Office of the Historian

198. Telegram 740 from Geneva1

Geneva, September 17, 1955, 6 p.m.
[Facsimile Page 1]

740. From Johnson.

1.
Do not believe I should send written reply but should handle at Tuesday meeting when I will refer to his letter and if he requests give him copy my prepared remarks according to standing arrangements between us.
2.
Indian acceptance (New Delhi’s 542, repeated Geneva 36) removes what might have been problem. I suspect that if GOI also receives “invitation” from PRC it has made identical reply to PRC. However, interesting note neither in September 14 meeting nor in letter has Wang made reference to any action taken by PRC with respect India. In any event main points are US immediately took every possible action implement announcement and with respect to portion of principal PRC interest all action completed permit GOI function in US while UK apparently still not able function in PRC. (In this connection would appreciate most recent information available from O’Neill prior Tuesday’s meeting.)
3.
Of course, I have not yet informed Wang of action we have also taken with respect UK as I did not have that info at last meeting.
4.
As parenthetical note with respect use of word “entrust” in Wang’s letter Dept will recall discussion this word versus “invite” particularly para 13 Mytel 661. Believe Wang may [Facsimile Page 2] have agreed to “invite” in English text without fully realizing implications and is now trying to recover lost ground. While use of word “entrust” in place of “invite” would have been somewhat more advantageous to PRC position do not see even this invalidates our position.
5.
Suggest my reply to Wang be along following lines:
A.
As I informed him Sept 14 USG has formally transmitted agreed announcement to GOI and invited it undertake in US functions set forth in announcement. GOI has formally replied accepting invitation.
B.
USG has also transmitted agreed announcement to UKG and formally requested it undertake in PRC functions set forth announcement.
C.
USG has therefore taken all action required of it in order that third countries concerned may undertake their functions. What action has PRC taken?
Shillock

Note: FE duty office notified 3:07 pm 9/17/55 EMB (CWO)

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1755. Secret, Priority; Limited Distribution.↩