553. Letter 26 from Johnson to McConaughy1
I came back last night from Prague and found your most interesting letter No. 35. I am not particularly surprised at the news it contained nor with the PRC proposal which I am inclined to think is genuine and not just a brainchild of Krishna’s. As you know, I have thought all along that they want to do business with us, on their terms of course, but they find our terms on renunciation of force too hard for them. I think that they are substantially right in saying that accepting our formulation would in fact be an acceptance by them of the status quo. And at present they feel entirely too self-confident and sure of themselves to feel under any compulsion to accept the status quo, particularly with respect to the offshore islands.
It is apparent that they feel that they can get easier terms from us if they can find some way to by-pass the Department. Hence their stipulation that our man be a direct representative of the President and not a career Foreign Service officer. This may also indicate that they are having some second thoughts about a Foreign Ministers’ meeting.
As far as my talks here are concerned, while on the one hand they may be reluctant to break this contact as long as they feel there is any chance of it developing into something further, and are reluctant to accept the onus for breaking them, on the other hand they may shortly come to the point where they estimate that only by bringing about a break (possibly accompanied by increased actual or threatened stepping up of military activity in the Taiwan area) can they bring maximum pressure on us. In any event, I reluctantly [Facsimile Page 2] come to the conclusion that these talks are going to be sterile of further results, and the length of time they will continue very problematical unless I am able to introduce some new element. I feel I have gone to the very outer limits of my instructions in holding out a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to them and in trying to get across the thoughts contained in Senator George’s letter to the Secretary. I also feel that I have gone as far as I can in the other direction without getting so far down the slippery slope which would lead up to a break that I would not be able to draw back. I know that the Department appreciates that this leaves fairly narrow limits within which I can operate. [Typeset Page 882] In connection with the Department’s recent guidances, including the guidance for tomorrow’s meeting, you can be sure that unless clearly and specifically instructed I am never going to bring about a break and will do my maximum to avoid giving him any basis for claiming I have caused a break. Perhaps my telegrams have at times indicated a greater degree of frustration and exasperation than I have intended and possibly given rise to a little concern I might sometime go too far in a meeting, but you can be sure that I will do my best not to do so. I full well realize that this is a situation which completely transcends in importance any personal feelings I may have and I will not give way to them. I do appreciate the kind and generous words in paragraph 3 of the Department’s 1804. I assure you that they give me a big lift. I assume the Department approves of my tactics at a few of the recent meetings of not attempting to drag out the meeting in the face of Wang’s unwillingness to enter into any real discussion but close it off after I have made my points.
Thanks very much for the new Defense material on prisoners. I do not clearly understand whether it is supposed to include all of whatever “accounting” the Communists rendered at Panmunjom in February of this year. I have not yet found any specific mention of this “accounting” under any of the individual names in the new book and the only information I have received on this was Deptel 1695. That telegram indicated that of the 2,720 missing UNC personnel 1,084 were carried on the list as “no data available.” I am curious as to what information was given as regard to the others and whether it covered any Americans. I am also interested in information on how to reconcile this new list with the previous list. From a cursory examination of the new list it indicates that it now contains a total of 438 names (243 Army, 5 Navy, 3 Marine and 187 Air Force) which represents a reduction of 67 (55 Army, 10 Marine, 4 Air Force, plus 2 additional Navy) [Facsimile Page 3] over the August 1, 1955 list. This comes out to a total of 505 whereas the August 1 list was 450. Perhaps a further detailed study which I hope to make will explain this, but I would appreciate any readily available information on how these figures are to be reconciled. I am immediately sending back by surface pouch rather than burdening Stanley’s baggage with them the briefing book for Hammarskjold and the previous roster from Defense of missing American personnel which I presume you mean by “prisoner book.” I am not clear as to what else you mean by the latter and if this is not correct, please let me know.
I will be looking forward to the arrival of Holdridge.
To break the monotony, Pat and Jennifer are coming down here Thursday and we plan to drive up to Paris on Friday to spend the Easter [Typeset Page 883] weekend. I have only been through on rush trips with the Secretary and Pat had never seen it so this seems like a good opportunity, and I hope that neither Wang nor the Czechs spoil my plans.
My very best to all,
Sincerely yours,
American Ambassador
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Top Secret; Official–Informal; Eyes Only. Johnson signed the original “Alex.”↩