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

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

Warsaw, November 25, 1964, 6 p.m.

1174. Cabot-Wang talks.² Deptel 980.³

(1) I opened with substance most points reference telegram except paragraph one and contingency items and appealed for avoidance polemics far as possible.

(2) Wang replied with review Chinese position on number issues often discussed before plus lengthy reiteration position on nuclear weapons. Nothing in this not already made known through Chou letter to President,⁴ enclosed statement, and recent press accounts of Chinese position. Wang read aloud and passed to me draft agreed announcement saying in effect two governments determined make joint effort eliminate nuclear weapons and effect thorough destruction of them. Both governments to undertake not to use such weapons and the two Ambassadors, on behalf their governments, solemnly declare that at no time and under no circumstances will either government be first to use nuclear weapons. Two governments propose governments of all nations of world hold summit conference as proposed in Chou letter (text in tomorrow’s pouch).⁵

(3) Wang continued UN had proved incapable handling question of disarmament and in any event so long as UN fails restore legitimate rights Chinese Government and does not nullify illegal status Chiang clique his government would have nothing to do with UN. Spoke of increased reconnaissance provocations including pilotless craft and said he hereby demands US immediately stop these provocations and threats.

(4) I promised transmit draft announcement, assuring him it would receive attention it merited, but observed question of verification and control obviously vital consideration in any disarmament proposal and noted no mention made of conventional armament which is intimately related question.

(5) Wang observed we had no competence speak of contamination of atmosphere on part others when we were first to test and use nuclear weapons. Said tripartite treaty designed to tie hands of peace loving countries and his government continued oppose treaty.

(6) Wang asked for careful, sober-minded consideration before we attempted link China question with that of Vietnam by using Chiang troops in South Vietnam.

(7) I reviewed sequence developments in Far East since World War II in refutation Wang’s accusation aggressive intentions USG because of alleged arms build up. I said it was clear Viet Cong was armed, trained and financed by ChiCom connivance with North Vietnam and his side was playing very dangerous game. I continued with substance paragraph six A and Rusk quote paragraph 18.

(8) Wang continued with lengthy tirade on alleged US aggressions worldwide and said we should stay home, asking who has committed aggression against US—the Congolese? I said his government had done so in Korea when we were opposing under UN banner North Korean aggression. Lengthy discussion of who supporting whom in Southeast Asia and where charges of aggression properly lay. This was chiefly repetition worn themes on Wang’s part.

Next meeting December 24.

Cabot

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL CHICOM-US. Confidential; Priority; Limdis. Repeated to Hong Kong, Taipei, Geneva, Moscow, and Stockholm.
2. This was the 123d meeting of the Ambassadorial talks. Cabot reported the meeting in more detail in airgram A–544, November 30. (Ibid.)
3. Telegram 980, November 19, provided guidance for the meeting and stated that the deterioration of language at the last meeting might have been a deliberate effort to taunt Cabot into breaking off the talks; if so, and for the record, “it seems desirable at this time to recapitulate our stance in broadest terms.” (Ibid.)
4. Chou’s October 17 letter to Johnson was delivered to the Embassy in Warsaw on October 19; the text was transmitted in telegram 885 of that date from Warsaw. (Ibid., DEF 12–1 CHICOM) The letter enclosed a copy of the PRC Government’s announcement on October 16 of China’s first nuclear test. The text of the statement is printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 882–884. The text of the letter, also sent to other heads of government, is printed ibid., p. 1077.
5. Not found.