396.1–GE/4–554: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bohlen) to the Department of State
niact
1197. Repeated information niact London 184, niact Paris 244. After reading contents aide-mémoire when handed me by Kuznetsov I of course noticed reference to agreement with Chinese and sentence concerning equality of Communist China at conference. I said that, as I had pointed out to him previously, Berlin agreement seemed to me, having been present, to be perfectly clear: That four powers and four powers alone assumed responsibility for invitations and organization of conference.
Kuznetsov replied that he understood this and that question of invitations and preparatory work was one thing but he considered that once conference assembled all members would be on equal basis. I answered that, speaking personally, I thought Communist China would be on same basis as other invited powers. (Since I was not aware there was any agreed tripartite position on this point (Deptel [Page 72] 605),1 I felt it wise not to pursue subject. Had I been acting solely on behalf US Government I believe reference of Kuznetsov to fact that four powers issued the invitations might have been utilized as occasion to pin him down on Indochinese invitations).
The only other remark of interest made by Kuznetsov was that these measures of preparation were in effect to facilitate work of conference and that conference itself would have ultimate decisions as to languages and matters of this kind. I made no comment on this point for reason given above and also since I recall it was standard US doctrine that in last analysis a conference decides its own procedural and other matters. Having made point re my interpretation of Berlin agreement I told Kuznetsov I would transmit aide-mémoire to my government and also to British and French Ambassadors here. As to aide-mémoire itself, it will be noted that Russians, while agreeing to Korean as official language for Korean phase, nonetheless sought to give special status to Chinese. Since we are not prepared to deal with Indochinese phase prior to assembly at Geneva, it might be wise to treat present Soviet proposal in effect as acceptance of five official languages for this phase and merely state that problem of languages for Indochinese discussions will be considered at Geneva.
In accordance with past practice, we will merely tell press here that reply to our aide-mémoire of March 29 on preparations Geneva conference has been received without disclosing contents.
- Not printed; it was a repeat of telegram 4982, Mar. 26, to London wherein the Department of State had stated in strong terms that it would reject any proposal, procedural or otherwise, which would give Communist China a special place or imply a “Five Power” concept. The telegram also stated that it had been made “crystal clear” to the British Embassy that the Department did not consider procedural matters as unimportant and unconnected with the substance of the Geneva Conference. (396.1–GE/3–2254)↩