ALM Media

ALM Media ALM is a global leader in specialized business news & information serving the legal, real estate, consulting, insurance and investment advisory industries.
(1)

Check out our Managing Editor of FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, Christine Barlow and Senior Product Strategist, Da...
06/27/2019

Check out our Managing Editor of FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, Christine Barlow and Senior Product Strategist, Dana Wan, zip line in #Vegas while at the #ACE2019 conference this week. #AmericaClaimsExecutive#insideALM

It's #BringYourChildToWorkDay at ALM and we've already had breakfast, did some arts and crafts, played games and spelled...
04/25/2019

It's #BringYourChildToWorkDay at ALM and we've already had breakfast, did some arts and crafts, played games and spelled ALM with our bodies. Share your fun photos with us! #insideALM

ALM Media is ready and excited for the Connectiv  #JesseNeal Awards tomorrow at #ChelesaPiers. Good luck to all of our p...
03/28/2019

ALM Media is ready and excited for the Connectiv #JesseNeal Awards tomorrow at #ChelesaPiers. Good luck to all of our publications that are finalists!

03/06/2019
LMA Northeast Region

Check out this video interview with Stefanie Marrone and Susan DeSantis, Deputy Editor-in-Chief with the NY Law Journal! Great conversation on social media information for lawyers!

Following the February New York lunch program, Social Media Marketing: Turning Reach into Revenue, presented by Stefanie Marrone and Mike Mellor, Susan DeSantis, Deputy Editor-in-Chief at the New York Law Journal, chatted with Stefanie about some of the key takeaways from the program. Thanks to our sponsor and event host ALM Media. Video produced by Rob Kates of Kates Media: Video Production.

03/04/2019

Jay Kirsch, President of Media at ALM will be speaking at The Media & Content Marketing Association luncheon on 3/20 at 11:30 am on Paywalls and Pay Meters at The Princeton Club in New York. Register and find out more information here: http://ow.ly/ymoI30nSjDm

02/19/2019
2019 Finalist Gallery

Congratulations to our editorial staff for being finalists in 15 awards from SIIA Connectiv's #JesseNeal Awards!! Our publications honored include BenefitsPRO, Corporate Counsel, Investment Advisor, The National Law Journal, National Underwriter Property & Casualty, The American Lawyer, The Daily Report and The Recorder. http://ow.ly/9bwM30nKV1W

Have a #HappyHolidays from all of us at ALM Media
12/21/2018

Have a #HappyHolidays from all of us at ALM Media

#HappyHolidays from our ALM family to yours!
12/10/2018

#HappyHolidays from our ALM family to yours!

ALM's President of Media, Jay Kirsch and Editor-in-Chief of the National Law Journal were honored last week at the Folio...
12/10/2018

ALM's President of Media, Jay Kirsch and Editor-in-Chief of the National Law Journal were honored last week at the Folio: 100 Awards. Find out more about the announcement here: http://ow.ly/24Mp30mVzlq

From all of us at ALM we hope you and your family have a happy and healthy #Thanksgiving!
11/21/2018

From all of us at ALM we hope you and your family have a happy and healthy #Thanksgiving!

Congratulations to Rachael Wolensky, our Corporate Communications and PR Manager at ALM for being selected as a finalist...
11/15/2018

Congratulations to Rachael Wolensky, our Corporate Communications and PR Manager at ALM for being selected as a finalist for SIIA (Software & Information Industry Association) Emerging Leader Award at BIMS earlier this week.

Happy Veterans Day from the ALM team! This year, we had the honor of learning about fellow ALMers who had military membe...
11/12/2018

Happy Veterans Day from the ALM team! This year, we had the honor of learning about fellow ALMers who had military members in their family. Thank you to all the men and women who have served and who continue to serve in our armed forces! #insideALM

We are thrilled that Jay Kirsch, President of Media and Lisa Helem, Editor-in-Chief of the National Law Journal are on t...
11/02/2018
Folio: 100 Celebration Luncheon 2018

We are thrilled that Jay Kirsch, President of Media and Lisa Helem, Editor-in-Chief of the National Law Journal are on this year's list of honorees for Folio Magazine's #Folio100. Join us in congratulating them! http://ow.ly/XWrL30mtmBc

The Folio: 100 is comprised of the best and brightest minds in the magazine media industry today. From corporate catalysts to Industry Influences and C-Level visionaries, these honorees represent every sector: consumer, b2b, regional, enthusiast, association, and more.

10/24/2018
PropertyCasualty360

We are live on Facebook and discussing Hurricanes with PropertyCasualty360 and RMS

And we are live!

10/24/2018
PropertyCasualty360

Join PropertyCasualty360 and RMS today at 1 pm ET for a Facebook Live event. Guests Jeff Waters and Wallace Hogsett will discuss with Danielle Ling the 2018 Hurricane season and where we are today. We hope you tune in! http://ow.ly/9V0030mklT7

PropertyCasualty360.com is the comprehensive online destination for P&C insurance sellers and buyers providing insurance news, analysis and market trends. http://www.propertycasualty360.com

Get ready for a Facebook Live session on 10/24 at 1 pm with PropertyCasualty360 and RMS guests. We hope you tune in as t...
10/22/2018

Get ready for a Facebook Live session on 10/24 at 1 pm with PropertyCasualty360 and RMS guests. We hope you tune in as they discuss the 2018 hurricane season!

WATCH THIS SPACE! Please join us October 24 at 1pm on Facebook for The 2018 Hurricane Season: Where Are We Now? Danielle Ling will interview atmospheric scientist Wallace Hogsett and Jeff Waters of RMS. Bring your questions!

Thank you Folio for a great #FolioShow. We learned a lot and were glad to help inform our peers on what we are doing!
10/11/2018

Thank you Folio for a great #FolioShow. We learned a lot and were glad to help inform our peers on what we are doing!

Some of our employees furry friends came to visit at work today. #insideALM #dogsatwork
10/03/2018

Some of our employees furry friends came to visit at work today. #insideALM #dogsatwork

On the #911Anniversary, we #NeverForget #Sept11 and honor those who were lost and those that were impacted in the afterm...
09/11/2018

On the #911Anniversary, we #NeverForget #Sept11 and honor those who were lost and those that were impacted in the aftermath. (Photo by David Handschuh/NYLJ) New York Law Journal

Thank you to Legion of Good Will - USA for visiting ALM yesterday. We are thrilled our supplies are helping kids in our ...
08/24/2018
LGW - Legion of Good Will

Thank you to Legion of Good Will - USA for visiting ALM yesterday. We are thrilled our supplies are helping kids in our NJ community this school year! Visit https://www.lgw.org/childcenter for more information.

