Laos

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29728, 23 January 1962, Page 12

Laos

To the temporary exclusion of European problems, South-east Asia is again preoccupying statesmen on both sides of the Iron Curtain. One of the reasons has been the slow progress towards restoring permanent peace in Laos. Both the United States and Russia have been committed since last June to fostering the establishment of a neutral Laotian government as the first step towards rehabilitating the country after prolonged conflict between Communist and anti - Communist factions. The 14-nation Geneva conference, which began last May, practically finished drafting an agreement on Laotian neutrality in December. Since then the conference has awaited the formation of a coalition government capable of ratifying the agreement and putting it into effect. Such a government was promised almost seven months ago by the political leaders of Laos—Princes Souvanna Phouma (neutralist), Boun Oum (anti-Communist). and Souphannouvong (Communist)—but till now the Princes have been unable to decide upon the allocation of portfolios. The most unco-operative has been Prince Boun Oum, whose pro-Western Administration has enjoyed substantial American support, both diplomatic and financial. For many weeks observers have suspected that Prince Boun Oum's intransigence resulted from a desire to wriggle out of his earlier undertakings to preserve the unity of Laos, and from willingness to accept partition, provided the Prince was assured of undisputed control within stated boundaries.

This month, through the threatened withdrawal of

United States subsidies without which his Government could not function, Prince Boun Oum was prevailed upon to rejoin the other Princes in talks at Geneva. The United States’ embarrassments have been heightened by the apparently scrupulous manner in which Mr Khrushchev has honoured, his promise to facilitate the princely negotiations. For weeks Prince Boun Oum has insisted on retaining for his followers the key Ministries of Defence and the Interior. Now it seems that these are to go to neutralists. Knowledge that the United States is prepared to renew and intensify unpleasant pressures may bring Prince Boun Oum ihto line; but till a coalition government is in existence, nobody can yet be confident of progress towards a Laotian peace. President Kennedy’s policy on Laos has been attacked vigorously, in Washington and other Western capitals, as a betrayal of the Laotians to the Communists. The recent suspension of aid to Prince Boun Oum’s antiCommunist Government horrified Americans who fear lest other Asian groups should lose confidence in United States pledges. In neighbouring South Vietnam there has been no slackening of American endeavours to bolster the pro-Western but increasingly undemocratic regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem. Nevertheless the changed American attitude to Laos is likely to impel Communist propagandists and military planners to aggravate confusion in South Vietnam, where the extent of Communist infiltration is already alarming.