The agreements of 21 July 1954 established the following terms with regard to Vietnam: “The fact that the end of the 1954 agreements (peace) proved elusive was not due to the means of achieving peace. This fatal shortcoming must be justified by the fact that the agreements have not been confirmed or confirmed by all parties to the conflict. The United States and the South are not bound by the agreements, because they did not just refuse to sign… or to approve the statement orally, but also to respond in the affirmative. Roger H. Hull, U.S. Attorney Our editors will check what you submitted and decide whether the article should be revised. All parties to the conference called for new elections, but could not agree on the details. Pham Van Dong proposed elections under the supervision of “local commissions. The United States, with the support of Britain and countries associated with Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, has proposed UN oversight. Molotov opposed it, arguing for a commission with an equal number of communist and non-communist members, which could only determine “important” issues unanimously.  Negotiators could not agree on a date for the reunification elections. The DRV argued that the elections were to take place within six months of the ceasefire, and Western allies tried not to have a deadline. Molotov proposed June 1955, then later in 1955 and finally July 1956.
:610 The government supported the government of reunification, but only with effective international oversight; it argued that truly free elections were impossible in the totalitarian North.  The Western allies had no common position on what the conference should achieve with regard to Indochina. Anthony Eden, who led the British delegation, spoke out in favour of a negotiated solution to the conflict. Georges Bidault, who led the French delegation, was hesitant and eager to retain part of France`s position in Indochina to justify past casualties, even if the country`s military situation deteriorated. :559 The United States