143. Telegram From the Embassy in Poland to the Department of State0
1) Wang opened saying favorable developments Laos should have been starting point toward relaxation tensions but US continuing aggravate tensions Southeast Asia and Taiwan Straits. Said Bowles and other officials had announced US building up military crescent in western Pacific encircling China. This was “insolent” scheme which Chinese people deeply resented. Considered US troops Thailand threat security Laos and neighboring states. Enumerated further alleged encroachments air space and territorial waters by US resulting to date in 209 serious warnings. Wang specifically said we in error in claim De Haven had not entered Chinese Communist territorial waters. Concluded saying long-standing Sino-American dispute subject to settlement by US withdrawal from Taiwan.
2) I replied US gratified progress re Laos and pointed out we have already withdrawn some forces from Thailand which we would not be likely to do so if we had aggressive intent of which Wang's side accuses us. Said could not understand why we were accused of increasing tensions after what I told Wang under instructions in recent private meeting. Said I regretted use of word “insolent” for our endeavor to defend ourselves and friends against attack. Continued with substance paragraph (1) reference telegram, adding observations re import ICC findings and adding three quotes from Mao's writings glorifying military force to indicate Communist support military activities Southeast Asia was in line with very policy of Chinese Communist regime. Followed with statements re imprisoned Americans and newsmen exchange accordance paragraphs (3) and (7) reference telegram.[Page 294]
3) Wang then virtually repeated his opening speech, adding comment re letter from prominent Americans appearing NY Times April 16 as evidence American people not behind our Vietnam policies. Said Chinese people do not want war with US so question renunciation force between us does not arise. Said exchange newsmen was old question first raised by Chinese side. US obstruction prevented agreement.
4) I said I had already answered Wang's repetitious observations but was pleased in tribute he paid to freedom of expression in America. Said seemed to me test of aggressive intent simply made; not only had Wang's side refused agree to mutual renunciation force but while we had unilaterally informed his side we would not support use of force in Taiwan Straits area under present circumstances, Wang had refused give reciprocal assurance his side would not use force. Would seem to be clear which side thinking of using force and which side not. Refuted Wang claim we had obstructed newsmen exchange.
Next meeting August 23.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7-1262. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Taipei, Hong Kong, Geneva, Stockholm, and Moscow.↩
- Cabot commented in telegram 84, July 13, that the atmosphere of the meeting was “matter of fact” and that the talks continued to offer a “useful safety valve.” (Ibid., 611.93/7-1362) He sent a detailed report of the meeting in airgram A-51, July 20. (Ibid., 611.93/7-2062)↩
- Telegram 45, July 7, instructed Cabot to deny the charges Wang was expected to make on the theme of U.S. “occupation” of Taiwan and alleged encouragement of GRC counter-attack plans, to reaffirm U.S. willingness to join in a mutual renunciation of force, and to reiterate U.S. readiness to carry out its obligations under the U.S.-GRC mutual defense treaty. It also instructed him to urge release of the Americans imprisoned in China and to urge consideration of earlier U.S. proposals for travel of newsmen between the two countries. (Ibid., 611.93/7-762)↩