Office of the Historian

396.1 GE/4–754

Memorandum of Conversation, by Walter Treumann of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs

confidential
Washington, April 7, 1954.

Subject:

  • Soviet Aide-Mémoire of April 5 regarding the Geneva Conference1

Participants:

  • Mr. Joy of the British Embassy
  • Mr. Millet of the French Embassy
  • Mr. Young, NA
  • Mr. Treumann, NA

Mr. Joy and Mr. Millet dropped in on their own initiative after today’s meeting of “the sixteen.” They wished to discuss the Soviet aide-mémoire of April 5 regarding arrangements for the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Millet outlined his government’s reaction to the Soviet aide-mémoire as follows:

1.
With regard to the second paragraph of the Soviet aide-mémoire, the French Government believes that the Berlin decision implied that the four powers invite all other interested governments to Geneva. Whereas the invitation itself was made by the four major powers, the participation of all governments at Geneva would be on an equal basis. There had never been the implication in the Berlin decision that “representatives of all five indicated powers shall take part on an equal basis in examination of all questions relating to the conference.” Rather, it was the implication that all nineteen participating delegations at Geneva should be on an equal basis.
2.
With regard to paragraph three of the Soviet aide-mémoire, the French Government wishes to reserve its position on languages used in the Indochina phase of the Geneva Conference until this question comes up. When it does, a decision should be reached at Geneva.
3.
With regard to paragraph five of the Soviet aide-mémoire, the French Government believes that the question of interpreters should be decided at the conference itself. In the meantime, we should let Moscow know that we will use UN and our own interpreters.

Mr. Joy expressed agreement with the French interpretation of the Berlin decision, but offered no other comments concerning the Soviet aide-mémoire at this time. He said that the UK would offer formal comments on this matter after a draft U.S. reply is received.

Mr. Young, Mr. Millet and Mr. Joy then discussed the question of expenditures for common services by the participants. It was decided that alternative formulas would be put before the next meeting of the sixteen nations for their comments.2

  1. For text, see telegram 1196 from Moscow. Apr. 5, p. 70.↩
  2. For a memorandum of this meeting. Apr. 20 see p. 119.↩