233. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Poland0
560. Beam–Wang Talks. Following is guidance for 83rd meeting:
In joint Communiqué issued by President Chiang and Secretary Dulles October 23 GRC declared that foundation of its mission of restoring [Page 480]freedom to its people on mainland resides in minds and hearts of Chinese people and that principal means of successfully achieving its mission is implementation of Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Three Peoples’ Principles and not use of force. GRC posture regarding reunification China now similar in fundamentals to that Federal German Republic, Republic of Korea, and Vietnam as regards reunification their countries. Communist regimes these countries reciprocate, as clearly shown by Communist acceptance Korean armistice and Geneva accord on Vietnam. Among countries divided by Communism only Chinese Communists publicly insisting on free hand use offensive military force unite country. Your principal purpose at meeting should be to expose this Chinese Communist position, emphasizing the fallacy of claiming this purely “domestic” in view GRC and US Mutual Defense Treaty and PRC and Soviet treaty alliance.
You should begin with strong denunciation Communist every other day bombardment policy making point that such continued wanton killing abhorrent entire community civilized nations. Recall that on November 3 Chinese Communists suddenly fired almost 40,000 shells against Quemoy group. This was by far heaviest shelling since September 11. No reason given for this onslaught which, because of its suddenness and complete lack of justification by any criterion, was bound to exact unusually heavy toll in the towns and countryside of Quemoy. World shocked at this latest Communist display of callous disregard for human life. It confirmed widely held opinions or suspicions about rulers in Peiping. But that was not all. Peiping then charged that Quemoy’s defenders were firing back poison gas shells.1 Peiping knows full well that this is a lie. Why then the charge? Is it an effort to divert world attention from Communist shelling of innocent civilians on the islands? Is it effort to justify such wanton killing, is it effort to justify Communist use of such weapons?
You should draw conclusion from foregoing that it is now even more apparent than it was at previous meeting with Wang that his side not interested in restoring tranquil conditions in Taiwan Strait, but rather in keeping atmosphere charged with dangers and tensions in a dangerous effort to realize Peiping’s expansionist aims.
Ask Wang whether his side prepared undertake not initiative war for purpose taking Taiwan, Penghu and offshore islands. Tell him this step required remove present grave danger to peace in Taiwan Strait, and whole world would welcome such action his side. However, failure his government adopt such policy would make it responsible before world public opinion as alone among regimes in divided countries in insisting [Page 481]as matter of right on attempting to extend its domain by military force at risk world peace.
In response Wang’s certain riposte that Taiwan Straits situation “internal matter” repeat our arguments that this obviously not case as shown by US treaty with GRC, by world-wide concern expressed since his side launched attacks Quemoy and by strong expressions support for Wang’s side, including references Sino-Soviet Treaty, which have come from USSR. Constant repetition of formula “internal matter” will deceive no one into believing situation threatening world peace is Wang’s, regime’s exclusive concern. You should also deny inevitable charge that joint communiqué of October 23 simply an unfolding our “plot” create “two Chinas”. Point out US recognizes only one Chinese Government, GRC, just as it recognizes only one Korean, one Vietnamese and one German Government. Fact that these countries unhappily divided and neither side insisting on recognition of “right” launch armed attacks on other obviously does not mean free governments these countries and their allies accept division their countries as immutable condition. What gives Wang’s regime superior rights over rest of world to press claims for territory at risk of war? Is this admission Wang’ s part it impossible establish inherent justice his side’s claim without constant shooting and shedding innocent blood?
Point out that reason why there is general acceptance of principle that divided countries should not be reunited by resort to offensive military action is precisely because such attempts would endanger world peace. Wang’s side itself acknowledged such situations not merely internal matter countries concerned by taking part in Geneva conference on Korea and Indochina in 1954. China clearly no exception this general rule. How can one say that situation which has already twice in four years gravely imperiled peace of Asia should be exempt from general principles applied other divided countries? US is first among countries deploring fact so many peoples torn between contending sides and ardently hopes for day when all peoples so divided, including Chinese, can be reunited under representative government their own free choosing. But US agrees with other countries in world that process unification divided nations must not be permitted precipitate conflicts imperiling peace and security of world. GRC declaration in Communiqué issued by President Chiang and Secretary Dulles October 23 “that the principal means of successfully achieving its mission is the implementation of Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Three Peoples’ Principles (nationalism, democracy and social well-being) and not the use of force” made clear that it too, holds this view. Ask Wang if he is prepared in principle to make a declaration similar to this declaration by GRC eschewing force. If so two sides can immediately begin consideration of appropriate text.[Page 482]
FYI. Do not believe proposal for observation by third parties (paragraph 4 your 651)2 feasible since could lead to demand that observers be stationed US vessels and aircraft to assure implementation and would appear to give recognition right PRC to establish limits of territorial sea. Regarding question of territorial sea, there have been no Communist charges of “intrusions” by our vessels or aircraft since October 23. Arguments for your use in case Wang makes detailed reply our position being sent in separate telegram. You may also find International Court of Justice decision in Norwegian fisheries case (Deptel 554)3 useful in establishing point that no part high seas can be unilaterally appropriated by any state to its own use without concurrence other states. Suggest you defer reply to points not readily handled with material at hand until following meeting.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–558. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Bennett and Green, cleared by Robertson and in draft by Parsons and Martin, cleared with L and in substance with the Department of Defense, and approved by Dulles. Repeated to Taipei and USUN for Lodge.↩
- Telegram 555 to Warsaw, November 4, transmitted the text of a November 4 broadcast making this charge. (Ibid., 611.93/11–458)↩
- See footnote 1, Document 217.↩
- Telegram 554 to Warsaw, November 4, transmitted an extract from the decision. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–458)↩