The Legion of Good Will is a 501(c)3 Nonprofit organization dedicated to provide educational and social assistance programs for disadvantaged communities. Thanks to your donations, we are able to transform thousands of lives and build a more just, peaceful and altruistic society for all.

#Legalweek19 registration is now open! Register today for Legalweek passes and join us in NYC on January 28-31, 2019 - a...
06/12/2018

#Legalweek19 registration is now open! Register today for Legalweek passes and join us in NYC on January 28-31, 2019 - at.law.com/legalweek19Reg

Our ALM kids are filling out their features for their magazine cover and photo shoot for #TakeYourChildToWorkDay.
04/26/2018

Our ALM kids are filling out their features for their magazine cover and photo shoot for #TakeYourChildToWorkDay.

Have a wonderful holiday weekend! #GoodFriday #EasterSunday #Passover
03/30/2018

Have a wonderful holiday weekend! #GoodFriday #EasterSunday #Passover

We are just a week away from the Folio Digital Awards and Jesse Neal Awards - we're very excited for all our brands! #Ne...
03/29/2018

We are just a week away from the Folio Digital Awards and Jesse Neal Awards - we're very excited for all our brands! #Neals #media

02/21/2018
Finalists

Congratulations to our ALM brands that were nominated as finalists for the Jesse Neal Awards #Neals. Law.com, The National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, CT Law Tribune, New Jersey Law Journal, Daily Report, Investment Advisor and National Underwriter PC360. Check out more of the finalists. http://ow.ly/aeOe30ix9z7

02/12/2018
ALM Media Relocates to Midtown Manhattan’s Grand Central Submarket - ALM

ALM Media announces our relocation to Midtown Manhattan’s Grand Central Submarket. View more here: http://ow.ly/Be6N30ilzyt

Colliers Professionals Continue Relationship New York, February 12, 2018 –Colliers International’s Tri-State President Michael Cohen, Vice Chairman Leon Manoff and Executive Managing Director Robert Goodman represented ALM Media in a relocation within New York City. The integrated digital media ...

02/12/2018
Law.com Launches The Mid-Market Report - ALM

Law.com launches The Mid-Market Report for the mid-sized law firm. Learn more about the new offerings for the legal market here: http://ow.ly/KQZW30ilzRv

A Forum for the Mid-Market in the Legal Industry New York, NY – February 12, 2017 — ALM today announced the launch of The Mid-Market Report, a new digital publication from Law.com examining the issues and trends impacting mid-size law firms across the US. Audiences will be able to receive weekly...

The second edition of ALM Intelligence and Morrison & Foerster General Counsel Up-at-Night report is now available! Lear...
12/20/2017
ALM Intelligence & Morrison Foerster | Resource Page

The second edition of ALM Intelligence and Morrison & Foerster General Counsel Up-at-Night report is now available! Learn more about the results gathered from GCs on their key challenges and concerns. http://interactive.corpcounsel.com/GC-Up-At-Night

What keeps General Counsel attorneys up at night? ALM Media and Morrison Foerster wanted to know so we conducted a survey and broke down our findings and analysis in this in-depth report

12/19/2017
Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays from our ALM family to yours! Best wishes for a wonderful #2018. #HappyHolidays

Check out the next generation of ALM by visiting our new alm.com website today!
12/01/2017

Check out the next generation of ALM by visiting our new alm.com website today!

Happy Thanksgiving from our ALM family to yours. Have a happy and healthy holiday weekend!
11/23/2017

Happy Thanksgiving from our ALM family to yours. Have a happy and healthy holiday weekend!

What are you thankful for this #Thanksgiving?
11/22/2017

What are you thankful for this #Thanksgiving?

11/21/2017
Bill Carter, CEO, ALM - The Road to Connect

We are 1 week away from #LegalWeekCONNECT! Hear from ALM's CEO Bill Carter as he discusses the launch of LegalWeek CONNECT taking place on 29-30 November 2017 in London https://youtu.be/4EeHEpuwCLQ

Hear from the CEO of ALM discuss the launch of LegalWeek CONNECT taking place on 29-30 November 2017 in London

Take your place on the Legalweek floor, January 30 - February 1 in New York City! Become a sponsor or exhibitor today. #...
11/09/2017

Take your place on the Legalweek floor, January 30 - February 1 in New York City! Become a sponsor or exhibitor today. #LegalWeek18 bit.ly/2zuz84O

ALM Intelligence Launches Legal Compass, The Next Generation Of Legal Insights. Learn more about this leading-edge onlin...
11/09/2017
ALM Intelligence Launches Legal Compass, The Next Generation Of Legal Insights

ALM Intelligence Launches Legal Compass, The Next Generation Of Legal Insights. Learn more about this leading-edge online intelligence platform for legal professionals. It features 30 years of proprietary research data and unique insights on 250,000+ attorneys, firms and companies. http://ow.ly/uDkJ30gsXjO

NEW YORK, Nov. 9, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- ALM Intelligence today announced the launch of its next generation legal...

Media Buyers are from Mars and Sellers are from Venus. Join Steve Bookbinder, CEO of DM Training, for a webcast tomorrow...
11/06/2017
Media Buyers Are From Mars, Sellers Are From Venus: Boosting Leads and Sales With Your B2B Digital Advertising Campaign

Media Buyers are from Mars and Sellers are from Venus. Join Steve Bookbinder, CEO of DM Training, for a webcast tomorrow, Tuesday, November 7th at 2 pm EST/ 11 am PST about how to boost leads and sales with your B2B digital advertising campaign. Learn more about the webcast and reserve your spot today: http://ow.ly/joBP30g7mQJ

Tuesday, November 07, 2017 at 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

Address

150 East 42nd Streeet
New York, NY
10017

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when ALM Media posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Videos

Category

Nearby media companies


Other Publishers in New York

Show All

Comments

Looking forward very much to be with my old team
....The more lifeless, regimented, and monumental reality appears to be, the more secure men feel. The danger is being alive itself. ---Klaus Theweleit The Purpose of Life …is Life Robert Magill Note ( I used logical simplicity a.la Einstein but could not include freedom.) The sole purpose of life, and therefore our only human purpose may simply be, life itself. That, upon reflection, would appear to be almost enough. The life force does have its urges though, lots of them, it would appear. After countless eons of self-replication along came sexual reproduction, life had apparently gotten to be in somewhat more of a hurry. Life then pursued bigger and better forms of itself as mobility, size, vision etc. ensued over time. Vision was unique and a promising end in itself, but life appeared to desire a different platform with which to fully employ this new sense. Many prototypes came and went, and eventually on the scene appeared humankind complete with a newly acquired awareness. Whence came then, this thing, this awareness, this brightness in the void, so cherished by life our very species could be made forfeit to preserve it? Perhaps it was the animal curiosity of some lumbering hominid possessed of sufficient cranial matter that chanced upon a source. The menu of vegetable suspects is quite large. The plants, cacti, mushrooms and vines that possess the chemical soups that have the ability, and perhaps desire to exert themselves aggressively when combined with suitable host brain, is legion. We currently regard these substances as “mind altering” but could they perhaps have been “mind creating” at some remote point in time? Students of psychedelic phenomenon have reported a tendency among this family of substances to exhibit a strong urge to promote its own agenda over the host consciousness at times. Life, in this way, may have introduced the initial spark of awareness in receptive hominid brains with suitable vegetable matter containing psychedelic chemical ingredients. Imagine the wonder this revelation surely produced in a previously unconscious world. The binges and quest for more light shows that followed in the still only partially illuminated minds of these creatures must have been incredible. Perhaps this initial visitation of consciousness onto a receptive human brain and the incredible awakening produced therein is responsible for the ongoing human quest for enlightenment. Our species has demonstrated a universal affinity for various visions, ecstasies and raptures and they have been zealously sought for millennia. Perhaps then, a racial memory of, and longing for a return to that original staggering event gives impetus to the universal spiritual quests we humans faithfully follow to this day Eventually something went wrong between human beings and the life force. Life lives on by consuming itself but the feasting is benign. Humans often miss the subtlety.We know large portions of the recent history of our species and it's not very good. Considering our known history, can we begin to significantly amend our ways if life demands a timely accounting? So if and when life decides we have exhausted all possibility of further usefulness, and our excesses overwhelm life's other vital interests, do we then risk severance of the thread with life? Should we begin to tug ever more gently at this tether to lessen our risk? Does life even care about the fate of us, its creature? Probably not, countless other species have traveled along on life's quest, prospered to a degree and vanished. Will we join them? Of course it is possible life may now be providing itself with a non-life fallback to the dilemma posed by our misuse of awareness and consciousness. If humankind becomes suspect of probable catastrophic losses to many of its other progeny, life then may seek to substitute Artificial Intelligence for flawed human intelligence. We, ourselves, may rapidly be creating the instruments for our future replacement with life's resigned encouragement. Life may value this tediously acquired awareness beyond all measure. More the pity for humankind. These phenomena are unique on the planet; life, the life force and the awareness/consciousness of one primate species. What we regard as ultimate reality is simply the stories we tell ourselves and others combined with whatever actions humans are capable of accomplishing. Humanity must now learn to live with 5 Gigabit technology becoming a reality and should perhaps begin to wonder which future Gigabit number will be the one to provide the artificial intelligence and awareness deemed sufficient by the life force to render human beings redundant if it chooses to do so? Could we, perhaps, change our behavior? [email protected]
In his opinion that capitalism and communism look like the sea-robber-since capitalism carries out for three branches organs, which is called by democracy, freedom and justice. In contract, communism did not carry out any three branches organs, which is called totalitarianism or dictatorial. Ironically, Capitalism plays a trick on the prisoner of war of the Vietnam war. in prove, As a result, FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963, VOLUME II, VIETNAM, 1962 108. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations (Dutton) to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Fulbright)1 Washington, March 14, 1962. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In Governor Harrimanʼs absence, I am forwarding the Departmentʼs replies to the questions which were presented to him as a result of the executive session of the Foreign Relations Committee concerning Viet-Nam.2 The questions were those put by Senator Morse at the meeting and then by letter subsequently. The enclosed material is provided with the understanding that those portions which are classified are for the sole information of the Committee. If I may be of further assistance, I will appreciate you letting me know. Respectfully, Frederick G. Dutton3 [Page 222] [Enclosure] ANSWERS TO SENATOR WAYNE MORSEʼS QUESTIONS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1962 ON VIET-NAM Q. No. 1. (Unclassified) From what provisions of the Constitution or treaty or statute does President Kennedy derive the right to order United States military personnel to transport South Vietnamese troops into combat, to return the fire of North Vietnamese, to patrol the sea approaches to South Viet-Nam and to drop propaganda leaflets over areas held by the guerrillas opposing the Government of South Viet-Nam? Answer: (Unclassified) Article II of the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and vests in him the executive power. Article II has also been interpreted as making the President the “sole organ of the nation” in the field of foreign affairs (United Statesv. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, 318 ff. (1936)). These constitutional powers give the President authority to deploy United States military personnel abroad. In addition to the Presidentʼs constitutional powers, the Congress has enacted Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which authorizes the President to furnish military assistance abroad, interalia, by” … assigning or detailing members of the armed forces of the United States … to perform duties of a noncombatant nature, including those related to training or advice.”4 Furthermore, the United States and Viet-Nam are parties to the agreement for Mutual Defense Assistance in Indochina of December 23, 1950 (TIAS 2447; 3 U.S.T. 2756) which was concluded pursuant to P.L. 329, 81st Congress (63 Stat. 714, 22 U.S.C. 1571-1604). This agreement provides for the furnishing by the United States to Viet-Nam, among others, of military assistance in the form of equipment, material and services. Article IV, paragraph 2, of the agreement states that “To facilitate operations under this agreement, each Government agrees … to receive within its territory such personnel of the United States of America as may be required for the purposes of this agreement … .” Under these provisions the United States has since 1950 provided military assistance to Viet-Nam in the form of training, equipment and logistic support. The activities mentioned in the question are an expansion of this training and logistic support role. The transportation or troops is logistic support. The sea patrols referred to are carefully limited to training operations and the exchange of intelligence with [Page 223]Vietnamese naval units. Our assistance to the Vietnamese in dropping leaflets over isolated parts of Viet-Nam has similarly been confined to training and logistic aspects of the operation. Given the activities in which they are engaged, and the character of guerrilla warfare, in