348. Telegram From the Embassy in Poland to the Department of State1

1535. Reference: State 105909.2

1.
I saw Rapacki 1800 Dec. 21 and explained trip to U.S., economic discussions excuse for trip, and fact that DCM is fully briefed on our discussions and would be available to continue discussions during my absence.
2.
I asked Rapacki to clarify for me the role that Hanoi played in our discussions. Rapacki replied that the message Lewandowski gave to Lodge (he referred to “three sentences”) upon his return from Hanoi expressing NVN positive response to Warsaw talks, Rapackiʼs warning after the Dec. 3 bombing, that Hanoi would have to reassess the situation, and the decision to terminate discussions in Warsaw were all decisions by NVN which were conveyed to us by the Poles. He said further that comments Poles made regarding danger of creating the impression of pressure on Hanoi were comments of the Polish Govt, but the fears that [Page 967] Poles expressed in this regard were verified subsequently by Hanoi. He also said that during process of Warsaw discussions there were a number of other exchanges between Warsaw and Hanoi, adding that the Poles are confident that what they expressed on their own initiative accurately reflected Hanoiʼs opinion.
3.
Rapacki then made the point, in reference to our accusation that Poles have raised new conditions since talks shifted to Warsaw, that interpretation clause question was raised by Lewandowski immediately upon hearing it expressed by Lodge on Dec. 3. He said “Clearly you know that we felt this was a matter of concern from the very beginning; it wasnʼt something interjected as a new condition afterwards.” He added, “Our concern was well taken because the reaction to interpretation clause from Hanoi turned out to be what we predicted.”
4.
He expressed pleasure that I was going to Washington, noting that telegraphic communication is less than completely satisfactory in conveying all the nuances of positions and attitudes, and expressed hope that I would convey to Washington Polandʼs dedication to solving the VN war. He also observed that the critical problem of bringing Hanoi to the conference table involves question of pressure; that Hanoi could never respond to pressure or give the impression that it was responding to pressure. This, he said, is the reason why the bombing issue is so important.
5.
Rapacki added that the main problem at this point is the lack of confidence developed in Hanoi subsequent to the Dec. 3 bombing. He added that at time Lewandowski left Hanoi NVN officials were convinced that USG was genuinely interested in a negotiated settlement, but that after Dec. 3 and subsequent bombing attacks on Hanoi NVN concluded that U.S. was attempting to bring pressure on them to negotiate, to improve its tactical position in order to win greater concessions from Hanoi, or to sabotage the whole peace effort. He said what is needed now is to restore the degree of confidence in U.S. intention that existed in Hanoi at the time Lewandowski was there. He said, “If you genuinely want to initiate negotiations, this is the problem you face.”
6.
Re State 106358,3 I have appointment 0100 hours December 22 with Minister Rapacki. Will report following meeting. Intend to maintain Warsaw 1529 schedule unless advised to the contrary.4
Gronouski
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27–14 VIET/MARIGOLD. Top Secret; Immediate; Nodis; Marigold. The source text does not indicate the time of transmission; the telegram was received at 8:07 p.m. Printed in part in Herring, Secret Diplomacy of the Vietnam War, p. 311.
  2. See footnote 3, Document 346.
  3. See footnote 2, Document 349.
  4. In telegram 1529 from Warsaw, December 21, Gronouski indicated that he planned to leave Warsaw for Washington on December 22. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 27–14 VIET/MARIGOLD) Gronouski left Washington to return to Warsaw on the evening of December 23, arriving in Warsaw on December 24. (Telegram 107809 to Warsaw, December 23; ibid.)