Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXX, China

136. Memorandum From James C. Thomson, Jr., of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Special Assistant (Moyers)¹

Washington, March 15, 1966.

SUBJECT

• The China Hearings and the Vice President’s TV Remarks

At the suggestion of Hayes Redmon, here are some thoughts on how to handle both the Fulbright China hearings and Humphrey’s remarks on China as highlighted in today’s newspapers:

1. The Administration is in luck, so far, on both China and Vietnam during the present phase of the Fulbright hearings. Two of the country’s top Asian specialists, Fairbank and Barnett, have supported us on Vietnam and have offered constructive suggestions rather than sharp criticism on China.

2. The Fairbank/Barnett central thesis on China policy is “containment—yes, isolation—no”. This is a useful and memorable shorthand for describing a rational policy.

3. As of this morning’s papers, the Administration, through the Vice President, appears to have adopted both (a) a friendly and positive approach to the China hearings, and (b) the Fairbank/Barnett thesis itself, i.e., “containment—yes, isolation—no”.

4. Recommendation:

I would urge that we now make the VP’s line the official Administration position. It gives us just the room for maneuver that we will need in the months ahead. It should also help to avoid an unhealthy polarization on China policy. Furthermore, it need not be billed as a new policy.

In talking to the press, our stress should be that:

(a) Of course we welcome such hearings on the problem of China, a matter of continuing concern to all the nations of the world, and one on which dispassionate discussion and public education can only be useful; and

(b) We do indeed pursue a policy of containment but not isolation—in fact, we have attempted to pursue such a policy for a number of years now, and as the situation permits, we will attempt to find new ways to reduce China’s isolation, despite the fact that China has been responsible in large degree for isolating itself from us.

On this latter point, it should be noted that:

(a) We have sought an exchange of journalists with China since 1959—over 80 American newsmen now have valid passports, but the Chinese won’t let them in (only Edgar Snow, admitted as a “writer”, not a journalist);

(b) We have authorized various categories of Americans to travel to Communist China—most recently specialists in medicine and public health last December and scholars as of last week—but again the Chinese won’t let them in (case of Dr. Samuel Rosen, ear surgeon, in 1964);

(c) We have expressed our willingness to see China participate in international disarmament talks;

(d) We have left the door open since 1962 to the commercial sales of grain to Communist China, if application should be made (despite Peking’s denunciation of any trade relations with the U.S.);

(e) We have privately made clear our willingness to admit to this country Chinese journalists and other specialists (scientists), but none have applied; and, of course,

(f) We talk to the Chinese regularly at Warsaw—the latest meeting is this Wednesday.²

In other words, the Vice President’s statement does not indicate a “new policy”; it is rather a description of our continuing and expanding efforts to find ways to lessen the belligerence of the Chinese Communist regime and to bring the people of the mainland into a more peaceful relationship with the world community.

Jim

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Name File, Moyers Memos. Confidential. A typed notation on the source text reads “Revised Version.” A handwritten notation on the source text reads “Bill—note p. 2.” Subparagraph 4(b) begins the second page.
2. March 16.