612. Letter 43 from McConaughy to Johnson1
As we stated in our telegram to you, we consider Wang’s new draft a retrogression from his December 1 draft and extremely dangerous. Judge Phleger is of the opinion that the Communists now realize that they came within an ace of agreeing to a formula that would have tied their hands. They are now taking care to protect themselves more fully.
It is noteworthy that the Communists worked into the first paragraph of their new draft two of their five “principles of peaceful coexistence” which have formed the basis of joint declarations with India, Burma and other states. Judging from Wang’s efforts at the last meeting to get you to comment on this paragraph, they are hoping to demonstrate that we reject these principles and thus harbor the intention of interfering in their internal affairs and encroaching on their territorial integrity. This would strengthen their position vis-a-vis the neutralist states. Of course, we cannot accept paragraph one without, in effect, recognizing the PRC. It was for this reason that we asked you to try to get back to our April 19 draft as a basis for discussion, rather than comment in detail on the Communist draft.
It may be significant that the Communists selected two months as the period during which arrangements for a foreign ministers’ conference should be completed. Allowing a few weeks to reach agreement [Typeset Page 983] on their draft, the two months would carry the meetings through the completion of a full year and beyond the time of Nehru’s visit here. It is possible that they are looking toward a break-off around that time if no progress is made.
We have been debating whether to ask O’Neill to make new representations in Peiping. We had a copy of a despatch from him last Friday in which he discusses the advisability of such a move. The principal reason we have hesitated to go ahead is that we believe Clifford and Phillips both have three-year sentences which will be up about mid-June if the Communists follow their usual procedure of making them retroactive to the date of arrest. If we should present a strong note to the Communists via O’Neill just at this time it might cause them to delay the release of these two so that it wouldn’t appear that the release [Facsimile Page 2] came about as a result of “pressure”. We would appreciate having your views on this.
We have still been unable to reach complete agreement with the representatives of the sixteen regarding action to be taken on the NNSC. Some progress has been made. All agree that the conference on Korea should be rejected, in the absence of any evidence that the Communists have changed their attitude. All have now accepted, in principle, the necessity of unilateral action to remove the NNSC to the demilitarized zone. Difference of opinion now revolves around the timing and form of this action. The Commonwealth countries and France are holding out for an interval between announcing our proposed action in the MAC and carrying it out. The interval proposed ranges from six or seven days to five weeks. We have been trying to get agreement on reducing the interval or, better still, eliminating it, as we fear that we will just be providing the Communists with an opportunity to make propaganda and work on the neutralists during the interval. Also, there is the constant danger of incidents in Korea during such a period. There will probably be another meeting of the sixteen this week to reach final agreement.
We have now received the second section of the W. L. White report on Communist treatment of POW’s. There is more to come. If we can get more copies we will send you one—so far Defense has furnished only one copy for all interested offices in the Department. Mr. Hoover asked for an evaluation of the project to date and there is enclosed a memorandum from Bill Sebald to him giving our views.
We have sent you a copy of a memorandum prepared for Mr. Robertson reporting on the latest developments in Congress relating to imprisoned Americans. Interest in this subject appears to be mounting and it may not be possible much longer to discourage the interested committees from holding public hearings.
[Typeset Page 984]I have just returned from a weeks’ leave, which I took to spend with my Father in Alabama on the occasion of his birthday. I have not yet had a chance to bring myself fully abreast of developments since I left Washington on May 10. The foregoing was drafted entirely by Ralph Clough, who was in charge of CA while I was away. He kept in close touch with Robertson, Phleger and Sebald, and participated in a meeting with the Secretary on May 15. What he has written above has my full concurrence. The Secretary personally approved the instructions for the meeting of May 17.
[Facsimile Page 3]I suppose Helenka Osborn will be in Geneva before this letter arrives. I trust her arrival will improve matters for you as well as for Dave.
Regards and good wishes,
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
- 1.
- Memo from Mr. Sebald to Mr. Hoover
- 2.
- Meetings of 16 (May 7 and 14)
- 3.
- Despatch from O’Neill
- 4.
- Copy of memo from WPM to Sebald 3/21/56 (Americans in C.C.)
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal. Drafted by Clough and McConaughy.↩