701.4193/71
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck)
With authorization by the Under Secretary, Mr. Phillips, I called on the British Ambassador by appointment today.
I made reference to conversations which the Ambassador and I had had in the past when the subject of raising the diplomatic missions in Peiping to the grade of embassy was under consideration. I said that there was now another matter somewhat related which I hoped might be talked over in the same informal manner, namely, the question of plans, if and when, for removal of the embassies in China from Peiping to Nanking. I then handed the Ambassador the text, minus superscription and signature, of London’s telegram 329, June 30, noon. The Ambassador read this text. I said that we in the Department assumed that the reply made by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs in response to the question put in the House of Commons was a replying statement of principle and general intention rather than an indication of a conclusive decision intended to be carried out in the immediate or near future. The Ambassador made a general comment with regard to questions and answers in the House of Commons, pointed to the reference which the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs had made to the precedent need for provision of necessary funds by Parliament and to the fact that the British Chargé in China is “now negotiating for the acquisition of a suitable site.” He said that he thought that this was to be read like provisions in party platforms.
[Page 544]I told the Ambassador that we have considered from time to time the questions both of removal of the Embassy and withdrawal of the armed forces in North China and that we have regularly come to the conclusion that the opportune moment has not arrived. I said that we had gone over the matter recently. There followed some discussion of the considerations pro and contra. I said that so far as the Department is concerned, our view at present is that the considerations contra outweigh those pro—both as to Embassy and as to armed forces. I said that I could not speak in a sense binding the Administration, but that it was our hope in the Department that the Ambassador would be able to give us an interpretation of the statement under reference and an indication of the thought of the British Foreign Office; also, that we hoped that, if and as the situation changes and opinion or policy either in Washington or in London change, it will be possible for the Foreign Office and the Department reciprocally to initiate consultation or give information of probable or impending action. The Ambassador said that he appreciated and reciprocated that attitude. I pointed out again that in what I had said I was expressing the thought and desire of the Department and did not want to be understood as affirming any future view or intent or course of action on the part of the Administration as a whole. The Ambassador said that he clearly understood.
The Ambassador concluded the conversation with the remark that the maintenance of the agencies which the two countries possess in North China stands as a sign of our rights and interests.