396.1 GE/6–2954: Telegram
No. 225
The Head of the United States
Delegation at the Geneva Conference (Johnson) to the Department of State
Secto 543. No word as yet from Communists re staff level meeting. Continue believe next move up to them.
At next meeting Jenkins plans take following steps:
- (1)
- Add Haeslop (Tosec 483) and Huang (Hong Kong 2651)1 to list desiring exit permits.
- (2)
- Express disbelief Mr. and Mrs. Ricks voluntarily withdrawn applications leave Shanghai (Seoul 1393).2
- (3)
- Attempt elicit indication Chinese Communist do or do not retain additional US military personnel (Secto 515).3 Will make inquiry substantially as in second paragraph Secto 415,4 avoiding direct question which would doubtless force negative answer in view implication violation armistice terms.
- (4)
- Comment as appropriate (appreciation and/or disappointment) on information received, assuring them we will call meeting soon as we have information for them. (Otherwise implication is we had information yet failed call meeting immediately.)
- (5)
- Confirm present arrangements continue for calling next staff meeting.
- (6)
- If on any pretext Communists consider substantive issue has arisen requiring higher level meeting will attempt insist as appropriate, (1) matter outside proper context these meetings at any level or (2) is in fact exchange information appropriate to staff [Page 485] level handling. Failing this, will state willing seek guidance from appropriate authorities and inform later.
Communists not likely raise for substantive discussion at staff level subject of representational mechanism to apply after close Geneva conference and this series meetings. If they should do so, will reply subject beyond scope these meetings. Even at first staff meeting however they may ask when they may expect reply to Wang proposal (third from last paragraph Secto 493).5 Jenkins could then ask when we will receive reply to my suggestion last sentence next to last paragraph reference telegram. Chinese answer may well be “not before talks resumed on level appropriate handle this question.”
Sooner or later we should at some level attempt obtain agreement on post-Geneva representational arrangement. Obviously we cannot accept Wang proposal “third country having diplomatic relations both parties take charge interests Chinese nationals and students in US,” since these interests already in hands Government of China.
My suggestion was far more limited two-way “letter-box” arrangement to be carried on entirely in Peiping. We can attempt secure agreement to this, but even if Communists agree to restricted letter-box service in principle they will almost certainly insist on reciprocal arrangement in Washington handled by Soviets or possibly Indians if British handle our interests Peiping. Washington even as letter-box site undesirable and believe should avoid even if arranged so as not to interfere with Government of China representation and protection interests its citizens in US.
Believe preferable from our standpoint counter with proposal British handle two-way communication through London only. They may counter with suggestion British handle our interests London and Soviets handle theirs London. Do we accept this?
We might alternatively suggest Swiss or even Indians handle two-way in Peiping only, or two-way in Bern or New Delhi if Swiss or Indians agreeable.
We may find it difficult get Americans-in-China bait off Chinese Communist political hook without getting politically hooked. Request instructions for present background guidance and for action when appropriate time comes.
- Neither printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Secto 515 from Geneva, June 24, reported that the Chinese had thus far been noncommittal about whether or not they held additional U.S. military personnel and had limited their discussion to the specific lists provided by Johnson. (396.1 GE/6–2454)↩
- Document 212.↩
- Document 220.↩