The United States Government appreciates the sympathetic understanding which the Canadian Government has displayed toward United States proposals for increasing the number of MAAG personnel in Viet-Nam, as well as the study which the Canadian Government has given this problem in connection with the provisions of the Viet-Nam Cease-Fire Agreement.⁵⁹⁹ United States authorities have given careful consideration to the Canadian Government's Memorandum of September [30], 1958, on this subject,⁶⁰⁰ and would like to offer the following views:

The United States agrees with the observation in Paragraph 5 of the Canadian Government's Memorandum that the purpose of Article 16 in prohibiting the "introduction into Viet-Nam of any troop reinforcements and additional military personnel" was presumably to maintain the military balance existing between the two sides on the date the Cease-Fire Agreement became effective. Therefore, on the basis of this interpretation and in view of the opening words of Article 16, namely, "with effect from the date of entry into force of the present agreement," it would seem that only those military personnel in excess of the number in Viet-Nam on July 22, 1954 are prohibited from entering Viet-Nam. Paragraph 2 of the Canadian Government's Memorandum indicates that the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Cease-Fire Agreement applies to the introduction of any foreign military personnel. It would thus appear, according to this view, that the first paragraph of Article 16 is to be interpreted as without reference to nationality insofar as the introduction of additional foreign military personnel is concerned and, therefore, as applicable to both French and United States personnel. If that should be the case, it would further appear logical to apply the same criterion of without reference to nationality in determining whether military personnel are in excess of the number in Viet-Nam on July 22, 1954 and, therefore, it should make no difference whether the military personnel are French or American so long as the total number of foreign military personnel in Viet-Nam does not exceed the level prevailing on July 22, 1954.

According to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Canadian Government's Memorandum, the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Cease-Fire Agreement provides certain exceptions to the prohi-bitions in the first paragraph of Article 16. It thus appears, according to this view, that the second paragraph of Article 16 is fundamentally tied to the first paragraph. If that is the case, then the interpretation of the first paragraph as applying to "any foreign military personnel" should be equally applicable to the second paragraph, despite the indication by the majority of the Viet-Nam Commission in the past that the second paragraph applied only to French mili-tary personnel.

In addition, inasmuch as the second paragraph of Article 16 permits "the rotation of units and groups of personnel" without distinction, the United States Government believes that the Agreement can be interpreted as permitting the rotation of military advisers as well as combat units. This view appears strengthened by the definition of rotation of units in the second paragraph of Article 16 as "replacement of units ... by other units of the same echelon," since "echelon" was presumably used to refer to units of similar function.

Thus, the exceptions provided for in the second paragraph of Article 16 can be validly interpreted as applicable to United States military training personnel as well as to French mili-tary training personnel. Consequently, if the first paragraph is to be interpreted as without reference to nationality, the proposed additional group of United States training personnel would, without any net increase in total foreign military personnel, replace the group of French training advisers which has departed from Viet-Nam.

In this connection, although as stated in Paragraph 6 of the Canadian Government's Memorandum, the ICC has dealt with MAAG as a separate organization, the United States wishes to note that TRIM (Training Relations Instruction Mission), which was established in February 1955, included French advisers as well as MAAG personnel. TRIM, including its French officers, was under direction of the Chief of MAAG who operated under the over-all authority of the Commander-in-Chief, French Forces, Indochina. Thus, with reference to the statement in the Canadian Government's Memorandum that no instance can be recalled in which the ICC treated French training advisers separately from French Union Forces, it would appear that the ICC treated French training advisers separately whenever it dealt with complaints concerning TRIM. Since the ICC did not question the 888 French and United States military advisers in 1955, it is presumed that their existence in Viet-Nam at that time was not considered a violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement.

United States authorities have noted the Canadian Government's concern about the possi-bility that North Viet-Nam, acting under irrational and ungrounded fear about its security, might take unwise and precipitate action to upset the present equilibrium in Indochina. Inasmuch as the total number of United States military personnel in Viet-Nam would not be expected to exceed materially the present number of MAAG and TERM personnel, the United States believes it unlikely that North Viet-Nam, Communist China or the Soviet Union would become genuinely alarmed or take any drastic action as a result of this particular step. Recent moves on the part of North Viet-Nam show that the Communists can at any time find some excuse for taking action regardless of what the United States or the Republic of Viet-Nam may do. These moves also indicate the urgency of accelerating the training mission of United States military advisers in the Republic of Viet-Nam.

The United States Government hopes that the Canadian Government might agree that the foregoing presents a satisfactory legal basis under the Cease-Fire Agreement for the proposed increase in MAAG personnel, and would appreciate the Canadian Government's opinion of the probable reaction thereto of the Indian Government.

⁵⁹⁹Voir volume 25, les documents 411 à 416, 418 à 420, 422./See Volume 25, Documents 411-16, 418-20, 422.

⁶⁰⁰Voir/See Volume 25, Document 420.