396.1–GE/4–1054: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bohlen) to the Department of State
niact
1225. Repeated information priority London 187, priority Paris 249. Reference Deptel 642.1 From beginning of exchanges with Soviet Government concerning preparations Geneva conference the desirability of not leaving Soviet Union in any doubt on these points has been repeatedly stressed by this Embassy. Furthermore, as reported, I have on every occasion emphasized these points to Kuznetsov particularly that the four powers and the four powers alone were responsible for [Page 90] the conference and that Communist China had no different status nor more rights than any other invited power. I am therefore in entire agreement as to desirability of a note on the subject to Soviet Government but I believe note would be more effective and of greater help at Geneva if Western interpretation as given in last paragraph was made somewhat more precise. I feel, as written, it will offer Soviet Union an opportunity for confusing the issue in hope of causing differences between three western powers. First sentence in last paragraph is not strictly accurate since portion of Soviet aide-mémoire of April 5 quoted in first paragraph does not state that conference at either stage should be limited to five participants. Soviet reply would probably pick up this technical discrepancy to our embarrassment. Also, the last sentence is somewhat ambiguous in reference to arrangements “which are not dealt with equally by all the participants”. This might provoke an inquiry by Soviet Government as to difference between two types of arrangements contemplated.
It would appear that main point we must seek to establish clearly is that under Berlin Agreement Communist China has no different status than the other invited countries and in no way shares the responsibility of the four for any phase of conference. It seems to me there are two points of substance which must be dealt with in order to safeguard this basic position concerning role of Communist China. One deals with invitations to other participants in Indochinese discussions. While it is true Berlin decision is less precise on this point, its intent, by analogy with Korean phase, is sufficiently clear for us to assert, and at this time, that four powers and four powers alone will agree and invite in their names representatives of the other countries which will participate. For this purpose Communist China could be considered as having already been invited. The second point is the status of participating countries once the conference has convened. Here it would appear that one method of avoiding any possibility of special status for Communist China would be to adhere to principle that all participating powers will be on equal footing once conference has convened. Alternate possibility would be to assert continuing responsibility of four powers as inviting powers from organization and handling of conference business during actual sessions conference.
If we are going to attempt to clarify our position with Soviets at this juncture, and I feel we should, it would be better to meet these points head on rather than leave any obscurity in language which Soviets could seize upon for hair-splitting argument. Something along following lines might therefore be substituted for last paragraph proposed note: [Page 91]
“At Berlin it was agreed that four powers would take the initiative in calling conference at Geneva to discuss, in different compositions, the Korean and Indochinese questions and that for this purpose the four governments would undertake to invite other interested countries to participate. The responsibility for the issuance on invitations, the preparations and other related matters in regard to both phases of the conference rests clearly on these four governments and these four governments alone. In accordance with the Berlin decision, other countries including CPR have already been invited by the four powers to attend the discussion on Korea. The CPR has likewise been invited to attend the discussions on Indochina. Once agreement has been reached by the governments of France, US, UK and USSR as to the other countries to be invited to participate in the discussion on Indochina, invitations will in like manner be extended to them in the name of the four governments. In conformity with accepted international practice, all participating countries, inviting as well as invited, will take part in the work of the conference on a basis of equality.”
An alternate for last sentence (but in my view less desirable) could be: “The US, UK, France and USSR in accordance with their position of inviting powers will continue to bear a special responsibility for the arrangements and organization of the conference even after it is convened.”2
- Dated Apr. 9, p. 88.↩
-
The Department of State transmitted the following reply in telegram 646, Apr. 10, to Moscow:
↩“Your 1225. Department approves substitute final paragraph suggested by you with slightly amended first clause of first sentence reading as follows:
‘At Berlin it was agreed that four powers would take the initiative in calling a conference at Geneva to discuss, in different compositions, a peaceful settlement in Korea and the restoration of peace in Indochina, and that et cetera.’
“British and French here have accepted this revised text for identic notes, subject to reference to their Foreign Offices. If and when British and French Ambassadors Moscow receive approval of this text from their Foreign Offices you are authorized to deliver revised note accordance previous instructions.” (396.1GE/4–1054)