893.00/6–2449: Telegram
The Consul General at Peiping (Clubb) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 24—7:27 a. m.]
1073. ReContel 1058, June 22. Intermediary today reported to Barrett and me that he June 22 approached contact man who had arranged first meeting with Chou En-lai, proposed arrangements for making reply in manner indicated. Contact took message, got in touch with intermediary later in day, showed obvious desire ascertain whether intermediary knew origin and content of message, wanted know why same channel unchosen for reply. Intermediary said he knew nothing of reply, would not have consented transmit it if he had been asked.
On following day contact saw intermediary again, covered same ground, was much stiffer (“Gestapo-like” in words intermediary) in attitude, stated Communist side unprepared accept reply that character by those means, and that Chou had no suggestion of any description make regarding means transmittal. Consented forward personal note from intermediary to Chou’s secretary (who with translator had been present first meeting), but said it would make no difference. Informed intermediary finally that latter should not henceforth on his own initiative approach him regarding making contacts with Communist acquaintances. (Contact not well-known to intermediary, did not himself participate in original meeting with Chou.)
Intermediary expressed to us his chagrin, said willing assist in any other way possible, make approach by new channel if desired. I said it appeared to me that Communist side had given firm reply after due deliberation, if they were undesirous receiving reply of whatever character from American side I perceived no point asking him pursue matter [Page 398] further since it was not our intention Communist side accept such communication. Barrett agreed.
Comment follows.41
Repeated Nanking 746, Canton 188.
- See telegram No. 1080, June 27, 11 a. m., infra.↩