123 Gleysteen, Culver: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 6—10:16 a. m.]
1966. Embassy has not received reply its note June 9 to Soviet Foreign Office re Gleysteen (Dairen’s 121, August 2, sent Department as 22750) nor does it expect reply unless possibly as result further note specifically reiterating request assurances re treatment US Consular officers mentioned last sentence June 9 note. However, should be pointed out that maximum to be expected in event request for assurances were repeated would be Soviet reply to effect that of course they treat foreign consuls accordance generally accepted standards in usage as long as consuls act properly within scope legitimate duties, et cetera, with implication Gleysteen was not so acting.
[Page 898]If Consulate Dairen to be closed soon with accompanying publicity re treatment our staff, it might be well to leave matters stand as they are, i.e. with Soviet Foreign Office having failed to give assurances requested. A second note revealing our continued interest in treatment Consulate Dairen would probably be interpreted by Soviets as indicating our intention stay Dairen and “fight it out”. Such interpretation might lend [lead] Soviets and their Chinese Communist friends to make position of our Consulate more untenable than ever and thus endeavor force closing Consulate under humiliating conditions.
Though this Embassy has felt in past that pleasure which closing our Dairen Consulate would afford Soviets was good reason persist in maintenance Consulate, we now believe that since overall situation China will probably force us close down Dairen sooner or later in any event, we should seriously consider whether present time not most propitious for graceful exit on basis failure receive Soviet assurances.
Sent Department 1966; repeated Dairen 28, Nanking 86.
- August 1, above.↩