274. Memorandum of a Conversation, Secretary-General Hammarskjöld’s Office, New York, September 22, 1959, 12:10 p.m.1
PARTICIPANTS
- United States
- The Secretary
- Ambassador Wadsworth
- Mr. Wilcox
- Mr. Parsons
- United Nations
- Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary-General of UN
SUBJECT
- Laos
The Secretary General remarked that it was odd that the Lao Acting Foreign Minister was coming here next week with the Foreign Minister already here.2 The critical implication in his remark was that even while the Security Council Subcommittee was in Laos a Lao Cabinet Minister was coming to make further contact in the UN. Mr. Hammarskjold also mentioned a report that Sam Neua had been closed to press correspondents which he thought was harmful to the Lao Government’s interest as it could reduce the credibility of their reports about Viet Minh interference in Laos. He remarked he had now had a report from the group in Vientiane which he showed to the group to document his remark that it was rather curious in its brevity and lack of information.
The Secretary General said that with respect to the Subcommittee it was his impression it would travel to the troubled area after it had settled down a bit in Laos and its movements would appear less dramatic. He himself had not had much opportunity to talk to Laos’ [Page 629] neighbors but he was talking soon with both the Lao Foreign Minister and the Burmese Foreign Minister. He thought Laos was very much a case for continuing UN civilian presence and that the Subcommittee’s presence had already done good in deterring further fighting.
The Secretary fully agreed on the value of the Subcommittee’s presence and hoped they would do a good job of fact-finding. The Secretary General remarked that it was an able group and so he was hopeful they would make the best possible report in the circumstances. The Secretary remarked that of this group he knew only Bourguiba whom he thought an able and sensible man. Mr Hammarskjold remarked that the USSR paper calling for a second Geneva conference had now been circulated in the US and while it was weakly drafted in spots it showed evidence of strong insistence on certain points. The Soviets claimed that the convening of the Security Council meeting was illegal as well as action under Article 29. As evidence that this paper had been written in Moscow, he remarked that when several factual errors were pointed out to the Russians here, they remarked that it could not be changed having been sent to them textually. While in general the paper contained nothing new, it indicated that the next round on Laos in the United Nations would be a harsh one. He went on to say that thus far the Subcommittee has not brought up the matter of its itinerary in Laos but as matters are obviously proceeding more slowly than expected, he felt that the previous matter concerning which he spoke to the Secretary could be closed for the moment. (This was the proposal for almost immediate action in the Security Council and then in the General Assembly in order to obtain a longer term UN presence in the area.) Reverting to the possible travels of the Subcommittee he said that with only ten people or so involved this was not a difficult problem.
The Secretary remarked that he had thought Mr. Hammarskjold’s idea of a continuing UN presence was excellent but that for the sake of the prestige of the UN, it would be well for the present Subcommittee to stay a while in Laos and see what they could make of the situation and generally do as effective job as possible. The Secretary General responded that of course the group was not empowered to make substantive recommendations but their reports could be so drafted as to imply what they thought should be done. In any event, he felt they should complete their job and make their report, including in it language which made clear that their presence had been useful. Once this was done, the question of substantive consideration in the UN could be taken up for future action. However, this was clearly further off than he had first thought and at the moment, he agreed with Mr. Wilcox’s thought that the group had had a tranquilizing effect.
- Source: Department of State, Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 64 D 199. Confidential. Drafted on September 28, but there is no indication on the source text who drafted the memorandum.↩
- In telegram 828 from Vientiane, September 24, the Embassy reported that Acting Foreign Minister Sisouk had told press correspondents that he would only leave for New York upon departure of Foreign Minister Khamphan Panya. (ibid., Central Files, 751J.00/9–2459)↩