233. Letter 15 from McConaughy to Johnson1
The threat of hurricane Ione caused the last courier plane to leave Washington ahead of schedule and knocked out our September 19 pouch. Hence the long interval.
Despite the uncertainty as to when you will get into the substance of Item Two, we are going ahead with work on our two items. Bill Godel and Kelleher of Defense have worked up a draft letter from you to Wang on the 450 missing servicemen which they are to submit to us for our comments today. They say it is a forthright and fairly strong presentation although it carefully avoids alleging that we have evidence that any of the men are presently alive and in Communist hands. Enclosed is a memo on this subject which we received from Defense [Typeset Page 308] on the 16th. We understand this was drafted by Godel and it does not accord in every respect with what Col. Monro, the Defense Prisoner Officer, had told us the day before.
On the “renunciation of force”, we expect to work up a brief study with the assistance of Mr. Phleger. It will be based on the thinking of the Secretary which has been reflected in a number of his speeches and conversations. It was touched on lightly in his UNGA speech yesterday. [Facsimile Page 2] We will follow this line closely but will try to elaborate somewhat on it. The Secretary read the latter half of your letter No. 7, when we briefed him and received new guidance from him at his home on September 18 right after his return from Duck Island. So the Secretary is aware of the general nature of your forebodings about the “no force” issue. In general we attach more weight than you apparently have so far to the commitment we have from the GRC in the Exchange of Notes of Dec. 10 pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. Admittedly this commitment has not prevented and will not prevent minor sea, air and artillery incidents. But these are mere pin pricks which are going to have to be considered as something which must be lived with in the present situation. We must look to the central issue which is major invocation of force for a general offensive purpose. On this we have commitment from the Nationalists which ties in with our own renunciation. We believe this should give you a somewhat stronger position than you have recognized. But admittedly you would have to develop a tactic for brushing aside the small incidents as trivial and inevitable, as not essentially bearing on the central issue.
Mr. Robertson flew to Georgia to see Senator George on Sept. 21 and had a long luncheon talk with Cong. Richards yesterday. Both talks were extremely satisfactory. They both expressed the very emphatic view that we should not be drawn into any substantive discussions of Item Two until all Americans have been informed of their right to return and given access to the British Charge. Sen. George felt that the position [Facsimile Page 3] on a Foreign Ministers Conference attributed to him in the newspapers on September 12 was inaccurate. He said that he had never unequivocally advocated a meeting at the Foreign Minister level in the present situation. He felt that the talks should be continued at the Ambassadorial level which is appropriate for all the pending questions. He felt that in no event should a high level meeting be considered so long as the PRC has not renounced the use of force.
It will be a great help to us to get Ralph Clough back here. We expect to send his orders as soon as we can line up an able officer from Geneva or nearby post to help you on a part time basis. We would expect him to take the notes at the meeting and help draft the reports [Typeset Page 309] afterwards. We may have to rely on some of our friends to help us out in view of the acute personnel shortage at all our Swiss posts.
Army and Defense are working on the Ekvall problem. They are wondering how they can maintain the present basis, much less improve the basis. But we hope to work it out.
Your letter No. 8 of Sept. 15 came on the 21st. Our telegram 745 would seem to answer the points raised in the first paragraph on page two of your letter.
I know of no disposition to change the basic trade policy at this time. Undoubtedly other countries are going to raise the question of multilateral relaxation in the CG and COCOM meetings next month. Admiral Delaney and Bob Barnett are already in London for a preparatory [Facsimile Page 4] discussion. Our position on the multilateral issue has not yet been passed on by the highest level, and there may be a little more flexibility than on the domestic total embargo policy.
Our FE/P are looking into the matter of the objectionable Sept. 12 radio bulletin put out by USIA. I don’t know how they got off base on this, but we intend to find out. I am enclosing a study prepared by Jacobson of DRF on “Reactions in Chinese Communities to the Geneva Announcements”.
We were interested in the Peking Opera and the New York Philharmonic items. Mr. Robertson read your entire letter with interest.
Regards and good wishes,
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1. Defense Memo on Missing Servicemen.
2. DRF Memo on Reactions in Chinese Communities to Geneva Announcements.
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal.↩