539. Letter 25 from Johnson to McConaughy1
I received your letter No. 34 of March 9 which I appreciated very much.
Your account of Wang’s letter to Chou confirms the feeling that I have had that many of the Chinese in the United States, who while [Typeset Page 864] not desiring to return, are being careful to play both sides of the fence, sometimes to protect relatives, and probably sometimes to not slam any doors if later they change their minds. I agree that this is a very difficult situation to handle and for the moment have no thoughts on what we may be able to do. I have been trying to think of some way that I could casually make the point to Wang during the give and take for what it might be worth. I think it entirely possible that apart from their obvious desire to use this for their propaganda play, they are, in fact, also being somewhat misled by the situation.
I sent your office a telegram last night on Wang’s request to postpone this week’s meeting. It was as welcome to me as I am sure it was to you. You will see that Warsaw suggests he may be going back to attend the funeral of Bierut. I had not thought of this and think it may well be correct. At the same time, I think it entirely likely that they may be planning some new move for the next meeting. While, as you see from my telegrams, I feel that we are pretty near the end of the road, we nevertheless cannot forget the Communist ability to ignore everything that has happened in the past and radically shift positions. I agree that Chou’s memorandum to Nehru does not appear to threaten an early break but do not understand how they feel that publication of the “entire proceedings” on the second agenda item constitutes any pressure on us. The entire substance [Facsimile Page 2] has certainly been made public in our respective statements and it does not seem to me that there is anything substantial that can be added thereto.
Incidentally, while I greatly appreciate the copies of the memorandums contained in your 1750 I am left a little puzzled as to whether Nehru simply handed the Memorandum over without discussion, or whether there was some discussion between himself and the Secretary, and if so what its nature might have been. I hope that I know at least as much about what may have taken place in this regard as Wang may know. I would also be interested in knowing whether or not there was any discussion of Indian functions under the Agreed Announcement and Implementation beyond that indicated in our Memorandum for Cooper to give to Nehru. That is, I would be very much interested in knowing to what degree the Indians may have expressed satisfaction or dissatisfaction, as this would assist me in governing the statements I make here to Wang in this regard.
In the absence of any instructions to the contrary, I will assume that your 1751 will still be applicable to the March 22 meeting. I am not very impressed with the point in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of those instructions and in this regard will plan to confine myself to expressing disappointment over their making the March 11 statement rather than the violation of our understanding with regard to making statements. He had told me at the previous meeting that they were going to make a statement on renunciation and I only implied that we might make [Typeset Page 865] a reply and did not say our reply would cover implementation. Our March 6 statement did very properly, I believe, include implementation and their statement of March 11 was a reply thereto. I therefore do not believe that any exchange based upon technicalities of our understanding with regard to public statements can be very useful or fruitful but we should rather keep to the substance.
If he pursues his tactics of the last meeting of simply not meeting my arguments and chanting his refrain on accepting either their two drafts, the situation may get fairly sticky. If their purpose is to bring about a break they will, of course, try to maneuver me into a position where it would appear the initiative had come from me. However, I will be alert for all such situations and do my best to avoid them. [Facsimile Page 3] I think that my best line will continue to be a willingness and desire to continue to strive for an agreement with them and a willingness to listen to any alternative formulations they may have with respect to the substance of our January 12 draft.
I will also make the point contained in your 1754 with regard to Father Houle. Although this point has never seemed very impressive to me as the usual pattern in the past has been “trial and sentencing” just prior to release. My position has always been that I am not interested in their legal mumbo-jumbo but only the fact of the release of the Americans.
I am enclosing an original and two copies of our draft of a White Paper summarizing the talks. This, of course, contains blanks that require filling in as time passes. However it embodies my thoughts on how this whole complicated and in many ways esoteric subject can most clearly be presented in White Paper form. Dave Osborn has done the writing and deserves whatever credit the paper may merit. I have approved it and, therefore, deserve the full share of whatever blame may be attached to it for errors. In any event, I hope that the Department may find it acceptable as a basis from which the final product can be produced.
Kindest regards to all.
Sincerely yours,
American Ambassador
P.S. In looking over the postscript to my letter No. 24 I note that there is a typographical error in the first sentence of the last paragraph which completely reverses the meaning. It should have read “wilder charges” rather than “milder charges”.
Is there any conceivable factual basis for this continued repetition in Chinese students’ letters to “applying for permission to INS” to return? In the absence of word to the contrary I am assuming I am still on absolutely solid ground in saying they do not apply to anybody for [Typeset Page 866] anything. I have in mind the income tax clearance but that has never been raised.
If the assignment of Stanley here, which I still think is the best plan, cannot be worked out I would agree that the detail of Holdridge would be useful.
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal. Johnson signed the original “Alex.” The enclosure is not printed.↩