621. Letter from Osborn to Clough1
[text not declassified]
Some more random thoughts that have been batting around here, but which have not taken a firm enough shape to put any kind of imprimatur on:
[Typeset Page 1003]Turning the Tables on “Mutual Respect”: We all realize “mutual respect’’ is a hard one to handle, but some of Wang’s statements have indicated possible flexibility on his part. Presumably he would like to work towards a “compromise” in which both ICSD and “mutual respect” were left in the first paragraph. This would, of course, be no compromise at all from our standpoint, and I don’t see how we could ever accept it.
If we are going to proceed on the basis of the May 11 draft, accordingly, one problem is how to make Wang agree to dropping “mutual respect” in exchange for some briefed-down, innocuous clause like “without prejudice to inherent rights of either side”, or etc. A frontal attack on “mutual respect” would probably not do the trick, as the Chicoms could make us appear to be opposing virtue (see Para 3 our 1930). I have been toying with a somewhat devious, anything, but frontal, attack designed to alarm Wang about the implications of his own clause. It rests on a syllogism something like this:
- (a)
- If the “mutual respect” clause is really mutual and reciprocal, as Wang asserts, then the implication is there that the Chicoms are acknowledging a legitimate US concern in matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity related to the Taiwan area. They are also apparently acknowledging that the US has some “internal affairs” in that area.
- (b)
- If Wang denies this implication, then he is either denying the applicability of the first paragraph to Taiwan, or he is denying its mutuality.
Although this might be the rationale of our line on this point, we should not present the line from this angle. Too sophistic. It would be more alarming (not to say infuriating) to Peiping if we introduced it something like this:
“Mr Ambassador, one of the unfortunate aspects of your first para is that, intentionally or not, it gives the impression that matters of sovereignty and territory in the Taiwan area are entirely and exclusively mutual between us. It gives the impression that only the two of us are concerned with internal matters in that area.
“It is true that my country, which had a major part in defeating Japan and thus liberating Taiwan, has a legitimate concern in questions of sovereignty in that area. It is possible also to speak of such matters as the control and disposition of American forces in the MAAG on Taiwan as an internal matter of my country. However, in the first place, my country is not willing to give the appearance of disregarding the role of the other great powers allied with the United States in the war against Japan—among them the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union.
“In the second place, as I have repeatedly emphasized here, I do not think we should render our present task, of agreeing on a renunciation of force, even more complex and difficult than it already is by introducing matters of substance relating to the merits of our disputes. This, it seems to me, your first paragraph indisputably does.”
It seems to me, if this line could be presented with a straight enough face, it might give Peiping some food for thought. I don’t necessarily urge this approach, which is devious; but I can’t at the moment think of a better way of alarming Wang about “mutual respect.”
I am also toying with the possiblity of a new US draft, based on their December 1 draft, but approaching the amendments from a different angle. I’ll send it along in a later letter.
Best to all in CA—
Sincerely,
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Confidential; Official–Informal. Osborn signed the original “Dave.”↩