Taipei Embassy files, lot 62 F 83, “Interception of Shipping, 1954–1956”

No. 366
The Ambassador in the Republic of China (Rankin) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Drumright)

top secret
eyes only
official–informal

Dear Drum: This refers to your letter of October 12,1 received today, enclosing a copy of Ambassador Lodge’s letter of October 6 to the Secretary regarding the Soviet tanker Tuapse. You ask for suggestions as to “better coordination”.

In case you have not seen it, I quote the following from my letter of September 13 to Walter McConaughy:

“A corollary difficulty is well illustrated by the Tuapse case. Assuming that the United States Government really wants the Chinese to release the tanker, how are we to convince them of this? Our senior intelligence representative here quite naturally is not regarded by the Chinese as having authority in matters of policy, while our senior diplomatic and military representatives were bypassed at the outset in this case—as were also Admirals Radford and Carney, I am told—and therefore may be presumed to have nothing to do with the matter. As in the case of the troops in Burma for so long, it therefore is taken for granted by the Chinese that representations made by the Embassy about the Tuapse are for the record only and do not represent the true wishes of the United States Government. I should not be surprised if a personal message from President Eisenhower to President Chiang would be required eventually in the present instance.”

[Page 813]

As far as I know our coordination out here is as good as it can be with an indefinite number of United States Government representatives at this end receiving instructions from and reporting to an indefinite number of bosses in Washington. You know better than I whether the latter coordinate their activities effectively and to what extent they may instruct their representatives out here not to coordinate with the Embassy in certain cases.

As to the specific question asked in the last substantive paragraph of Ambassador Lodge’s letter, I am assured that no responsible U.S. officials here have urged retention of the Tuapse. I have no reason to doubt these assurances, but it is quite likely that devious methods in conveying information to President Chiang in this connection resulted in giving him the impression mentioned in my letter of September 13.

It will be apparent from the record that I have been unhappy about this whole Tuapse affair ever since I learned of the project, quite by accident, shortly before the interception took place (my telegram 702 of June 22, 1954).

A further complication now is that President Chiang and his Government find it very difficult to release the ship because of the loss of face involved. Serious criticism already is being directed against the Government, in the Legislative Yuan and elsewhere, for even entertaining the thought.

I have addressed this letter to your eyes only for the reason that your letter was so marked. Actually, I have no objection to your showing mine to anyone with a legitimate interest in the case.

Sincerely yours,

K. L. Rankin
  1. Not printed.