795.00/1–2051: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State
4021. Embassy Officer has seen series of telegrams from Hutchison (British diplomatic representative Peiping) in which he reported that Panikkar (Indian Ambassador), Hutchison and Swedish Ambassador had all been called to Foreign Office night of 17th receive for transmission their respective governments text of CPG reply UN cease-fire proposals. Panikkar received by Chou (CPG Foreign Minister); Hutchison by Chang (Vice Foreign Minister); and Swedish Ambassador, to his mortification, by head European Department. Reception of Swedish Ambassador perfunctory. Hutchison given time for extended, but fruitless discussion CPG reply. He was informed text given him personally for transmission, rather than sent by messenger as had been CPG’s usual practice whenever it had sent communication to UN (e.g. CPG note re alleged US bombing of Manchuria), because of CPG appreciation of sincere UK interest in reaching peaceful solution and because CPG aware Commonwealth Prime Ministers had devoted considerable time to subject during recent London meeting. In reply to direct question whether reference to withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea was meant to imply CPG readiness withdraw Chinese forces, Chang merely stated “text was explicit.” Other attempts draw Chang out were even less successful.
According Hutchison’s report, Panikkar sent to Nehru in Paris long report his interview with Chou. Chou gave Panikkar to infer CPG reply was not meant to close door on negotiations and that question of (a) cease-fire first and then negotiate, or (b) negotiate first and cease-fire afterward was merely one of timing. Chou emphasized, however, this point was of primary importance. Re milieu for conference, Chou agreed Peiping might prove unacceptable to US, and said: “why not Cairo or New Delhi?” Panikkar came away with impression CPG still prepared consider possibilities of settlement on basis UN proposal with appropriate modifications, an impression which Hutchison shared.
London Embassy comment: it would appear CPG Foreign Office, in discussing reply with Panikkar and Hutchison, has in mind desire aggravate rift in UN attitude toward Korean problem and especially supply India (and to lesser extent UK) with further excuse for forestalling or at least delaying positive UN action. If so, and if one can rely on objectivity of Hutchison’s reporting, CPG Foreign Office [Page 113] was successful to a certain extent. There is evidence, however, UK Foreign Office realizes Hutchison too long isolated in Peiping, he is without adequate background information, and in attempting fulfill his mission establish diplomatic relations with CPG he has been leaning over backward present CPG action in favorable light and avoid giving it offense.