The British and Communist Chinese delegations agreed on the sidelines of the conference on the revaluation of their diplomatic relations.  In 1983, at Venezuela`s initiative, the border conflict will take place under the aegis of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in accordance with Article 33O, paragraph 2 of the agreement and annexed to Article 33 of the UN letter on the means of peaceful settlement of disputes.  Behind the scenes, the U.S. and French governments continued to discuss the conditions for a possible U.S. military intervention in Indochina. :563-6 Until May 29, the United States and the French had agreed that if the conference were not to conclude an acceptable peace agreement, Eisenhower would win congressional approval for military intervention in Indochina. :568-9 After discussions with the Australian and New Zealand authorities, where it became clear that neither country would support a U.S. military intervention, the United States reported on the decline in morality of the French Union armed forces and the opposition of Army Chief Matthew Ridgway, the United States began to be moved by the intervention and continued to oppose a negotiated solution. 569-73 At the beginning until mid-June, the United States began to consider leaving the French rather than supporting the French in Indochina rather than supporting the French, and that the United States supported the new indigenous states.
This would remove the filth of French colonialism. As the United States was not prepared to support the proposed division or intervention, the United States decided in mid-June to withdraw from the major participation in the conference. :574-5 For Venezuela, the objective of the agreement is to compel the parties to find a satisfactory solution to a practical agreement between the two countries. It considers that the nullity of the arbitrary price of Paris is implicitly and explicitly accepted in the text of the document signed by Guyana when it was still a colony and that, without this recognition, the agreement simply would not have made sense, that Guyana should have signed it.  Venezuela sees the agreement as a valuable – but erroneous – part of the negotiation process. [Citation required] Venezuela asserts that the United Kingdom granted independence to its colony without solving the border problem and protests that the character of a “state” was granted to a colony it did not own. Venezuela also argues that the initial perception of itself was a weaker nation, taken into account by the colonial power of the United Kingdom; Today, Guyana, poor and recently independent, would look like the weakest nation in the face of a richer, more powerful country like Venezuela. [Citation required] The agreement was criticized in Guyana for reopening a case that was closed for it.
Indeed, Cheddi Jagan, who opposed the agreement at the time, was the leader of the Guyanese opposition, founder of the Progressive People`s Party (PPP) and later President of the Republic. In his work The West on Trial (1996), he regretted the reopening of the case.  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.