of all of their forces and all
foreign forces and advisers as well as the quantities of arms and
equipment in their possession (Art. 15). The ICC is to report to the Laotian Government and members
of the Conference any arms and equipment which appear in excess of
the needs of national forces and shall recommend disposition (Art.
17).
Within ten days all POW’s and
civilian internees shall be released, non-Laotians being released to
the ICC for repatriation (Art. 19).
There shall be no reprisals or discrimination against persons,
groups or organizations for their role in the hostilities (Art.
20).
Provision of the Indian Draft Not
Included in French or U.S. Drafts
The ICC for Laos shall cooperate with
those for Cambodia and Viet-Nam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva
Agreements (Art. 11).