which hostilities occur sporadically at scattered points throughout the country, we had to face the possibility that United States personnel would come under hostile fire. In these circumstances, it was obvious that they would have to be able to defend themselves, and the President has accordingly authorized them to fire, if fired upon, if necessary for self-defense. Q. No. 2. (Unclassified) Would you discuss the differences and similarities between the present use of United States forces in Viet-Nam and their use in Korea in 1950 and in Lebanon in 1958? Answer: (Unclassified) United States military personnel are presently in Viet-Nam pursuant to a request of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam of December 14, 1961 (attached)5and to an Agreement for Mutual Defense Assistance in Indochina of December 23, 1950. These personnel are engaged in activities of a noncombatant nature, primarily in training, logistic and advisory capacities, designed to assist the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam to counter the indirect aggression directed against it from the North. United States forces were sent into direct combat operations in South Korea to repel the aggressive armed attack launched on June 25, 1950 by North Korea against the Republic of Korea. On the same day the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling upon all members to render every assistance to the United Nations in the situation. The Korean National Assembly, on June 26, appealed both to the United States and the United Nations for assistance. On June 27, 1950 the Security Council adopted a resolution recommending that members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as might be necessary to repel the attack. The Security Council, on July 7, established a United Nations Command under the United States. In these circumstances, the President on the basis of his constitutional authority sent United States forces to Korea. United States forces were deployed in Lebanon in 1958 pursuant to an urgent request from the Government of Lebanon which felt itself threatened by externally inspired civil strife. These troops were sent to Lebanon under the Presidentʼs constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. President Eisenhower stated that United States forces had been sent to Lebanon “to protect American lives and by their presence there to encourage the Lebanese Government in defense of Lebanese sovereignty and integrity.” [Page 224] It will be recalled that pursuant to President Eisenhowerʼs request the Congress had on March 9, 1957, passed a joint resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East which provided in part, “if the President determines the necessity thereof, the United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism:” (P.L. 85-7, 85th Congress). In sending United States troops to Lebanon, the President did not make use of this joint resolution since the Lebanon situation did not involve Communist armed aggression as contemplated by the resolution. In the Lebanon situation, United States forces neither engaged in combat operations as in the Korean conflict nor in training or advisory functions as is the case today in Viet-Nam. Their mere presence in Lebanon had the desired effect of helping to restore order and tranquility there. Q. No. 3. (Unclassified) Would it be appropriate under the Constitution for the President to submit to the Congress a resolution covering the situation in Viet-Nam which would be comparable to the Formosa Resolution of 19556 and the Middle East Resolution of 1957? Answer: (Unclassified) As indicated in question 1 above the President has power under the Constitution to take the actions presently being carried on in Viet-Nam. It is obviously desirable that the Congress understand the basis for Presidential actions of this character and fully support them. Traditionally these objectives have been achieved by consultation between officers of the Executive Branch and members and Committees of Congress having responsibility in the premises, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the present case the President has asked that the fullest and freest consultation with the Committee and the Congressional leadership be maintained. He has himself met with appropriate members of the Congress on several occasions to discuss the problems in Viet-Nam. The Secretary has frequently testified before this Committee on the same subject, and has discussed it informally on many occasions with the members of the Committee. The Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs with appropriate members of his staff are and have been available for the purpose of consultation. On two occasions in the past, where it seemed possible that the President would wish to commit United States forces to combat operations, President Eisenhower decided to invite Congress to associate itself with his exercise of his constitutional functions as Commander-in-Chief, primarily in order to provide a convincing demonstration of United States unity on the issues there involved. We have not thought [Page 225]that such action has been called for to this point. However, should circumstances develop in which a formal expression of Congressional support seems desirable, the President undoubtedly would not hesitate to seek an appropriate resolution. Q. No. 4. (Unclassified) To what extent are the actions by United States military personnel in South Viet-Nam considered to be combat actions? Answer: (Unclassified) As the President said in his Press Conference on February 14, “We have not sent combat troops in the generally understood sense of the word.”7 The United States is assisting Vietnamese combat units with training, logistic, transportation and advisory personnel. The nature of the activities in which United States military personnel are engaged in Viet-Nam is dictated by the very character of guerrilla war. Hostilities are not concentrated in any well-defined area; rather, fighting is likely to break out sporadically and without warning in any part of the country. The “front” is not fixed as in the classical situation; the front literally is everywhere. In these circumstances, as indicated in Question 1 above, the President has ordered our military personnel in Viet-Nam to fire back in self-defense if fired upon. As noted above, United States military personnel in Viet-Nam are noncombatants. In the seven years since 1955 violence in Viet-Nam has claimed about 26,000 casualties. Of these, fifteen have been American personnel (four killed, ten wounded, one missing). Despite our increased activities in Viet-Nam, we would hope that these casualties can continue to be kept at a minimum. Q. No. 5. (Unclassified) Is the action of the United States in Viet-Nam inconsistent with the agreement of July 1954 on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam, having particular reference to Chapter III entitled “Ban on Introduction of Fresh Troops, Military Personnel, Arms and Munitions, Military Bases”? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Confidential) The United States did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords and is not a party thereto. At the time of conclusion of the Accords, Under Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith stated that the United States “would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the … agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security.” We have maintained the view expressed in General Smithʼs statement, and our present actions in Viet-Nam are fully in accord with that policy. However, North Viet-Nam which is a party to the Accords has consistently violated the agreements by directing, assisting, supplying, and reinforcing guerrilla forces in South Viet-Nam and by illegal introduction into North Viet-Nam of military personnel and war materials. [Page 226] International law recognizes the principle that a material breach of a treaty by one party entitles the other at least to withhold compliance with an equivalent, corresponding or related provision until the other party is prepared to observe its obligations. Both the United States and Viet-Nam have made it clear that if North Viet-Nam would comply with the provisions of the Geneva Accords, increased United States assistance would no longer be necessary. Legally, the actions of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam in requesting and receiving additional assistance from the United States are fully consistent with the above principle. Justification for the application of the principle of law outlined above gains force in the present context from the fact that actions being taken by the Government of Viet-Nam can be related to the requirements of legitimate self-defense necessitated by the breaches of the other party. (End Confidential) Q. No. 