15. Editorial Note
A statement issued on June 30, 1958, by the Government of the People’s Republic of China charged that the United States had broken “the agreement between China and the United States on holding talks at the ambassadorial level.” It concluded: “The Chinese Government demands that the United States Government designate a representative of ambassadorial rank and resume the talks within 15 days counting from today; otherwise, the Chinese Government cannot but consider that the United States has decided to break up the Sino-American ambassadorial talks.”
The text of the statement, printed in Peking Review, July 8, 1958, pages 21–22, is in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, pages 1133–1135.
Department of State Spokesman Lincoln White responded on June 30 that the Department had been considering the selection of an ambassador and possible change in the locale of the talks but that it did not intend to submit to the “fifteen-day ultimatum.” The text of the statement was transmitted to Geneva in telegram 1654, June 30. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/6–3158) At a news conference on July 1, Secretary Dulles, when asked what was delaying the appointment of an ambassador, replied, “At the moment what is delaying it has been the Chinese Communist blast of yesterday.” He stated that a memorandum concerning the possible shift of the talks from Geneva to Warsaw was in the process of delivery (no memorandum has been found, but see Document 14) and that the United States would continue to carry out that inquiry but did not intend to be bound by the “15-day ultimatum.” For the transcript of the news conference, see Department of State Bulletin, July 21, 1958, pages 104–111.
Telegram 7 to Warsaw, July 1, stated that a press leak had forced the Department to make public the possible shift of the talks to Warsaw, but that, as a result of the ultimatum, it was delaying its approach to the Chinese. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–158) Telegram 5 to Geneva, July 2, instructed Dexter to take no action on Clough’s letter pending further instructions. (Ibid., 611.93/7–258)