Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3
NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011
TOP SECRET – Sensitive
The Conference
| 7. | Declares general elections should be held in July 1956, with mutual consultations to this end beginning on 20 July 1955 | |
| 8. | Emphasizes the provision for free movement of civilians. | |
| 9. | Cautions against reprisals. | |
| 10. | Takes note of French agreement to withdraw troops from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam "at the request of the government concerned." | |
| 11. | Takes note of French recognition of sovereignty of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. | |
| 12. | Agrees as a group to respect sovereignty of Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam. | |
| 13. | Agrees as a group to consult on questions presented by ICC. |
- 2. Theoretical and Practical Interpretations Differ
- a. The Election Provision Causes Controversy
The most serious controversy over the Accords has centered on the election provisions (Article 7) of the Final Declaration. The Declaration obviously envisaged elections to decide on a united Vietnam to be held by July, 1956. Since "the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," the Geneva partition was a temporary, expedient measure. The Conference intended then to permit the Vietnamese people "to enjoy the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by democratic institutions," and to devise a political settlement for their country "in the near future." That settlement, the conferees declared, ought to come about (1) "on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity and territorial integrity" and (2) through "free general elections by secret ballot...in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the Member States of the International Supervisory Commission...Consultation will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from 20 July 1955 onwards."
- b. Practical Views Vary
The difficulty with the election provisions of the Final Declaration, as with the Accords as a whole, relates not to their spirit, but to their practicality. It remains a matter of conjecture whether the members of the Convention genuinely thought that a political solution to