6. (Unclassified) Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 authorizes the President to assist a friendly country by providing defense articles and by assigning military personnel “to perform duties of a noncombatant nature”. To what extent are the operations of United States Forces in Viet-Nam being paid for out of appropriations made pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Begin Confidential) As of March 1, 1962, fiscal year 1962 operations in Viet-Nam have been funded to the extent of $151.3 million from appropriations made pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and $49.6 million from Department of Defense appropriations. These figures are subject to adjustment by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in accordance with the following guideline issued by the Secretary of Defense: “Under MAP financing procedures, reimbursement is made to the Military Service for materiel and/or services delivered or furnished to a recipient country against an approved and funded Military Assistance Program. On the other hand, where a Military Service has been assigned a U.S. military mission in a foreign country by the Secretary of Defense through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all costs involved will be charged to the Military Service Appropriation.” Salaries of all military personnel are, of course, funded from their Service appropriations and are not included in the above estimates. (End Confidential) Q. No. 7. (Unclassified) What are the plans of this Administration, if any, to bring the South Viet-Nam issues before the United Nations? Answer: (Confidential) The Administration has no present plans to bring the Viet-Nam situation before the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly for debate or action. However, Viet-Namʼs case has been officially brought to the attention of the United [Page 227]Nations and its members. The State Department paper on Viet-Nam entitled “A Threat to the Peace” was transmitted to the Secretary General and all members on December 8, 1961. The Government of the Republic of Viet-Namʼs own presentation of the facts has been made known to the members. The Secretary General, at the request of the Australian Delegation, circulated to all United Nations members copies of Vietnamese Notes to the International Control Commission on January 10, 1962. (End Confidential) Q. No. 8. (Unclassified) What do we consider to be our obligation to SEATO in regard to supplying military aid and economic aid to South Viet-Nam? Answer: (Confidential) Under Article IV (1) of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty and the Protocol to the Treaty, the United States is committed, in the event of Communist aggression by means of armed attack against the Republic of Viet-Nam, to act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. In the case of a threat to Viet-Nam other than armed attack, the parties to the Treaty have agreed under Article IV (2) to consult in order to agree on measures which should be taken for the common defense. Under Article IV (3) of the Treaty, no action can be taken on the territory of Viet-Nam except at the invitation or with the consent of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam. There has been no request by Viet-Nam for SEATO action. There is, of course, nothing in the Treaty which prevents the United States from taking action bilaterally with the Republic of Viet-Nam outside the framework of the Treaty. Several years before the creation of SEATO, the United States began to supply military assistance (1950-TIAS 2447) and Economic Aid (1951-TIAS 2346). A good working relationship for dealing with the fast-moving complexities of a guerrilla war has been established. We have consulted regularly in the SEATO Council Representatives with our Treaty partners on the situation in Viet-Nam. We have informed them of our efforts there and have urged them to join in helping Viet-Nam. A majority of the members are doing so. (End Confidential) Q. No. 9. (Unclassified) What is the Administrationʼs answer to the cumulating evidence that the Government of Viet-Nam is not an effective government, that it is a corrupt government, and that it is a government that will probably fall at some time in the absence of U.S. support? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Begin Secret) The effectiveness of the Vietnamese Government can only be judged against its circumstances. It is a new country emerging from fifteen years of war and eighty years of colonial control. During half its six years of existence it has fought off the threat of Communist conquest. Its political policy has been to lay the [Page 228]infrastructure of democracy” through education, transportation and communication. Despite the war the number of children in Vietnamese elementary schools has grown in five years to 1,100,000, an increase of 272%, and a far better record than that of Communist North Viet-Nam. The Government of Viet-Nam has also made a proud record in expanding transportation, communication and health services. Its per capita food production and per capita gross national product are growing and are both higher than in North Viet-Nam. This is a good indication that the Government of free Viet-Nam with U.S. help has made more effective progress than has North Viet-Nam under Communist control. Statistical evidence carefully compiled from the best sources available is enclosed.8 On the other hand Government effectiveness in South Viet-Nam has been hampered by over-centralization, overlapping agencies and insufficient understanding between the governing and the governed. While this is partly due to the lack of competent administrators, it is also true that a greater number of competent administrators could have been developed if they had been given more responsibility and authority. Another fact which has hampered the effectiveness of the Government of Viet-Nam is that President Diem does not possess the magnetic qualities needed to rally his people enthusiastically to his Governmentʼs programs. There is evidence of corruption in the Government of Viet-Nam. There is no evidence of corruption on the part of President Diem and he has carried on an extensive and well-publicized campaign to punish corrupt officials. Several have been publicly tried and punished. Some official corruption is endemic in Southeast Asian countries. The amount of corruption in Viet-Nam does not appear to be greater than in neighboring countries. However, it has damaged the prestige of the Government of Viet-Nam because exaggerated stories of official corruption are widely believed. We have checked these stories carefully and find no evidence for many of them. However, the Government of Viet-Nam has not done an effective job setting the record straight with its own people. Two attempts have been made against President Diem. Both were military in origin and seem to have been motivated by the feeling that the government was not giving them the authority to press on vigorously with the anti-Communist struggle. The attempts failed. President Diem is clearly in control as the legitimate and elected head of the government. No other group has any appreciable degree of popular support. In the circumstances of war and tension existing in Viet-Nam, [Page 229]some discontent must be expected. Also the trouble lies partly with Diemʼs inability to project adequately his own many good qualities of leadership to his people. (End Secret) Q. No. 10. (Unclassified) What actions has President Diem taken in regard to the 9 points for reform which he and Ambassador Nolting agreed to in December?9 Answer: (Unclassified) Varying progress has been made on all the points on which President Diem and Ambassador Noltingreached agreement in early December. Since their understanding intimately affects the interests of both governments and the prosecution of Viet-Namʼs defense effort, it cannot be spelled out in detail. However, the following has clearly emerged in the intervening three months: 1. There is a much closer and more effective working relationship between the United States Government and the Government of Viet-Nam. 2. American military advisers have been accepted and listened to in a variety of roles. 3. The Vietnamese National Internal Security Council (War Cabinet) has met more frequently and is playing a somewhat greater role. 4. There has been increased freedom of debate in the National Assembly. 5. The military command structure has been strengthened, but considerable improvement is still needed. 6. U.S. and Vietnamese officials have embarked on joint studies of local conditions. 7. Civic action and plans for village and hamlet defense are being made. Further coordination and better implementation are needed. 8. Provincial Councils are being created. It is too soon to judge their usefulness. 