Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Volume III, China, Microfiche Supplement

664. Letter 47 from McConaughy to Johnson¹

Letter No. 47

Washington, June 22, 1956

Dear Alex:

In reply to that portion of your letter of May 28 relating to employment of Ted Liu as a Chinese interpreter, there has been no definite decision yet to set up a position for a Chinese interpreter in the State Department. However, in view of Mr. Liu’s qualifications, PER is looking into possibilities for placing him. Any decision may have to await approval of the FY 1957 budget, but Ralph Clough will be glad to see Mr. Liu if he decides to visit Washington.

With reference to the extension of Ekvall’s assignment mentioned in your letter No. 37, Defense assured me this morning that they will see to it that Ekvall’s assignment to you is continued. They have already set aside the funds and established the allotment and authorization for the new fiscal year, in the budget of the Army Attache at Paris. Defense says that the Army Attache at Paris is squawking at the long duration of Ekvall’s detail to Geneva. The Paris Attache apparently was led to believe that he would get more benefit out of Ekvall’s assignment to Paris (especially as to North African matters) than has proved possible. I don’t know why the attache at Paris should be allowed to rock the boat when it was clearly understood last year that the assignment to Paris was merely a device to get around some administrative problems, and that Ekvall’s real responsibility was to you. Defense said it may be necessary to inquire again into the possibility of assigning Ekvall to Berne. In that event they want FE to try to get the active assistance of EUR in inducing the Swiss Government to agree to this. I told Defense I felt it would be preferable not to meddle with the existing arrangement. In any event the continued presence of Ekvall on your staff is assured and you should not lose any sleep over the administrative problem.

Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the Indian Embassy of June 18 and the Indian Embassy reply. You will see that the Indians are blowing very cool all of a sudden. I fear they have received the word from the Chinese Communists and do not intend to make any protest.

I doubt if we will make any reply to the “Observer” article in the “Peoples Daily” of June 21 replying to our press release of June 12. I suppose you have the full text of the “Observer” article. In case you don’t, a copy is enclosed.

I will be writing you a short letter on substantive matters Monday morning, which should reach you in time for Thursday’s meeting.

Regards and good wishes,

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy

PS: Krishna Menon had lunch privately at the Indian Embassy with Sherman Adams on June 19, but did not raise any topic connected with the Geneva talks or any other Chinese Communist question.

Enclosures:

1. Copy of letter from British Consulate General Peiping re Bishop Walsh

2. Letter to Amb. Mehta from Mr. Robertson dated June 18, 1956.

3. Letter to Mr. Robertson from Amb. Mehta dated June 19, 1956.

4. Copy of “Observer” article in “Peoples Daily” of June 21, 1956.

1. Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal.