Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIV, Soviet Union

254. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the Soviet Union¹

Washington, November 25, 1967, 1616Z.

74809. Eyes Only for Ambassador From Secretary. Now that the Fiftieth Anniversary is behind us and we had a unanimous vote on the Middle East resolution in the Security Council, I will pass along my own thoughts regarding your 1389 of October 9.²

Mr. Gromyko and I, in our talks in New York, were getting close to the edge of talking about China and the general situation in Asia. I told him that I thought that there were important elements in the Asian situation in which the interests of the Soviet Union and the United States might coincide. I said, as an example, that the United States could proceed on the basis that—

(a) The present frontiers in Asia should be looked upon as permanent.

(b) If there are border disputes we would be prepared to lend assistance in a peaceful resolution of such disputes. (I had in mind such a border as the McMahon line between India and China.)

(c) If there are problems of demarcation, we would be ready to be of assistance in demarcation. (I had in mind the borders of Cambodia.)

(d) In the event of divided states such as Korea and Viet-Nam the issue should be resolved by peaceful means and not by force.

I told Gromyko that these four points were a basis for a genuine common interest between the United States and the Soviet Union. I don’t recall that I told him, but I had in mind that point (d) might work to the advantage of the United States in its short-run in such situations as Viet-Nam but that the Soviet Union might be much interested in point (a)—given the longer range prospects of their problems with a billion Chinese.

I specifically did not propose any “form of understanding” and do not do so now. It might be no more than a basis for some further conversation between us. Nor was I attempting to find a formula which might be simply a temporary convenience with regard to Viet-Nam from our point of view. I was letting my mind range far ahead to the long term complex of Asian problems over the next ten or twenty years.

I would suggest that, in mentioning the matter again to Gromyko, you tell him that I was thinking in the broadest and longest range terms about the situation in Asia and how the state interests of the Soviet Union and the United States would fit into that situation. You might add that I have been trying to analyze the uncertainties of the next decades in Asia and have been trying to identify those points of common interest between the Soviet Union and the United States which might be genuine common interests. Obviously, the identification of such common interests on such important matters could be important for the two countries on whom fall so much responsibility for the maintenance of peace.

As a postscript, I departed from my traditional practice and attended the Fiftieth Anniversary Reception at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. I did so for a very simple reason: We have had fifty years of coexistence as between the Soviet Union and the United States (in the sense that we have not had a major war with each other), and I would be glad to have another fifty years about which one could say the same thing.³

Rusk

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, USSR, Vol. XVI. Secret; Nodis. Drafted and approved by Rusk. Rostow forwarded the telegram to the President under cover of a November 28 memorandum in which he stated that it “opens up the possibility of a most interesting and spacious dialogue with the Soviet Union if they are interested.” (Ibid.)
2. Telegram 1389 from Moscow reported that during a talk with Thompson on October 9 Gromyko referred to a discussion with Rusk in late September during which the Secretary raised the possibility of an understanding that there would be no border changes in Asia without the agreement of the U.S. and Soviet Governments and that the problem of divided countries should be solved gradually by the wishes of their peoples. Gromyko asked that Rusk be more specific about what he had in mind. (Ibid.)
3. Thompson responded in telegram 1946, November 27, that he was inclined not to seek an appointment with Gromyko specifically on this subject but to discuss it the next time he had occasion to see him. (Ibid.)