9. There have been increases in military salaries and benefits. 10. A wide range of sound measures have put the economy on a sounder basis. 11. A National Economic Council has been formed and has commenced examination of government development plans. Its activities will be slow and cautious. 12. The effectiveness of military intelligence has been greatly increased. 13. Flood relief and rehabilitation have been carried out with good effect. 14. The President has increased his travels to the provinces. 15. Public information has definitely improved. [Page 230] Q. No. 11. (Unclassified) Do the Attorney Generalʼs remarks10 at the Saigon Airport represent the policy of the Administration? Were they cleared by the President or the Department of State in advance? ___________ PS: 11. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.51K/2-2162. Secret. No drafting information appears on the source text, but a copy of a similar letter that was not sent is attached, listing Wood as the drafter with clearances by Aldrich and Vance (DOD) as well as Oakley, Chayes, Rice, Cottrell, and Sarris in the Department of State. The source text lists as attachments: (1) Questions and Answers on Vietnam; (2) Letter to [from] Senator Morse, (3) Letter from President Kennedy to President Diem; and (4) “The Economics of North and South Vietnam.” Only the first two are attached and only the first is printed. The letter from Senator Morse, February 21, submitted additional questions to Harriman, which are included in the attached Questions and Answers.↩ 12. The transcript of the Executive Session at which Harriman testified on February 20, is in National Archives, RG 46, SFRC Files.↩ 13. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩ 14. P.L. 87-195, September 4, 1961; 75 Stat. 424. These and subsequent ellipses are in the source text.↩ 15. Not attached to the source text, but presumably a reference to Kennedyʼs letter of December 14; see Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, vol. I, Document 322.↩ 16. See American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, vol. II, p. 2486.↩ 17. See footnote 3, Document 68.↩ 18. Not attached to the source text.↩ 19. The Joint Memorandum of Understanding, December 4, 1961, was transmitted to the Department in telegram 756 from Saigon, December 4. (Department of State, Central Files, 751K.00/12-461)↩ 20. During his tour of Asia, Attorney General Robert Kennedy stopped in Saigon for about an hour while his plane was refueled. In response to a question from a newsman, he made a statement to the effect that the United States was in South Vietnam to win.↩ As a result, FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963, VOLUME II, VIETNAM, 1962 108. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations (Dutton) to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Fulbright)1 Washington, March 14, 1962. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In Governor Harrimanʼs absence, I am forwarding the Departmentʼs replies to the questions which were presented to him as a result of the executive session of the Foreign Relations Committee concerning Viet-Nam.2 The questions were those put by Senator Morse at the meeting and then by letter subsequently. The enclosed material is provided with the understanding that those portions which are classified are for the sole information of the Committee. If I may be of further assistance, I will appreciate you letting me know. Respectfully, Frederick G. Dutton3 [Page 222] [Enclosure] ANSWERS TO SENATOR WAYNE MORSEʼS QUESTIONS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1962 ON VIET-NAM Q. No. 1. (Unclassified) From what provisions of the Constitution or treaty or statute does President Kennedy derive the right to order United States military personnel to transport South Vietnamese troops into combat, to return the fire of North Vietnamese, to patrol the sea approaches to South Viet-Nam and to drop propaganda leaflets over areas held by the guerrillas opposing the Government of South Viet-Nam? Answer: (Unclassified) Article II of the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and vests in him the executive power. Article II has also been interpreted as making the President the “sole organ of the nation” in the field of foreign affairs (United Statesv. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, 318 ff. (1936)). These constitutional powers give the President authority to deploy United States military personnel abroad. In addition to the Presidentʼs constitutional powers, the Congress has enacted Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which authorizes the President to furnish military assistance abroad, inter alia, by” … assigning or detailing members of the armed forces of the United States … to perform duties of a noncombatant nature, including those related to training or advice.”4 Furthermore, the United States and Viet-Nam are parties to the agreement for Mutual Defense Assistance in Indochina of December 23, 1950 (TIAS 2447; 3 U.S.T. 2756) which was concluded pursuant to P.L. 329, 81st Congress (63 Stat. 714, 22 U.S.C. 1571-1604). This agreement provides for the furnishing by the United States to Viet-Nam, among others, of military assistance in the form of equipment, material and services. Article IV, paragraph 2, of the agreement states that “To facilitate operations under this agreement, each Government agrees … to receive within its territory such personnel of the United States of America as may be required for the purposes of this agreement … .” Under these provisions the United States has since 1950 provided military assistance to Viet-Nam in the form of training, equipment and logistic support. The activities mentioned in the question are an expansion of this training and logistic support role. The transportation or troops is logistic support. The sea patrols referred to are carefully limited to training operations and the exchange of intelligence with [Page 223]Vietnamese naval units. Our assistance to the Vietnamese in dropping leaflets over isolated parts of Viet-Nam has similarly been confined to training and logistic aspects of the operation. Given the activities in which they are engaged, and the character of guerrilla warfare, in which hostilities occur sporadically at scattered points throughout the country, we had to face the possibility that United States personnel would come under hostile fire. In these circumstances, it was obvious that they would have to be able to defend themselves, and the President has accordingly authorized them to fire, if fired upon, if necessary for self-defense. Q. No. 2. (Unclassified) Would you discuss the differences and similarities between the present use of United States forces in Viet-Nam and their use in Korea in 1950 and in Lebanon in 1958? Answer: (Unclassified) United States military personnel are presently in Viet-Nam pursuant to a request of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam of December 14, 1961 (attached)5and to an Agreement for Mutual Defense Assistance in Indochina of December 23, 1950. These personnel are engaged in activities of a noncombatant nature, primarily in training, logistic and advisory capacities, designed to assist the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam to counter the indirect aggression directed against it from the North. United States forces were sent into direct combat operations in South Korea to repel the aggressive armed attack launched on June 25, 1950 by North Korea against the Republic of Korea. On the same day the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling upon all members to render every assistance to the United Nations in the situation. The Korean National Assembly, on June 26, appealed both to the United States and the United Nations for assistance. On June 27, 1950 the Security Council adopted a resolution recommending that members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as might be necessary to repel the attack. The Security Council, on July 7, established a United Nations Command under the United States. In these circumstances, the President on the basis of his constitutional authority sent United States forces to Korea. United States forces were deployed in Lebanon in 1958 pursuant to an urgent request from the Government of Lebanon which felt itself threatened by externally inspired civil strife. These troops were sent to Lebanon under the Presidentʼs constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. President Eisenhower stated that United States forces had been sent to Lebanon “to protect American lives and by their presence there to encourage the Lebanese Government in defense of Lebanese sovereignty and integrity.” [Page 224] It will be recalled that pursuant to President Eisenhowerʼs request the Congress had on March 9, 1957, passed a joint resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East which provided in part, “if the President determines the necessity thereof, the United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism:” (P.L. 85-7, 85th Congress). In sending United States troops to Lebanon, the President did not make use of this joint resolution since the Lebanon situation did not involve Communist armed aggression as contemplated by the resolution. In the Lebanon situation, United States forces neither engaged in combat operations as in the Korean conflict nor in training or advisory functions as is the case today in Viet-Nam. Their mere presence in Lebanon had the desired effect of helping to restore order and tranquility there. Q. No. 3. (Unclassified) Would it be appropriate under the Constitution for the President to submit to the Congress a resolution covering the situation in Viet-Nam which would be comparable to the Formosa Resolution of 19556 and the Middle East Resolution of 1957? Answer: (Unclassified) As indicated in question 1 above the President has power under the Constitution to take the actions presently being carried on in Viet-Nam. It is obviously desirable that the Congress understand the basis for Presidential actions of this character and fully support them. Traditionally these objectives have been achieved by consultation between officers of the Executive Branch and members and Committees of Congress having responsibility in the premises, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the present case the President has asked that the fullest and freest consultation with the Committee and the Congressional leadership be maintained. He has himself met with appropriate members of the Congress on several occasions to discuss the problems in Viet-Nam. The Secretary has frequently testified before this Committee on the same subject, and has discussed it informally on many occasions with the members of the Committee. The Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs with appropriate members of his staff are and have been available for the purpose of consultation. On two occasions in the past, where it seemed possible that the President would wish to commit United States forces to combat operations, President Eisenhower decided to invite Congress to associate itself with his exercise of his constitutional functions as Commander-in-Chief, primarily in order to provide a convincing demonstration of United States unity on the issues there involved. We have not thought [Page 225]that such action has been called for to this point. However, should circumstances develop in which a formal expression of Congressional support seems desirable, the President undoubtedly would not hesitate to seek an appropriate resolution. Q. No. 4. (Unclassified) To what extent are the actions by United States military personnel in South Viet-Nam considered to be combat actions? Answer: (Unclassified) As the President said in his Press Conference on February 14, “We have not sent combat troops in the generally understood sense of the word.”7 The United States is assisting Vietnamese combat units with training, logistic, transportation and advisory personnel. The nature of the activities in which United States military personnel are engaged in Viet-Nam is dictated by the very character of guerrilla war. Hostilities are not concentrated in any well-defined area; rather, fighting is likely to break out sporadically and without warning in any part of the country. The “front” is not fixed as in the classical situation; the front literally is everywhere. In these circumstances, as indicated in Question 1 above, the President has ordered our military personnel in Viet-Nam to fire back in self-defense if fired upon. As noted above, United States military personnel in Viet-Nam are noncombatants. In the seven years since 1955 violence in Viet-Nam has claimed about 26,000 casualties. Of these, fifteen have been American personnel (four killed, ten wounded, one missing). Despite our increased activities in Viet-Nam, we would hope that these casualties can continue to be kept at a minimum. Q. No. 5. (Unclassified) Is the action of the United States in Viet-Nam inconsistent with the agreement of July 1954 on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam, having particular reference to Chapter III entitled “Ban on Introduction of Fresh Troops, Military Personnel, Arms and Munitions, Military Bases”? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Confidential) The United States did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords and is not a party thereto. At the time of conclusion of the Accords, Under Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith stated that the United States “would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the … agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security.” We have maintained the view expressed in General Smithʼs statement, and our present actions in Viet-Nam are fully in accord with that policy. However, North Viet-Nam which is a party to the Accords has consistently violated the agreements by directing, assisting, supplying, and reinforcing guerrilla forces in South Viet-Nam and by illegal introduction into North Viet-Nam of military personnel and war materials. [Page 226] International law recognizes the principle that a material breach of a treaty by one party entitles the other at least to withhold compliance with an equivalent, corresponding or related provision until the other party is prepared to observe its obligations. Both the United States and Viet-Nam have made it clear that if North Viet-Nam would comply with the provisions of the Geneva Accords, increased United States assistance would no longer be necessary. Legally, the actions of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam in requesting and receiving additional assistance from the United States are fully consistent with the above principle. Justification for the application of the principle of law outlined above gains force in the present context from the fact that actions being taken by the Government of Viet-Nam can be related to the requirements of legitimate self-defense necessitated by the breaches of the other party. (End Confidential) Q. No. 6. (Unclassified) Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 authorizes the President to assist a friendly country by providing defense articles and by assigning military personnel “to perform duties of a noncombatant nature”. To what extent are the operations of United States Forces in Viet-Nam being paid for out of appropriations made pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Begin Confidential) As of March 1, 1962, fiscal year 1962 operations in Viet-Nam have been funded to the extent of $151.3 million from appropriations made pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and $49.6 million from Department of Defense appropriations. These figures are subject to adjustment by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in accordance with the following guideline issued by the Secretary of Defense: “Under MAP financing procedures, reimbursement is made to the Military Service for materiel and/or services delivered or furnished to a recipient country against an approved and funded Military Assistance Program. On the other hand, where a Military Service has been assigned a U.S. military mission in a foreign country by the Secretary of Defense through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all costs involved will be charged to the Military Service Appropriation.” Salaries of all military personnel are, of course, funded from their Service appropriations and are not included in the above estimates. (End Confidential) Q. No. 7. (Unclassified) What are the plans of this Administration, if any, to bring the South Viet-Nam issues before the United Nations? Answer: (Confidential) The Administration has no present plans to bring the Viet-Nam situation before the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly for debate or action. However, Viet-Namʼs case has been officially brought to the attention of the United [Page 227]Nations and its members. The State Department paper on Viet-Nam entitled “A Threat to the Peace” was transmitted to the Secretary General and all members on December 8, 1961. The Government of the Republic of Viet-Namʼs own presentation of the facts has been made known to the members. The Secretary General, at the request of the Australian Delegation, circulated to all United Nations members copies of Vietnamese Notes to the International Control Commission on January 10, 1962. (End Confidential) Q. No. 8. (Unclassified) What do we consider to be our obligation to SEATO in regard to supplying military aid and economic aid to South Viet-Nam? Answer: (Confidential) Under Article IV (1) of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty and the Protocol to the Treaty, the United States is committed, in the event of Communist aggression by means of armed attack against the Republic of Viet-Nam, to act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. In the case of a threat to Viet-Nam other than armed attack, the parties to the Treaty have agreed under Article IV (2) to consult in order to agree on measures which should be taken for the common defense. Under Article IV (3) of the Treaty, no action can be taken on the territory of Viet-Nam except at the invitation or with the consent of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam. There has been no request by Viet-Nam for SEATO action. There is, of course, nothing in the Treaty which prevents the United States from taking action bilaterally with the Republic of Viet-Nam outside the framework of the Treaty. Several years before the creation of SEATO, the United States began to supply military assistance (1950-TIAS 2447) and Economic Aid (1951-TIAS 2346). A good working relationship for dealing with the fast-moving complexities of a guerrilla war has been established. We have consulted regularly in the SEATO Council Representatives with our Treaty partners on the situation in Viet-Nam. We have informed them of our efforts there and have urged them to join in helping Viet-Nam. A majority of the members are doing so. (End Confidential) Q. No. 9. (Unclassified) What is the Administrationʼs answer to the cumulating evidence that the Government of Viet-Nam is not an effective government, that it is a corrupt government, and that it is a government that will probably fall at some time in the absence of U.S. support? (End Unclassified) Answer: (Begin Secret) The effectiveness of the Vietnamese Government can only be judged against its circumstances. It is a new country emerging from fifteen years of war and eighty years of colonial control. During half its six years of existence it has fought off the threat of Communist conquest. Its political policy has been to lay the [Page 228]infrastructure of democracy” through education, transportation and communication. Despite the war the number of children in Vietnamese elementary schools has grown in five years to 1,100,000, an increase of 272%, and a far better record than that of Communist North Viet-Nam. The Government of Viet-Nam has also made a proud record in expanding transportation, communication and health services. Its per capita food production and per capita gross national product are growing and are both higher than in North Viet-Nam. This is a good indication that the Government of free Viet-Nam with U.S. help has made more effective progress than has North Viet-Nam under Communist control. Statistical evidence carefully compiled from the best sources available is enclosed.8 On the other hand Government effectiveness in South Viet-Nam has been hampered by over-centralization, overlapping agencies and insufficient understanding between the governing and the governed. While this is partly due to the lack of competent administrators, it is also true that a greater number of competent administrators could have been developed if they had been given more responsibility and authority. Another fact which has hampered the effectiveness of the Government of Viet-Nam is that President Diem does not possess the magnetic qualities needed to rally his people enthusiastically to his Governmentʼs programs. There is evidence of corruption in the Government of Viet-Nam. There is no evidence of corruption on the part of President Diem and he has carried on an extensive and well-publicized campaign to punish corrupt officials. Several have been publicly tried and punished. Some official corruption is endemic in Southeast Asian countries. The amount of corruption in Viet-Nam does not appear to be greater than in neighboring countries. However, it has damaged the prestige of the Government of Viet-Nam because exaggerated stories of official corruption are widely believed. We have checked these stories carefully and find no evidence for many of them. However, the Government of Viet-Nam has not done an effective job setting the record straight with its own people. Two attempts have been made against President Diem. Both were military in origin and seem to have been motivated by the feeling that the government was not giving them the authority to press on vigorously with the anti-Communist struggle. The attempts failed. President Diem is clearly in control as the legitimate and elected head of the government. No other group has any appreciable degree of popular support. In the circumstances of war and tension existing in Viet-Nam, [Page 229]some discontent must be expected. Also the trouble lies partly with Diemʼs inability to project adequately his own many good qualities of leadership to his people. (End Secret) Q. No. 10. (Unclassified) What actions has President Diem taken in regard to the 9 points for reform which he and Ambassador Nolting agreed to in December?9 Answer: (Unclassified) Varying progress has been made on all the points on which President Diem and Ambassador Noltingreached agreement in early December. Since their understanding intimately affects the interests of both governments and the prosecution of Viet-Namʼs defense effort, it cannot be spelled out in detail. However, the following has clearly emerged in the intervening three months: 1. There is a much closer and more effective working relationship between the United States Government and the Government of Viet-Nam. 2. American military advisers have been accepted and listened to in a variety of roles. 3. The Vietnamese National Internal Security Council (War Cabinet) has met more frequently and is playing a somewhat greater role. 4. There has been increased freedom of debate in the National Assembly. 5. The military command structure has been strengthened, but considerable improvement is still needed. 6. U.S. and Vietnamese officials have embarked on joint studies of local conditions. 7. Civic action and plans for village and hamlet defense are being made. Further coordination and better implementation are needed. 8. Provincial Councils are being created. It is too soon to judge their usefulness. 9. There have been increases in military salaries and benefits. 10. A wide range of sound measures have put the economy on a sounder basis. 11. A National Economic Council has been formed and has commenced examination of government development plans. Its activities will be slow and cautious. 12. The effectiveness of military intelligence has been greatly increased. 13. Flood relief and rehabilitation have been carried out with good effect. 14. The President has increased his travels to the provinces. 15. Public information has definitely improved. [Page 230] Q. No. 11. (Unclassified) Do the Attorney Generalʼs remarks10 at the Saigon Airport represent the policy of the Administration? Were they cleared by the President or the Department of State in advance? ___________ PS: 11. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.51K/2-2162. Secret. No drafting information appears on the source text, but a copy of a similar letter that was not sent is attached, listing Wood as the drafter with clearances by Aldrich and Vance (DOD) as well as Oakley, Chayes, Rice, Cottrell, and Sarris in the Department of State. The source text lists as attachments: (1) Questions and Answers on Vietnam; (2) Letter to [from] Senator Morse, (3) Letter from President Kennedy to President Diem; and (4) “The Economics of North and South Vietnam.” Only the first two are attached and only the first is printed. The letter from Senator Morse, February 21, submitted additional questions to Harriman, which are included in the attached Questions and Answers.↩ 12. The transcript of the Executive Session at which Harriman testified on February 20, is in National Archives, RG 46, SFRC Files.↩ 13. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩ 14. P.L. 87-195, September 4, 1961; 75 Stat. 424. These and subsequent ellipses are in the source text.↩ 15. Not attached to the source text, but presumably a reference to Kennedyʼs letter of December 14; see Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, vol. I, Document 322.↩ 16. See American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, vol. II, p. 2486.↩ 17. See footnote 3, Document 68.↩ 18. Not attached to the source text.↩ 19. The Joint Memorandum of Understanding, December 4, 1961, was transmitted to the Department in telegram 756 from Saigon, December 4. (Department of State, Central Files, 751K.00/12-461)↩ 20. During his tour of Asia, Attorney General Robert Kennedy stopped in Saigon for about an hour while his plane was refueled. In response to a question from a newsman, he made a statement to the effect that the United States was in South Vietnam to win.↩