490. Letter 31 from McConaughy to Johnson1
This letter is mainly to transmit a number of documents for your background illumination, some of which I believe you will find of more than ordinary interest. If you don’t go back to Prague after the February 18 meeting (assuming there will be no break-off), you may [Typeset Page 759] have time to study these at some length before the following meeting. They are listed with brief identification below:
1. Paper on Chinese Communist Treatment of Imprisoned American Civilians.
This is the projected “white paper” on maltreatment of jailed Americans by the Chinese Communists from 1949 to date. It has been prepared on a contingency basis for possible release to the press in the event of a break-off at Geneva. The study is mainly the work of John Lindbeck of FE/P who has been working on it almost full time for several weeks. The individual case summaries which are to be attached as a sort of appendix are not completed yet and they are not being sent to you. There will be over a hundred of these. We would like the frank reaction of yourself and Dave Osborn to the general approach [Facsimile Page 2] and the contingent of the study as it now stands. It is not firmed up yet and there is still time for amendments, either broad or of the nit-picking variety. As you will see Lindbeck has taken a fairly restrained line while still seeking to get considerable impact. I believe it is objective and on a sound factual basis. Frank Harris the American from Hong Kong who used to run Rediffusion there and who has made himself quite an authority on the subject of imprisoned Americans, is reading over the material and making some helpful suggestions from the standpoint of an informed private American citizen. His comments are all the more helpful because he has recently talked to Harriett Mills and Malcolm Bersohn and other ex-prisoners. We will welcome criticism of either the constructive or the destructive variety, from you and Dave.
2. DRF Intelligence Report entitled “Communist China’s Interest in a Foreign Ministers’ Conference with the United States”.
This study by DRF is based on their full access to the Geneva reports and the presence of one of their men on your staff. Herman thinks it is a good job. He mentioned it to the Secretary at the meeting on the 11th. If you have any comments on this, both FE and R will be glad to have them.
3. Report of Secretary’s discussion with Selwyn Lloyd on China matters on Jan. 31 during Eden visit.
This is the record of the China portion of the discussion with the British at the Foreign Minister level on the morning of Jan. 31. It is an excerpt from the full record of the Eden visit to Washington. [Facsimile Page 3] It has not been officially cleared by the Secretary yet. I had to get special permission to send this to you and of course it should be very closely held by you. This meeting took place in the Department and practically all the chief participants on both sides were present except the President and the Prime Minister. You will be particularly interested in the Secretary’s [Typeset Page 760] discussion of the Geneva conversations on the first two pages, and in the Secretary’s exposition of the reasoning behind our China policy, stated in very broad terms, from page eight through the middle of page eleven. The discussions of trade controls against Communist China and the off-shore islands issue were also of more than ordinary interest.
4. Contingent Press Release in the Event of a Break-Off.
Early last week we decided that we should have a carefully drafted press release ready for instant use if Wang should break off the Geneva talks. Our early draft was considerably revised by the Secretary. The enclosed statement which was approved by the Secretary on February 9, is substantially his original draft with some very slight amendments which he accepted. This statement represents an effort to strike a just balance of strength and restraint. You will see the various touches designed to show up the weaknesses in the Communist position without burning all the bridges. If you have any suggestions on this, it will not be too late to consider them, again assuming that the talks will continue.
[Facsimile Page 4]5. Robertson-Koo Conversation of February 1.
You will be interested in reading the record of the long conversation of February 1 between Amb. Koo and Mr. Robertson. Koo had returned the day before from consultations in Taipei and, stimulated by the strength of the sentiment he had encountered in Taiwan, he gave the most vigorous presentation of the GRC objections to the Geneva talks that we have yet had from him. I believe you will find much of interest in the tact that Mr. Robertson took in answering Koo’s arguments and questions.
In connection with the foregoing you will also want to study the reassurances which we gave to the Chinese Government in our Aide Memoire of Feb. 13 in answer to their Aide Memoire of Jan. 25. The Chinese Aide Memoire was repeated to you from Taipei as their 159 to Geneva. Our Aide Memoire went to Taipei as the Department’s 481 and has been repeated to you by pouch. It should arrive at the same time as this letter. Our Aide Memoire was personally approved by the Secretary on Feb. 11.
We are working on a talking paper on the Geneva conversations to be used by our representative at a forthcoming session of the NATO Deputies sometime early in March. It seems that Amb. Perkins will have to make this presentation. Livy Merchant feels that it is important to give our NATO allies a fairly full confidential briefing on the current situation in the talks right away. He feels it cannot wait until the next ministerial level NATO session in April which will be attended by the Secretary. It is unfortunate that the presentation to the Deputies will have to be made by a representative who has had no opportunity to [Typeset Page 761] acquire any particular background on the talks, especially since there [Facsimile Page 5] will be a discussion period during which some fairly tricky questions will be asked. We will arm Amb. Perkins as well as possible, but this may not be sufficient. It is possible that you will be asked to go to Paris to brief Amb. Perkins some time before the Deputies meeting. We feel this would be invaluable to our spokesman. We are assuming that you could work this short trip into your schedule without too much difficulty unless the Prague demands on you are unusually heavy. No orders have been issued yet and there might be a change in the thinking. This is merely to alert you to the possibility and give you a chance to react in advance if you want to.
I will be standing by for your first report of the meeting on Saturday afternoon and earnestly hoping that all goes well.
Regards and good wishes,
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official– Informal.↩