698. Letter 53 from McConaughy to Johnson1

Letter No. 53
Dear Alex:
[Facsimile Page 1]

There has been quite a stir throughout the past week over the issue of the proposed visits of American correspondents to Communist [Typeset Page 1144] China. Peiping timed their decision to authorize visas for the newsmen pretty shrewdly. The knowledge that entry would be granted by the Chinese Communists was just enough of a catalyst to set the pot to boiling very vigorously. As long as there was some doubt whether the newsmen could actually obtain entry into Communist China, the issue was more or less academic and pressure was accordingly moderate. Now it has increased to a point where it can be contained only with great difficulty.

Linc White in his first round with the newsmen after word was received that visas were obtainable, put the emphasis almost completely on non-recognition as the reason for the non-validation of passports. This came under considerable fire since its vulnerability was pretty obvious in the existing situation. Very influential publishing figures including Sulzberger of the New York Times intervened quite actively in favor of the granting of authorization for the visits. They got in touch with the White House as well as with the Department.

[Facsimile Page 2]

The Secretary felt that we would have to rely on the issue of the imprisoned Americans as the reason for holding the line. This was something tangible that everybody could understand. It is difficult to refute. Of course it has the drawback that it overlooks the other cogent reasons which exist or might exist for continuing the policy after the possible release of the 10 Americans. Also it does not give us a complete basis for excluding visits to North Korea and North Vietnam, which are included in the passport ban. However it is the basis which has been selected to stand on. If all the Americans are released and if there is no new element in the situation, presumably we would have to authorize visits. And it is doubtful if we could discriminate in favor of newsmen as a class and against others with strong practical reasons for visiting Mainland China.

The press reaction, except for David Lawrence’s column has been quite critical of the Department’s policy. I am enclosing a large batch of clippings assembled by John Lindbeck. These need not be returned.

As you were informed in the Department’s 135, the American Red Cross has agreed to undertake the visits to the Chinese convicts to ascertain their wishes. The Red Cross showed no hesitation in undertaking the task and is going about it in a business-like manner. We decided not to send a Departmental officer along with them. It would have meant the loss to CA of Ralph Clough for two weeks or both Ralph and Joe Nagoski for one week and a considerable slice out of FE’s travel funds. If we had thought that it would improve our position, we wouldn’t have hesitated to make the sacrifice. [Facsimile Page 3] However, we do not think that sending a Departmental officer along would have the slightest effect on the attitude of either the Chinese Communists or the Indians, except perhaps to strengthen the Chinese Communist [Typeset Page 1145] argument that we were arranging to release a selected fraction of the large number of Chinese in prison for propaganda purposes. As far as the public in general is concerned, we are satisfied that the Red Cross visits will be adequate proof that each individual was given an impartial hearing and a free choice.

A Red Cross representative came in on August 10 to work out the details. They have named two of their senior men to do the job, one taking the prisons in the West and the other those in the East. They will come to Washington on the 15th to be briefed and will begin their visits on Monday, August 20. We estimate that they will be able to complete the job within that week. Enclosed is the letter we propose sending to the prisoners advising them of the impending Red Cross visits.

If all goes as planned, we should know by the meeting following that of August 21 how many convicts wish to go to Mainland China, go to Taiwan or stay where they are. We should appreciate your thoughts on how to get the greatest advantage from the operation from that point on. We are tentatively thinking of having any who wished to go to Mainland China write to the Indian Embassy. This would bring the Indians back into the act; they could hardly refuse to assume responsibility when an individual prisoner had written to them. We would expect also to shift the cost of deportation to the Chinese Communists, by having the convict request financial assistance [Facsimile Page 4] for his return.

We may wish to make the whole story public at some point. It does not seem likely that public pressure of this sort would cause the Chinese Communists to shift the position they have so firmly taken—apparently in order not to be compelled to let all the Americans go immediately. However, we have a good case and if we place it before the world before the Chinese Communists do, it will put them on the defensive and demonstrate to any reasonable person why the United States has reason to be distrustful of Chinese Communist promises. Please give us your views.

Your letter No. 41 of July 26 came August 7. Thanks for it and for the news and for the comments it contained. We had already sent out your guidance for the August 9 meeting when your letter arrived. Before the next meeting, we will consider the question of what you might be able to imply regarding the trade discussions in the event of a satisfactory agreement on renunciation of force and the release of the prisoners.

Certainly nothing new is in prospect on the horizon as grist for your mill in the next few meetings. It looks as if it will be the same old wine and it will be difficult to put it in any new bottles.

I am sorry that we still don’t have the complete text of the letter from Bob McCann. Even the excerpt which I mentioned has been misplaced temporarily. We hope to have it for the next pouch.

[Typeset Page 1146]

You may be interested in the language used by “Observer” in the People’s Daily on August 8 commenting on the Egyptian crisis. In supporting the Egyptian position, “Observer” says: “The time has long passed [Facsimile Page 5] when one could settle questions by the threat of force or armed intervention.” Further on he declares: “No problem can be solved by the threat of force or armed intervention.” Of course in the Egyptian crisis as in the case of Taiwan the Chinese Communists hold that the threat of force is entirely from the outside and that there is no such threat from themselves with respect to Taiwan or from the Egyptians with respect to the Suez Canal.

Congratulations from us all on the well merited commendation from the President, a copy of which has come to us. This is indeed a signal and well deserved honor. I will see to it that a copy of the letter goes to your personnel file.

Tuesday is an awkward day for your meeting from the Washington standpoint. We will need to get your guidance off Thursday or Friday. However it should be easy to shape it up since nothing new is contemplated. The Secretary leaves on Wednesday for the Suez Conference and Mr. Robertson is due back from leave next Monday the 20th.

Regards and all the best from everyone here.

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy

Enclosures:

1.
Newspaper clippings
2.
Draft of proposed letter to Chinese prisoners.

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