740.0011 EW (PEACE)/7—1646
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
The Chinese Ambassador, Dr. Wellington Koo, called to see the Secretary for the first time since taking up his duties in Washington. The Secretary said he was glad to welcome Dr. Koo, especially since their past association has been so pleasant, and he looked forward to working with him.
The Ambassador said he was glad to be back here to represent his country and he expressed the hope that he could always count upon the Secretary’s cooperation. He said he wished to congratulate the Secretary upon the progress at the Paris Conference. He said it must have been a trying time, but the Secretary’s patience and firmness had been effective.
The Secretary said it had been difficult. He told the Ambassador he had talked several times with his colleague in Paris and he presumed Dr. Koo had been informed of some of the difficulties with regard to China. He explained regarding the sending out of the invitations that he had insisted that China should be included as one of the inviting powers since according to the Potsdam Agreement there were five members of the Council.1 Molotov’s argument was that the treaties should be considered only by countries signatory to the Armistice terms, and China could not invite other governments to consider treaties she had not had anything to do with drafting.
The Ambassador inquired what was the real reason for wanting China excluded.
The Secretary said he could never get the real reason, but he had suggested that if there were a difference in interpretation of the Potsdam Agreement they should issue invitations in the name of the Council of Foreign Ministers, as the French had proposed in April when it was assumed the Peace Conference would be held May 1. It was finally agreed, after a great deal of discussion, that the invitation should be issued in the name of the Council, which would not exclude [Page 2] China. The decision reached in the Council on July 4 would not govern, however, if any question should come up about this matter in the future, because the decision for the Council to call the Peace Conference was reached in Moscow; the decision of July 4 merely changed the date.2 He said he believed China’s position at the Peace Conference should be that she was attending in accordance with the Moscow Agreement and as a member of the Council of Foreign Ministers, set up as a result of the Potsdam Agreement. He said he thought it would be very unwise for China to stay away from the Conference. One man should not be allowed to eliminate China from the Council. Furthermore, the Chairmanship of the Conference is to be France, as the host nation, first, then in alphabetical order for a period of three days. This gives China Chairmanship ahead of the USSR. The Secretary said he had told the Chinese Ambassador in Paris he thought Mr. Molotov would be very glad if China stayed away, but he thought China should not give up her interest in world affairs by so doing.
The Ambassador inquired what would be the procedure after the recommendations of the Conference have been referred back to the Council.
The Secretary said he did not believe the Conference could get a two-thirds majority to recommend changes in the controversial issues such as Trieste and the Italian colonies decided upon by the four governments, and these four governments would certainly have to stand by their decisions. On other matters the four governments could take whatever position they wished.
The Ambassador inquired if the Secretary got an opportunity to discuss reparations in Manchuria.
The Secretary replied that no Pacific matters were taken up either in or out of the Council. He told the Ambassador he did talk with Mr. Pauley3 who gave him an album of pictures of Manchuria which he wished the Ambassador to see. (It was found the album was left in Paris.)
The Ambassador then said it was good that they had been able to reach agreement on the important questions.
[Page 3]The Secretary remarked that it was about the only solution they could arrive at.
The Ambassador inquired when the Secretary would return to Paris and the Secretary told him July 27. The Ambassador said he hoped to be able to see him again before his departure, regarding the situation in China.
The Secretary said he had been keeping in touch with the situation through General Marshall and from what he knew of it, the situation is bad. He said he would try to see the Ambassador if there was something urgent.
- For text of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference, August 1, 1945, see Foreign Relations, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, vol. ii, p. 1478.↩
-
The decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers with respect to eligibility for participation in the Peace Conference was contained in the Communiqué on the Moscow Conference of the Three Foreign Ministers, December 16–26, 1945; for text, see telegram 4284, December 27, 1945, from Moscow, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 815.
Regarding the decision of July 4, 1946, see the United States Delegation Record and Record of Decisions of the 34th Meeting of the Council, vol. ii, pp. 771 and 769 respectively.
↩ - For Mr. Pauley’s statement of July 23, 1946, on his survey of the industry and natural resources in Manchuria, see Department of State Bulletin, August 4, 1946, p. 233. For documentation regarding the question of Japanese reparations, see volume viii.↩