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

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

Warsaw, February 24, 1965, 7 p.m.

1744. Cabot-Wang talks.² Deptel 1446.³

(1) Wang opened saying because of defeats suffered in Viet-nam we had recently sent planes to raid North Viet-nam, against the Geneva Agreements and thereby spreading the war. These criminal actions jeopardize peace, arousing condemnation all peace-loving peoples of the world. The Chinese Government made two statements on February 9 and 13 which make clear action against Viet-nam is action against China. U.S. defeat in South Viet-nam is foregone conclusion. Outcome Viet-nam war must be decided on the ground. In Chinese view long as U.S. continues present course Viet-nam people will continue deal heavier and heavier blows until U.S. is kicked out. It is U.S. which has invaded South Viet-nam and taken the lead in breaking up the demarcation line. Only one way out for U.S.: withdraw and let the people of Indochina settle their own problems. Up to U.S. to decide road to be taken. Wang said the more we go on expanding war, the surer is our defeat.

(2) Wang continued, claiming tension Far East is caused by U.S. occupation Taiwan, mentioning Polaris subs in Asian waters and aircraft capable carrying nuclear weapons in area. Said press was saying purpose was destroy all main cities of China. Chinese Government has long pointed out nuclear blackmail will not intimidate Chinese people. Mentioned serious warnings since last meeting and “spy planes” shot down. Said seven groups comprising 196 men of the Chiang clique had raided mainland and no good could come from our support such actions.

(3) I responded with guidance para 3, A through F.⁴

(4) Wang said my statement was prevarication to cover up our aggressive acts. Everyone could see we had violated Geneva Agreements in moving U.S. troops to South Viet-nam and spreading flames of war so as to carry out armed aggression to slaughter large numbers Vietnamese people. Facts cannot be covered by pretext. Said we claimed Hanoi was masterminding. This is nonsense. Obviously aggression will cause struggle against aggression. It is United States who forced people South Viet-nam to take up arms. Only correct way to settle this question is for U.S. to implement Geneva Agreements in good faith. U.S. must immediately stop war of aggression, withdraw troops and armament, and let South Vietnamese people settle own problems by selves. Said we lied in saying we came into South Viet-nam to protect freedom and have no selfish aims.

(5) I said Wang knew as well as I what he said untrue and I had stated true U.S. position. U.S. clearly prepared observe Geneva Agreements if others would. Reminded Wang had spoken of closeness between China and North Viet-nam and in such case believed could not avoid all responsibility for what was going on. Problem could be simply resolved if North Viet-nam authorities called off their aggression. We cannot abandon South Viet-nam. We willing leave South Viet-nam if North Viet-nam would stop interfering in South Viet-nam.

(6) Wang said China and DRV are fraternal countries and at same time close neighbors and rely on each other. Therefore U.S. aggression against DRV is just like aggression against China. Said if we insist on spreading war flames to North Viet-nam, China will definitely not sit idly by. China does not want war but must make clear its determination. If U.S. continues its aggression China is prepared to carry on to the end. If U.S. really means to abide by Geneva Accords it must first withdraw its troops.

(7) I then gave guidance para 4 A through E.⁵

(8) Wang then gave repetitious account Chinese/Viet-nam views. Said we blamed North Viet-nam for fighting in both Viet-nam and Laos and asked what we were doing in Laos. Asked what is the reason U.S. launched attacks in Cambodia. Is this also fault North Viet-nam. Said that we had spread war to North Viet-nam. North Viet-nam has right to strike back and signatories Geneva Agreements also have right to act against United States aggression. The situation really grave now and if U.S. refuses withdraw it will be held fully responsible for all the consequences.

(9) Wang continued with meaningless statement concerning reasonableness Chinese draft agreed announcement, saying if we really wanted peace we should find no difficulty in agreeing to it.

(10) I said Wang’s side seemed to call those governments it did not like “puppets” and seemed to feel it was all right for them to pursue so-called wars of liberation but not right for us to support free governments against such aggression.

(11) Wang said scale of war in North Viet-nam had developed with scale of U.S. aggression there. Wang said it was our usual practice to call all revolutionary movements Communist-backed, but this is simply attempt cover up our own aggression. Only way out is to withdraw troops from South Viet-nam. Said only practical thing was for countries having nuclear capability to agree not to use it on each other.

Next meeting April 21.

Cabot

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL CHICOM-US. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Geneva, Moscow, Stockholm, Hong Kong, and Taipei.
2. This was the 124th meeting of the Ambassadorial talks. Cabot reported on the meeting in detail in airgram A–779, March 1. (Ibid.)
3. Telegram 1446 to Warsaw, February 20, provided guidance for the meeting. It instructed Cabot that in response to Wang’s anticipated charges, he should restate U.S. policies on Vietnam and disarmament. It noted that the wording had been carefully chosen to avoid polemical arguments but that he should endeavor to present it in a crisp and declaratory manner, without any suggestion that he was attempting to open negotiations on Vietnam. (Ibid.)
4. Paragraph 3 covered U.S. policy on Vietnam.
5. Paragraph 4 covered U.S. policy on disarmament.