576. Letter 38 from McConaughy to Johnson1
We are glad that you were able to get the 10 day interval between the last meeting and the next one. Everyone back here is aware that your life is a hard one while you must bear the heavy dual responsibility. The extra breathing space must be welcome.
You may have been somewhat disappointed with the Department’s 1860, since the reasoning departed somewhat from yours. We went to some lengths in our telegram to spell out our rationalization so that you would not think your ideas had been summarily dismissed. I believe you will recognize the Department’s position as tenable regardless whether you see completely eye to eye with us.
Judge Phleger in particular believes it is important to leave in the reference to the right of pursuit of policies by peaceful means, in order to undermine Wang’s argument that we would trick him into accepting the status quo. Judge Phleger also thinks that it is very important from a psychological standpoint to adhere as closely as possible to the wording of the Communist draft. This will give more substance to our contention that we are going a long way to meet Wang’s proposition [Typeset Page 915] and that our [Facsimile Page 2] limited amendments of his draft should not make the document unacceptable to him. We are willing to accept slightly less desirable wording in paragraph two in order to preserve this position. Mr. Robertson concurred strongly with Judge Phleger on these points.
The feeling was unanimous that we could not possibly consider doing away with the specific reference to the right of individual and collective self defense. This seems to us a cardinal point, and the cession of the point could undermine the foundations of the protective commitment we seek. Our misgivings on this score assume redoubled force in the light of the importance we have attached to this provision in the discussions to date. If we abandon this phrase now after an issue has been made of it, great significance would inevitably be read into our action, with possibly dangerous consequences.
We are sending you separately a communication delivered to the British in Peiping, by the Chinese Communist Foreign Office proposing a general conference on the NNSC and on a political settlement in Korea. This was delivered to us by the British only 24 hours ago and is still under preliminary consideration here. If you have any thoughts on how this ties in with Communist strategy as observed by you at Geneva we would like to have them.
Mr. Robertson saw Congressmen Richards and Dodd yesterday on the matter of the proposed House investigation of the maltreatment of Americans in Communist China. He explained our request to the Senate Subcommittee to postpone a similar investigation, and expressed the hope that the House Committee would do likewise. He stressed that the timing of such an investigation might be wrong at this moment although it could well be useful later [Facsimile Page 3] on. He felt that we should not dissipate the impact of a forcible campaign by letting the story of the outrages come out in driblets. If and when we start a campaign it should be well organized and we should got the benefit of the full impact of the whole story. We understand that Father Rigney is testifying before the Senate Subcommittee next week. This is isolated testimony in connection with the book he has written on his experiences which is to be published in a few weeks. We have not objected to his appearances before the Committee.
We have not yet had a reply from Justice to our request for the survey of the deportability of Chinese prisoners. It is undoubtedly a tedious and delicate project. We are continuing to give I & N.S. the data provided by Wang on the Chinese alleged to be encountering difficulty in returning to Mainland China. I hope Nagoski will have some of the information from I & N.S. soon. Of course it is intended only for our own confidential background illumination.
We are running into a real budgetary and personnel problem in keeping you supplied with officer manpower. Hong Kong feels that its [Typeset Page 916] reporting on Communist China is going to suffer through Holdridge’s absence. FE/EX feels that it is a regrettable waste of scarce officer manpower to have two good men there with little or nothing to do between the sessions. FE/EX has suggested that I inquire of you whether a deal might not be worked out with the Consulate General in Geneva whereby Osborn’s services could be made available to the Consulate General a couple of days a week in return for the loan to you of the services of a Geneva Vice Consul on meeting days. This [Facsimile Page 4] would make it possible for us to release Holdridge fairly soon, and it would give Osborn something to do between meetings. It should also benefit the overworked Geneva staff since they would receive more help than they would be giving. FE/EX thinks that this arrangement, while rather unconventional, should be workable. Please let me have your reaction in your next letter.
Regards, and the best from us all,
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Text of Note received by the British in Peiping.
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal.↩