148. Letter 10 from McConaughy to Johnson1
There have not been many developments here since my last letter of August 26. Phleger, Sebald and I met briefly with the Secretary this morning and are to meet again late this afternoon on your instructions for the Wednesday meeting. This is an unusually busy week, what with Shigemitsu here and other matters also demanding time.
It is unfortunate that our 648 did not reach you before your Sunday night dinner. Through some inadvertence the priority label was omitted from the telegram but it was sent early Saturday afternoon and you still should have had it before your Sunday evening engagement.
The feeling here is that we should get back to the language of July 25 identic announcements which was “repatriation of civilians who desire to return”. We do not see that there would be any connotation of involuntary repatriation or any other undesirable connotation in the use of the word “repatriation” since it is used in the context “those who desire to return”.
There is concern felt here in the obvious attempt of the Chinese Communists to enlarge the repatriation concept. Clearly they wish to assert a large measure of interest in and a right to claim the allegiance of all [Facsimile Page 2] Chinese in this country. They believe that even a limited degree of [Typeset Page 190] Indian representation will be a useful entering wedge, especially if they can sell the concept of India as a protecting power. Phleger remarked that it would have been better if we had insisted on some non governmental agency such as the Red Cross, to serve as a contact with those Chinese who wish to return to the Mainland.
Your 642 has just come in. The dinner conversation certainly does not bring up anything new or add to our hopes for a successful outcome of item one. The one comforting thought is that it certainly does not indicate any intention on the part of the Chinese Communists to precipitate an early break.
We are trying to assemble information for you on current departures of Chinese for the Mainland via Hong Kong. Immigration tells us that it takes at least 60 days to process the outgoing passenger manifests of the American President Lines and the air lines. This is bureaucratic red tape at its worst. We hope to get the information promptly, perhaps using our Consulate General at Hong Kong to monitor all arrivals of Chinese in transit to the Mainland.
At Phleger’s suggestion we are working on an outline which spells out our objectives at Geneva, the limitations imposed, the courses of action that are called for and under this the arguing points that might well be brought up in the course of the talks. The outline also includes some thoughts on the sort of statements the two sides might issue by agreement if there has to be a recess. This statement would [Facsimile Page 3] explain the postponement of discussion of item two until all U.S. civilians are released. We believe that there are some telling points you could make to Wang regarding the unusual efforts we have made to reduce tensions and the Chinese Communist actions which have actually increased tensions. For instance our restraint in not giving publicity of the story of Bersohn, who has now come around and whose account is utterly damning to the Chinese Communists, is something of which note might well be taken at some stage. The same is true of the forbearance we have shown in suppressing the full story of the 11 airmen. We have even gone to the Deputy Secretary of Defense in order to make sure that the airmen do not tell any more of their stories for the present.
We are anxious to get your reaction to the suggestion that meetings be reduced to twice a week.
Good luck and regards,
Sincerely,
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal.↩