836. Letter 60 from Johnson to Clough1
As stated in my summary telegram, there was nothing new at this morning’s meeting. He obviously had no new instructions, his performance was almost listless, and his replies entirely perfunctory. As you will also note he cut the meeting off short. I feel that given the situation I made out very well today and that his position on the correspondents was very weak. I think that they full well realized this and that they do not have much of a public issue unless and until Chinese correspondents apply for visas and are refused. I am surprised that this has not been done up until now but perhaps they did not have their “ducks lined up” and think that it is very likely that they will do so before the next meeting. It of course depends on what their principal objective is. They can hardly expect to be successful in making us formally and publicly retract the “reciprocity” issue. They have not been successful in rousing our own press to the fray. The press elsewhere seems to have a marked lack of interest in the whole subject now. However, if we were to turn down an application from one of their correspondents they would probably be successful in again arousing interest in the subject both in our own press and abroad. One can only speculate as to whether they really desire to have any American correspondents enter their country. If they do not, the present impasse may not be unwelcome to them and they might let it continue rather than take the risk of it being broken by our issuing visas to one or more of their correspondents.
Nevertheless, in connection with the possibility of some Chinese correspondents entering the United States I think that we should be prepared for the possibility [Facsimile Page 2] of their attempting to contact some of the Chinese students, particularly those for whom they have names and addresses, and for the difficulties that may well ensue. Given past attitudes of the students I think that we can depend on most of them being unwilling to see correspondents, particularly one from Communist China, and of their attempting to use this as proof that we are “terrorizing” the students. If they do see any, I think that we can depend on the students taking at the best an ambivalent attitude on their reasons for not returning. I do not have any suggestions at the moment for meeting this problem but merely mention it as something we should think about.
[Typeset Page 1437]I was, of course, disappointed that the Department did not accept my suggestion from Prague for taking a little initiative in this field at today’s meeting. Although the meeting went off well without it, I do not think it safe to assume that this will always be the case or that they will not take another initiative in this field. Frankly, as you know, I am not happy with consistently being in the position of responding to his initiatives and never having an initiative of my own to which he is required to respond. I have felt that this correspondents issue gave an opportunity for somewhat turning the tables on him.
As far as the next meeting is concerned I think we simply have to wait and see what they do or do not do between now and that time. I fully expected him to turn down the suggestion for November 7 for the next meeting as that is the 40th Soviet anniversary and will be given a big play throughout the bloc. However, I wanted to leave it to him to suggest a later date. I should mention a point Ed Martin called to my attention with regard to the memo enclosed with your letter to me at Prague. Neither of us have a copy here as we do not like to carry classified communications but it is the recollection of both of us that in the last paragraph there was a phrase which in effect credited Chinese Communists with forcing us to change our policy on the travel of newsmen. While it is true that Peking’s issuance of invitations to American correspondents started the whole issue, it was not pressure from Peking that brought about a change in our policy but rather the pressure from our own press.
[Facsimile Page 3]Incidentally, the amendment of Ekvall’s travel authorization mentioned in the last paragraph of my letter of September 12 has not yet been made and his new orders came out in the same form so he has not yet been able to collect for his previous travel.
Kindest regards to all.
Sincerely yours,
P.S. For your information there has been a change in the courier arrival here so that your letters arrive here Wednesday afternoons. Thus, if there is anything of special importance in your letter it would be good to make some mention of it in our guidance so that if the courier is late for any reason we can ask you to telegraph the substance.
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal. Drafted by Johnson who signed the original “Alex.”↩