795.00/7–752
The Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to the United States Deputy Representative at the United Nations (Gross)1
eyes only for ambassador gross
Dear Ernie: The conversation with Zinchenko which you reported [Page 383] in your telegram 986, June 30,2 bears some interesting parallels to reports of a conversation between Chou En-lai and Panikkar shortly prior to the latter’s departure from Peking. The details of that conversation are summarized in the attached copies of a telegram from the Embassy at London and memoranda of conversations with the British here. There is also attached as a useful summary an “Eyes Only” telegram to Bowles at New Delhi on the subject.3
Although we have pursued the Panikkar–Chou En-lai conversation, there have been no new developments there. Recent developments in Panmunjom also do not clearly indicate that they are moving in a direction indicated by the Panikkar–Chou En-lai conversation. We have decided, therefore, that, without terminating the approach through New Delhi, you should also follow up the Zinchenko conversation. Please see him and as casually as possible talk to him along the following lines:
Referring to your conversation with him of June 27 and, without specifically mentioning either the Indians or Chou En-lai, state that we have recently learned that the Chinese Foreign Office is alleged to have informed a diplomat of a third country that the Chinese are willing to consider two alternative proposals for solution to the prisoner-of-war question. You would then outline to him the two alternatives as reported by Panikkar. Commenting on these two alternatives, you would state that the first alternative obviously offers no solution to the question since it would involve the forcible return of large numbers of Chinese, to which the UNC could not possibly agree. However, alternative B has interesting possibilities and, if the other side really wants an armistice, might provide a reasonable basis for its achievement, although many details, of course, require clarification. In view of the fact that this alternative in its general outlines bears some resemblance to suggestions made by Zinchenko in his conversation with you, you wonder whether that alternative is the kind of plan which Zinchenko had in mind as a possible solution to the impasse.
Your purpose in this conversation should be: (a) to determine, if possible, whether Zinchenko was making a specific suggestion on behalf of the Communists; (b) to determine whether this suggestion is the same as [Page 384] that reported by Panikkar or in what respects it differs; (c) an additional purpose would be to indicate to the Communists that we are not disinterested in the Zinchenko approach. You should not give Zinchenko the impression that we are attempting to open up a channel of communication through him. If Zinchenko tends to confirm accuracy of Panikkar’s report of alternative B you may, in your discretion, ask for Zinchenko’s views as to whether this possibility for a solution should better be explored at Panmunjom or through some other channel. In the unlikely event that he suggests any Soviet channel, you should indicate that the United States would prefer to have Ambassador Kennan at Moscow discuss the matter with appropriate Soviet officials.
Sincerely yours,
- Copies of this letter, drafted by Johnson and cleared by Matthews and Bohlen, were sent to Lovett and Foster of Defense and Bradley of the JCS.↩
- Ante, p. 364.↩
- These papers were not filed with the source text. They included a memorandum of conversation by Hickerson, June 19, 1952, p. 344; a memorandum of conversation by Johnson, June 25, 1952, not printed, in which he discussed with Campbell of the Canadian Embassy developments since the Panikkar–Chou conversation (795.00/6–2552); a memorandum of conversation by Johnson, July 2, 1952, not printed, in which Greenhill of the British Embassy relayed a Foreign Office suggestion that the Zinchenko channel, where the machinery of communication already existed, was worthy of pursuit and in which Johnson pressed Greenhill for more information on the course of the Indian-Chinese discussions (795.00/7–252); telegram 5789 from London, June 18, 1952, not printed, in which the Embassy in London reported the existence of the Panikkar–Chou discussions to the Department of State (795.00/6–1852); and finally telegram 2938 to New Dehli, June 26, 1952, not printed, in which the Department brought Ambassador Bowles, absent from India at the time of the Panikkar–Chou conversations, up to date. (795.00/6–2652)↩