329. Telegram Tedul 42 to Geneva1

[Facsimile Page 1]

Tedul 42. Re Dulte 34.

Information contained Deptel 1064 responsive paragraph 2 reftel.
Your paragraph 3. Our recommendation, which is herein renewed, that US draft declaration be introduced next meeting based on following considerations: (a) Undesirable allow Wang draft remain sole basis for negotiation. Renunciation of force is our item, not his. By his action he has seized initiative from us and to some extent placed us on defensive. Our best counter action and our best refutation of his draft appears to us to be immediate submission of US draft which is natural outgrowth of our initial presentation; (b) so long as Wang draft is only one in hands British and Indians, their thinking likely to crystallize in terms that draft. We believe we can counteract this tendency only by presenting our draft and also furnishing copies on informal basis these governments; (c) Deptel 1052 paragraph 8 indicates Chou En-lai endeavoring to press initiative gained by presentation first draft on renunciation of force and strongly implies tactics on our part suggestive of stalling may play into Chinese Communist hands.
Believe above considerations outweigh advantage of gaining time.
Re Johnson’s 921 paragraph 1, believe our draft’s leanness contrasted with Wang draft’s fatness provides necessary negotiating latitude. So long as we do not sacrifice essence of our draft we can afford make certain concessions in direction accepting addition of statements general principle although not specific language that Wang has presented.
Your paragraph 4. Concur advisability initiating embargo discussion along lines Deptel 870 paragraph 5. Re Johnson’s 999 paragraph 4 believe probing should be strictly confined at this stage to context Deptel 870 paragraph 5, avoiding discussion specific commodities. Any such indication we prepared enter into bilateral negotiations with Chinese Communists in direction of reducing controls would greatly weaken our position in current and forthcoming negotiations with British and French. Chinese Communists could be expected promptly leak such information to British and French for this purpose.

Repeat to Johnson.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–3155. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Clough and McConaughy; cleared in S/S and in draft by Sebald. The time of transmission is illegible.