S/P Files: Lot 64 D 563
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, Prepared in the Department of State
| Participants: | First Party and Second Party. |
| Telephone conversation, 6:40 p. m., February 1, 1951. |
First Party asked as to the reported letter from [name deleted]: “Have you seen this letter?” Second Party said he had not. First Party asked: “Do you believe it exists?” Second Party said there was “no question about its existing”. He added that he had asked Third Party for an exact statement of the contents. Third Party had told him that the message was cryptic and required interpretation based on advance agreement as to meetings between himself and the source.
[Page 1551]First Party said it was important to know what was in the letter itself and what was derived from interpretation. First Party asked Second Party to get Third Party’s interpretation as to the effect of intervening events on the intentions as expressed in the letter. Specifically is the general lack of tactical contact in Korea obtaining in the last couple of weeks a reflection of the intention expressed in the letter? He also asked for Third Party’s view as to whether Mao Tse-tung was a party to the views expressed in the letter and whether, on the assumption that he was, the situation indicated a veering away from Moscow on the part of the Peiping Government rather than the developing likelihood of a coup d’etat.
Second Party said that he had discussed this with Third Party. Third Party had concluded that Mao was a party to the view and that a veering away on the part of the régime rather than a coup d’etat was the developing prospective. He added that he thought this was based on interpretation rather than specific information included in the letter.
First Party said “We are in earnest about this. We are willing to show our earnestness.” If Third Party needs to get back to his principals that he is talking to sources near the centers of responsibility in this Government he might be told that First Party had given the information that the Collective Measures Committee at the UN was not going to make haste about the business in hand and that the prospect was that there would be no meeting for a week. First Party suggested that if Third Party’s principals required other proof a test might be arranged. His principals could give the name of someone in the traditions of their country and specify a time on the Voice of America when this name should be mentioned. The authenticity of First Party’s sources could be demonstrated by having the particular name mentioned on a broadcast at that time.
First Party said that a demonstration of authenticity from the other side should be given in the event that Third Party’s principals are interested in establishing a contact. First Party said that a U.S. Senator had approached the Department of State asking for help in obtaining the release of William Wallace, a U.S. national and a medical missionary, arrested late in December at Wucho, China. First Party said if there was real earnestness on the part of Third Party’s sources this could be manifested by releasing Dr. Wallace and permitting him to proceed to Hong Kong. This would show that Third Party had access to real authority.
First Party said that after the demonstrations and counter-demonstrations [Page 1552] of authenticity had worked properly, the important matter to proceed to was the question of getting down to really substantial talk. He said that authorities in the line of policy in Washington had taken interest in Third Party’s communications and were also interested in the prospect of establishing a place and a contact for talking business to the end of liquidating the Korean affair in an expeditious and mutually satisfactory way.
Second Party asked for a recapitulation on the idea of the informal exchange of credentials. He remarked that a code might be set up for further communication with Third Party, if such should be useful, after Third Party’s return to China. He suggested this might be done through pre-arranged phases to be used on Voice of America broadcasts.
First Party inquired as to the possible speed of communications between Third Party and his sources. Second Party said that communication could be by cable provided the ideas were clear and simple.
First Party explained that he would be away over the week-end.