602. Telegram 1871 from Geneva1
1871. From Johnson.
Comments on todays meeting.
“Mutual respect” clause in first para their draft is adroit counter to self-defense clause. He expects I will counter with reinsertion self-defense clause upon which he may propose both clauses be included or both be omitted. In this connection he may argue droppping self-defense clause does not prejudice our position any more than does dropping “mutual respect” clause prejudice their position.
With respect second para believe they probably open to an addition of “or elsewhere”, but of course entire para must be read in relation last para.
Third para is, apart from substance, very loosely drafted. On one hand appears attempt pick up my previous remarks on not excluding FMC as a “practical and feasible means” and on other hand to be commitment to FMC. PRC would, of course, insist on latter interpretation. (They hope we will bargain on “two months” period.) Thus in essence draft is simple reiteration their position on FMC concerning Taiwan area and is further removed from our position than their Dec 1 draft. Incidentally best English translation of Chinese term rendered as “ascertain” in third para is “determine upon” or “decide upon”. (Matthews 1181–6393)
[Facsimile Page 2]Believe that at next meeting I should attack draft from this standpoint, also pointing out weaknesses suggested by my questions this morning. Would particularly appreciate Depts suggestions on best tactic and arguments on “mutual respect” clause.
Note: Mr. Waddel (FE) notified 5:40 p.m., 5/11/56 FMH
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–1156. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.↩