Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXVIII, Laos

257. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, October 12, 1966.

SUBJECT

• Geneva Agreements and Lao Elections

PARTICIPANTS

• Prince Souvanna Phouma, Prime Minister of Laos
• Khamking Souvanlasy, Lao Ambassador
• W. Averell Harriman, Ambassador at Large
• Mr. Leonard Unger, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Far East

The Governor said that since Hanoi had not respected the 1962 Geneva Agreements for even one day, how could we be sure that the North Vietnamese would respect them in the future.

The Prime Minister believed that it was necessary to work on the Soviets, to get them to help bring peace to Laos. If peace could be achieved there, it would open the way to a general détente in Indochina.

The Governor commented that the tragedy was that the reconciliation we had worked for in Laos had not come about. Moreover, it looked as though the Pathet Lao was moving closer and closer to the Chinese and farther away from the Soviets. The Prime Minister agreed, adding that Chinese influence over the Pathet Lao had grown considerably in recent months. The North Vietnamese, owing to the difficulties they were now experiencing, could not help the Pathet Lao as they had in the past.

The Governor asked what Hanoi’s current attitude was toward Moscow and Peking. The Prime Minister said that Hanoi is still very close to Moscow. The Governor commented that Moscow seemed to want an end to the struggle but not only did not have enough influence to bring it about but also feared that Peking would accuse the Soviets of being agents of U.S. imperialism.

The Prime Minister said he had been in Moscow in April and had talked with Mazuov. He learned that nothing could be done about Laos. The Soviets recognized the existence of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, ergo the presence of North Vietnamese in Laos, but would not act to settle the problem.

The Governor said he hoped that the Prime Minister would do everything possible to maintain good relations with the USSR, because if the Soviets considered Laos to be friendly, they would be more comfortable in any steps they took vis-à-vis Hanoi. The Prime Minister said he did not think the Soviets had changed their attitude toward Laos; they continued to trust Laos.

Lao Elections

Mr. Unger asked the Lao Ambassador whether any decisions had been made concerning the forthcoming elections for the new Assembly. The Ambassador replied in a tone reflecting some surprise since the Prime Minister had informed Finance Minister Sisouk and him only that morning that the elections would be held on January 1. He said the elections would be regular, as distinct from the special elections held in 1965; they would accord strictly with the Constitution, a condition by which the Prime Minister set great store; and they would be on the basis of universal suffrage without discrimination of any kind. In response to Mr. Unger’s inquiry, Ambassador Khamking replied that they would be under the electoral law of 1957, as amended in 1959 or thereabouts.

Mr. Unger asked the Prime Minister what he expected the election outcome to be. Souvanna replied with unwonted heat, “the non-election of the members of the present Assembly!” (“He is a hard man at times,” the Lao Ambassador commented in an aside.) Mr. Unger asked whether the elections would bring young, new men to office—men young in thought and spirit, concerned for their country’s welfare and not their own pockets. The Prime Minister said he did not foresee much of a change since the Lao people were tradition-minded and clung to old, well-known figures. The younger men were “illustres inconnus” to the general populace and did not stand much chance at the polls.

The Prime Minister went on to say that he did not plan to resign as Prime Minister after the elections, because that would mean the end of the Government established at the time of the 1962 Geneva Agreements, a development which would have an unfavorable effect internationally. Mr. Unger stressed the importance from the international standpoint of maintaining the form of the Geneva settlement of 1962. Souvanna agreed vigorously, in a manner implying there was no need to convert the converted. It was precisely because of this consideration that, while he would probably put two or three new people in the Cabinet, he would keep open the Pathet Lao portfolios. “We do not care,” he said with unusual force, “whether the Pathet Lao participates or not. Others could be named acting to do the work, but the Pathet Lao places would be there.” The main thing was that the form would be preserved.

Governor Harriman expressed the hope that those who were creating political troubles would come to realize the importance of Laos’ role in Southeast Asia and in the world at large. The Prime Minister thought that they were becoming more and more aware of that. He said he often stated that if Laos had not achieved its neutrality and if it had not adhered to the 1962 Agreements, it would be a much greater battlefield than it is now.²

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27–14 LAOS. Secret. Drafted by Slutz and Sophia K. Porson of Language Services and approved in Harriman’s office on October 28.
2. Harriman and Souvanna also discussed the situation in Southeast Asia beyond Laos and made a formal exchange of toasts during a luncheon. Accounts of these conversations are in memoranda of conversation, October 12; ibid. and ibid., POL ASIA SE.