396.1 GE/3–1754: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bohlen) to the Department of State
niact
1087. Repeated information niact London 158, Paris 217. Report of my conversation with Kuznetsov follows (Embtel 10851):
Kuznetsov read and then handed me aide-mémoire given in my immediately preceding telegram.2
I told him I would of course, communicate it immediately to my government but, with reference to statement in first paragraph concerning consultation with Chinese Communist Government, I wished to remind him that in accordance with Berlin decision the four powers and the four powers alone were responsible for organizing the conference and that while Soviet Government of course had the right to consult with any government it wished, this could not be interpreted as indicating that CPR had any special right whatsoever as compared with other invited countries nor any role to play in the organization of the conference.
Kuznetsov said that Soviet Government of course had right to consult as it desired and considered that was useful to know the views of the parties in the conference.
I repeated that that would apply equally to any other countries invited to attend and read to him the pertinent paragraphs from the Russian text of the Berlin agreement which made it plain that the four Foreign Ministers of the four countries were proposing the Korean political conference at Geneva and hence were responsible for the arrangements, repeating that CPR was an invited country on the same basis as all others invited.
Kuznetsov did not attempt to argue the point. He did not contest my interpretation of the Berlin agreement and in fact stated that we (meaning, I presume, officials) had no right to alter an agreement reached by the four Foreign Ministers.
I believe it would be important in replying to this aide-mémoire the point that the Chinese Communists were consulted by Soviet Government by its own desire and not by any right should be reemphasized. It will be noted that Soviet reply raises in substance certain points not contained in my aide-mémoire of March 5 based on Deptel 5483 [Page 468] such as official and working languages at the conference and method of interpretation which I read to be similar to system used at Berlin ACC Building. Apart from this and reference to Chinese consultation, Soviet reply accepts most of our suggestions. Suggestion that French should speak for four powers in dealing with SYG is part of current Soviet attempt to play up to French sensibilities and is clearly designed to get away from the idea of four in order not to underline the absence of Communist China. Contents of document would appear to confirm fact that delay was due to discussions with China and reference to consultation and suggestion that Chinese would be official and working language is probably result of compromise designed to create appearance that Communist China if not fully on parity with four powers is at least not quite on same level as other invited powers.