346. Telegram 161 from Prague1
161. Re Deptel 1136 to Geneva.
Did not consider draft Mytel 1048 departed from concept separate unilateral declarations but only that preamble lengthened over draft in Deptel 915 in order give document more “political appeal” better to meet CHICOM maneuvers with GOI, UK and Soviets as well as give us better public position if publicity becomes necessary.
It does not seem to me bare more or less legalistic language draft Deptel 915 is best for this purpose. It is also best answer to inclusion UN Charter language in CHICOM draft.
Draft contains nothing we have not already said to CHICOMS in our formal opening statement on renunciation force copy of which was given Wang.
Specific comments by paragraph:
2. Do not see question “right to hold” policy objective is involved. Paragraph simply states unquestioned fact two sides do have policy objectives and that in certain respects these incompatible. Do not believe anyone could interpret paragraph as US recognition right PRC hold such policy objectives as subverting free government.
[Typeset Page 485]3. In view publicly stated US attitude toward off-shore islands and specific reference to “Taiwan area” in paragraph 7 seems to me difficult construe statement as whole as leaving CHICOMS free attack those islands. While it seems to me preferable include some disclaimer re third parties, could delete this paragraph without weakening statement.
[Facsimile Page 2]4. It seems to me difficult to enunciate principle that use of force in purely internal matters is not permissible. Police in all countries continuously use force maintain internal order. Whereas we strongly disagree with some of policy objectives internal police use force Communist countries it clearly becomes international matter only when international peace, security and justice involved. Test is not whether country considers matter domestic or international, but rather whether in fact use of force would endanger international peace. In view existence GRC and US treaty relationship thereto there can be no question that use force against GRC constitutes threat to international peace however PRC regards matter. It will be seen that at last meeting I strongly pursued this point with Wang.
5. Implication is no stronger than in original statement I made to Wang. Entire context discussion renunciation force has been willingness discuss “other matters” in these talks if PRC renounced force in satisfactory terms. If this removed there is little left in my negotiating position. We have made clear our refusal discuss any matters involving rights and interest GRC.
With different emphasis and of course for opposite reasons Wang has also disclaimed any intent discuss GRC matters with US.
6. and 7. See comments on paragraph 4 above.
Entirely concur penultimate paragraph Deptel 1136 to Geneva. Question is formulating a document that accomplishes both purposes of tying them down and appearing reasonable to world if negotiations break on this point. In my opinion draft in Deptel 915 accomplishes former purpose but not latter.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–755. Secret; Priority. Repeated to Geneva for Phleger and Forman as telegram 14.↩